Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the achievements of Dr. Bill Madia, President and CEO of UT-Battelle, and Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Bill will be stepping down in August to take on the new position of Executive Vice President of Laboratory Operations at Battelle headquarters in Columbus, OH. Over the past three years Dr. Madia has contributed greatly to the Lab's many successes, and I would like to thank him for his leadership and commitment to our State. ORNL is the largest of the Department of Energy's, Office of Science multi-program laboratories and to run a facility of its size is no simple task. Bill joined ORNL with more than 25 years of international experience in research and research management, including 15 years leading public and private research labs. He became the director of ORNL on April 1, 2000 and since then has continued the tradition of excellence at Oak Ridge. Bill Madia is a visionary who delivers results. Under his leadership, construction of the Spallation Neutron Source was initiated. The SNS will produce the most intense pulsed neutron beams in the world and will be completed as expected in 2006. It is under Bill's direction that this project is progressing both on schedule and within budget. Dr. Madia is also responsible for a major renewal of the Laboratory through his modernization plan. He has enabled the private capitalization of several new buildings that will house the Laboratory's advanced computing assets. Bill also has been instrumental in building the Laboratory's nanotechnology initiative, and the first of the DOE's Nanoscience centers, the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, had its groundbreaking earlier this month. Oak Ridge has an extensive history of linking with universities and with Bill's guidance has expanded the use of these partnerships. Just recently, researchers of Oak Ridge, North Carolina State University, and University of Tennessee discovered how to tune the atomic-level zone of semi-conductor devices, the building blocks of computing chips. Additionally, he captured a leadership role in DOE's computational science initiative for Oak Ridge by building a partnership with industry to develop the next generation machine and attracting private sector financing to rapidly build a new facility necessary to operate world-class supercomputers. Bill understands the importance of science and the role that science development plays in our lives and in the future. He has continually taken the initiative to push forth all projects that Oak Ridge takes on. Our investments in science driven technology contribute greatly to the economic growth of this country, and during his tenure the UT- Battelle team has helped with the creation of 30 new companies through the ORNL technology transfer program. Outside of the laboratory in the Oak Ridge community, Bill Madia has done an outstanding job in promoting economic sustainability and has been a vigorous promoter of education. In fact, he has remained a strong supporter of funding for high school science laboratories and the University of Tennessee's Academy for Math and Science. The people of Oak Ridge Tennessee and this Nation have benefited from all his hard work and will continue to benefit from Bill Madia's dedication as he continues his excellence as a member of the UT- Battelle Board of Directors. Although, he will be missed dearly in Tennessee, I am confident that he will continue to make a difference in the community. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Tobacco Market Transition Act of 2003, which is a vital piece of legislation to farmers in Tennessee and other tobacco producing States. As our citizens and government respond to the dangers of cigarettes and tobacco, farmers and farm communities that have depended on this crop are contending with challenges greater than just the decrease in demand. Tobacco growing quotas, the leasing of those quotas, and the Federal price support system have combined with decreasing demand to form the ``perfect storm'' to afflict tobacco farmers. I grew up in east Tennessee, and small family tobacco farms were a part of the lifestyle and economic vitality in our region. Tobacco farmers are currently suffering because of government programs and declining demand for their crops. The number of tobacco farmers in Tennessee has decreased from more than 35,000 farms in 1980 to fewer than 15,000 today. Revenue from tobacco in Tennessee has declined by $25 million over the same period. This bill will provide a short term bridge to tobacco growers and quota holders, and the communities in which they live. Tennesseans who own quotas will receive a fair transition away from lease income they have received. Growers will receive transition payments as well. The buyout would last over six years and mean roughly $2 billion to the family farmers, quota lease owners, and communities in Tennessee. Tobacco farming will continue to be faced with challenges, but successful passage of this legislation will provide a safety net to farmers and their communities. I applaud the work of Senator McConnell on this important legislation and will work with him and our other cosponsors to provide the transition our tobacco farming communities desperately need.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Tobacco Market Transition Act of 2003, which is a vital piece of legislation to farmers in Tennessee and other tobacco producing States. As our citizens and government respond to the dangers of cigarettes and tobacco, farmers and farm communities that have depended on this crop are contending with challenges greater than just the decrease in demand. Tobacco growing quotas, the leasing of those quotas, and the Federal price support system have combined with decreasing demand to form the ``perfect storm'' to afflict tobacco farmers. I grew up in east Tennessee, and small family tobacco farms were a part of the lifestyle and economic vitality in our region. Tobacco farmers are currently suffering because of government programs and declining demand for their crops. The number of tobacco farmers in Tennessee has decreased from more than 35,000 farms in 1980 to fewer than 15,000 today. Revenue from tobacco in Tennessee has declined by $25 million over the same period. This bill will provide a short term bridge to tobacco growers and quota holders, and the communities in which they live. Tennesseans who own quotas will receive a fair transition away from lease income they have received. Growers will receive transition payments as well. The buyout would last over six years and mean roughly $2 billion to the family farmers, quota lease owners, and communities in Tennessee. Tobacco farming will continue to be faced with challenges, but successful passage of this legislation will provide a safety net to farmers and their communities. I applaud the work of Senator McConnell on this important legislation and will work with him and our other cosponsors to provide the transition our tobacco farming communities desperately need.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to be considered as part of the legislation reauthorizing Head Start. My bill would create a way for states to help strengthen and coordinate Head Start, but would continue to send federal funds directly to grantees for the 19,000 Head Start centers that serve one million disadvantaged children. My proposal authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a nationwide network of 200 Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood built around exemplary Head Start programs. These Centers of Excellence would be nominated by Governors. Each Center of Excellence would receive a Federal bonus grant of at least $100,000 in each of 5 years, in addition to its base funding. And each State would receive a grant to establish and fund a State Council in Early Childhood, which would work with the State Head Start collaboration office to showcase the work of exemplary Head Start centers within a state, capture and disseminate best practices, and identify barriers to and opportunities for coordinated service delivery. The bill would authorize $100 million for those grants for each of the 5 years. The Centers of Excellence bonus grants will be used for centers: (1) to work in their community to model the best of what Head Start can do for at-risk children and families, including getting those children ready for school and ready for academic success; (2) to coordinate all early childhood services in their community; (3) to offer training and support to all professionals working with at-risk children; (4) to track these families and ensure seamless continuity of services from prenatal to age 8; (5) to become models of excellence by all performance measures and be willing to be held accountable for good outcomes for our most disadvantaged children; and (6) to have the flexibility to serve additional Head Start or early Head Start children or provide more full-day services to better meet the needs of working parents. Head Start has been one of our country's most successful and popular social programs. That is because it is based upon the principle of equal opportunity, which is at the core of the American character. Americans uniquely believe that each of us has the right to begin at the same starting line and that, if we do, anything is possible for any one of us. We also understand that some of us need help getting to that starting line. Most Federal funding for social programs is based upon this understanding of equal opportunity. Head Start began in 1965 to make it more likely that disadvantaged children would successfully arrive at one of the most important of our starting lines, the beginning of school. Head Start over the years has served hundreds of thousands of our most at risk children. The program has grown and changed. It has been subjected to debates and studies touting its successes and decrying its deficiencies. But Head Start has stood the test of time because it is so very important. We have made great progress in what we know about the early growth and development of young children since Head Start began in 1965. At that time very few professionals had studied early childhood education. Even fewer had designed programs specifically for children in poverty. The origins of Head Start had its roots in an understanding that success for these children was not only about education. The program was designed to be certain these children were healthy, got their immunizations, were fed hot meals, and, of crucial importance that their parents were deeply involved in the program. From the beginning comprehensive services and parent and community involvement were essential parts of good Head Start programs. And that is still true today. In the early days, teacher training and curriculum were seen as less important. But we now know a great deal more about brain development and how children learn from birth. Today young children are expected to learn more and be able to do more in order to succeed in school. Public schools offer kindergarten and 40 states now offer early childhood programs. In addition to the $7 billion spent each year on federal Head Start programs, there are 69 other federal and state programs costing $18 billion a year. The greatest increases have come in private spending as parents seek early childhood development services for their own children. As Congress approached the 5-year reauthorization of Head Start, President Bush challenged Congress to make a ``good Head Start program excellent.'' The President suggested four objectives for strengthening Head Start: (1) Improve school readiness by focusing more attention on specific cognitive development; (2) Increase accountability; (3) Improve coordination with other programs that serve young children, including public and private schools. (4) Increase state involvement in strengthening Head Start by transferring federal funding for Head Start to states, with certain criteria and restrictions. The House of Representatives completed work last week on the reauthorization bill. It is called the School Readiness Act. It made significant progress toward the President's first three objectives: school readiness, accountability, and coordination. (1) On school readiness, the bill would ensure a greater number of Head Start teachers are adequately trained. (2) On accountability, the triennial reviews are strengthened by adding unscheduled visits, and chronic underachievers would be subject to a more aggressive review. (3) On coordination, the bill expands the requirements for the State Head Start Collaboration Offices to coordination. As for the idea of letting states administer Head Start, the House created a pilot program that would allow eight states to take over Head Start as long as they maintain or improve the level of services. As the Senate begins its consideration of Head Start, I believe there is consensus about the need to improve school readiness, accountability, and coordination of programs--but no consensus on how to involve the states more actively. I believe that states should be more involved with Head Start. States have primary responsibility for setting standards for and funding public education. A child who arrives at school too far behind the starting line may never catch up. In addition, the state is in the best position to help coordinate the variety of public and private programs that have grown up since Head Start began. But the need to involve states does not necessarily mean sending federal dollars first to states and then to Head Start centers. As important as the state is, education and caring for children is primarily local--a community and family responsibility. I believe that in education and in child care local solutions work best. While Head Start centers are uneven in performance, they have generally excelled in two areas critical to success in caring for and educating children--developing community support and encouraging parental involvement. I do not believe that it would be wise--at least at this stage of the Head Start program--to risk interrupting the strong community support and parental involvement in the 19,000 Head Start centers by transferring funding to the states. There are other and better ways to meet this objective. That is why I believe creating a nationwide network of 200 Head Start Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood is the right step for the next 5 years. Governors would nominate 149 of these centers. Governors would create or designate a State Council for Early Childhood. Governors could then use these Centers of Excellence and the State Council to encourage other centers to adopt best practices and to improve coordination of programs. At the federal level additional funds will be made available--$100 million is authorized--for research on the effectiveness of these Centers of Excellence as a strategy for coordination of all early childhood federal and state programs and ensure school success for at- risk children. In addition, I would hope the President would convene an annual conference of these Centers of Excellence and State Councils to highlight their successes. After four years, we would learn from these activities how state involvement in Head Start might be increased in the next 5-year authorization. Alex Haley, the author of Roots lived by these six words, ``Find the good and praise it.'' For me that was an invaluable lesson. My mother taught me another invaluable lesson--the importance of preschool education. When I was growing up, she ran a kindergarten in a converted garage in our backyard in Maryville, Tennessee. She helped our community appreciate the value of a good preschool program. I have remembered both lessons in trying to fashion this proposal to bring out the best in Head Start. The work that the House of Representatives has done on readiness, accountability and coordination--plus the adoption of this proposal for 200 Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood should provide a strong basis for our Head Start reauthorization bill. The president would have challenged the Congress to improve Head Start in four major respects--readiness accountability, coordination, and state involvement--and he will be able to sign legislation that will do just that. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page summary of my bill and a copy of the bill itself.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to be considered as part of the legislation reauthorizing Head Start. My bill would create a way for states to help strengthen and coordinate Head Start, but would continue to send federal funds directly to grantees for the 19,000 Head Start centers that serve one million disadvantaged children. My proposal authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a nationwide network of 200 Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood built around exemplary Head Start programs. These Centers of Excellence would be nominated by Governors. Each Center of Excellence would receive a Federal bonus grant of at least $100,000 in each of 5 years, in addition to its base funding. And each State would receive a grant to establish and fund a State Council in Early Childhood, which would work with the State Head Start collaboration office to showcase the work of exemplary Head Start centers within a state, capture and disseminate best practices, and identify barriers to and opportunities for coordinated service delivery. The bill would authorize $100 million for those grants for each of the 5 years. The Centers of Excellence bonus grants will be used for centers: (1) to work in their community to model the best of what Head Start can do for at-risk children and families, including getting those children ready for school and ready for academic success; (2) to coordinate all early childhood services in their community; (3) to offer training and support to all professionals working with at-risk children; (4) to track these families and ensure seamless continuity of services from prenatal to age 8; (5) to become models of excellence by all performance measures and be willing to be held accountable for good outcomes for our most disadvantaged children; and (6) to have the flexibility to serve additional Head Start or early Head Start children or provide more full-day services to better meet the needs of working parents. Head Start has been one of our country's most successful and popular social programs. That is because it is based upon the principle of equal opportunity, which is at the core of the American character. Americans uniquely believe that each of us has the right to begin at the same starting line and that, if we do, anything is possible for any one of us. We also understand that some of us need help getting to that starting line. Most Federal funding for social programs is based upon this understanding of equal opportunity. Head Start began in 1965 to make it more likely that disadvantaged children would successfully arrive at one of the most important of our starting lines, the beginning of school. Head Start over the years has served hundreds of thousands of our most at risk children. The program has grown and changed. It has been subjected to debates and studies touting its successes and decrying its deficiencies. But Head Start has stood the test of time because it is so very important. We have made great progress in what we know about the early growth and development of young children since Head Start began in 1965. At that time very few professionals had studied early childhood education. Even fewer had designed programs specifically for children in poverty. The origins of Head Start had its roots in an understanding that success for these children was not only about education. The program was designed to be certain these children were healthy, got their immunizations, were fed hot meals, and, of crucial importance that their parents were deeply involved in the program. From the beginning comprehensive services and parent and community involvement were essential parts of good Head Start programs. And that is still true today. In the early days, teacher training and curriculum were seen as less important. But we now know a great deal more about brain development and how children learn from birth. Today young children are expected to learn more and be able to do more in order to succeed in school. Public schools offer kindergarten and 40 states now offer early childhood programs. In addition to the $7 billion spent each year on federal Head Start programs, there are 69 other federal and state programs costing $18 billion a year. The greatest increases have come in private spending as parents seek early childhood development services for their own children. As Congress approached the 5-year reauthorization of Head Start, President Bush challenged Congress to make a ``good Head Start program excellent.'' The President suggested four objectives for strengthening Head Start: (1) Improve school readiness by focusing more attention on specific cognitive development; (2) Increase accountability; (3) Improve coordination with other programs that serve young children, including public and private schools. (4) Increase state involvement in strengthening Head Start by transferring federal funding for Head Start to states, with certain criteria and restrictions. The House of Representatives completed work last week on the reauthorization bill. It is called the School Readiness Act. It made significant progress toward the President's first three objectives: school readiness, accountability, and coordination. (1) On school readiness, the bill would ensure a greater number of Head Start teachers are adequately trained. (2) On accountability, the triennial reviews are strengthened by adding unscheduled visits, and chronic underachievers would be subject to a more aggressive review. (3) On coordination, the bill expands the requirements for the State Head Start Collaboration Offices to coordination. As for the idea of letting states administer Head Start, the House created a pilot program that would allow eight states to take over Head Start as long as they maintain or improve the level of services. As the Senate begins its consideration of Head Start, I believe there is consensus about the need to improve school readiness, accountability, and coordination of programs--but no consensus on how to involve the states more actively. I believe that states should be more involved with Head Start. States have primary responsibility for setting standards for and funding public education. A child who arrives at school too far behind the starting line may never catch up. In addition, the state is in the best position to help coordinate the variety of public and private programs that have grown up since Head Start began. But the need to involve states does not necessarily mean sending federal dollars first to states and then to Head Start centers. As important as the state is, education and caring for children is primarily local--a community and family responsibility. I believe that in education and in child care local solutions work best. While Head Start centers are uneven in performance, they have generally excelled in two areas critical to success in caring for and educating children--developing community support and encouraging parental involvement. I do not believe that it would be wise--at least at this stage of the Head Start program--to risk interrupting the strong community support and parental involvement in the 19,000 Head Start centers by transferring funding to the states. There are other and better ways to meet this objective. That is why I believe creating a nationwide network of 200 Head Start Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood is the right step for the next 5 years. Governors would nominate 149 of these centers. Governors would create or designate a State Council for Early Childhood. Governors could then use these Centers of Excellence and the State Council to encourage other centers to adopt best practices and to improve coordination of programs. At the federal level additional funds will be made available--$100 million is authorized--for research on the effectiveness of these Centers of Excellence as a strategy for coordination of all early childhood federal and state programs and ensure school success for at- risk children. In addition, I would hope the President would convene an annual conference of these Centers of Excellence and State Councils to highlight their successes. After four years, we would learn from these activities how state involvement in Head Start might be increased in the next 5-year authorization. Alex Haley, the author of Roots lived by these six words, ``Find the good and praise it.'' For me that was an invaluable lesson. My mother taught me another invaluable lesson--the importance of preschool education. When I was growing up, she ran a kindergarten in a converted garage in our backyard in Maryville, Tennessee. She helped our community appreciate the value of a good preschool program. I have remembered both lessons in trying to fashion this proposal to bring out the best in Head Start. The work that the House of Representatives has done on readiness, accountability and coordination--plus the adoption of this proposal for 200 Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood should provide a strong basis for our Head Start reauthorization bill. The president would have challenged the Congress to improve Head Start in four major respects--readiness accountability, coordination, and state involvement--and he will be able to sign legislation that will do just that. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page summary of my bill and a copy of the bill itself.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 29, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to highlight the unique role that the DOE's Office of Science plays in supporting basic research in the physical sciences. The programs supported by the Office of Science support many of the DOE's missions. The research of the Office lays the foundation for many of the current and future developments in the applied missions of the DOE in energy, defense, and environmental issues. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe Tony Blair taught us a lot about the world. I think he taught us more about ourselves. His speech was historic, but it will be remembered more because it reminded us of what it means to be an American. The assistant Democratic leader and I and other Senators have worked on legislation this year to put back into its rightful place in our schools the teaching of American history. I would suggest that in the first chapter of those textbooks we put Tony Blair's speech.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I would like to speak for about 1 minute.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee, be discharged from further consideration of S. 570 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements regarding the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 236, which is at the desk.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 197, which was submitted earlier today, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, the bill as amended be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 141, S. 555.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, President Bush is working very hard to get this economy moving again. I have strongly supported his jobs growth and tax cut plans. I believe his hard work and those plans are paying off. But in one case I want to respectfully suggest that the President consider making a midcourse correction. That case is the sad story of steel tariffs. It is a story of an honest effort by our President to save jobs that has backfired. The backfire could not be coming at a worse time. As our economy recovers--and I believe that it is--the last thing our country needs is a wave of plant closings in the auto and auto parts industry. But that is exactly what will happen if the steel tariffs continue. The tariffs have become a job killer in the United States and a jobs growth program for Korea, Japan, Germany, and other countries that produce quality auto parts. In March 2002, the Bush administration imposed tariffs of up to 30 percent on 10 different categories of steel imported from Europe, Asia, and South America. The tariffs may have saved a few steel-producing jobs for the time being. But since their institution in March 2002, the steel tariffs have already destroyed nearly as many jobs in the steel- consuming companies of America as exist in the entire domestic steel- producing industry. Some auto parts plants in my State of Tennessee are already closing because of the higher cost of steel imposed by the tariffs. On top of that, last Friday the World Trade Organization ruled that these U.S. Steel tariffs are illegal and in violation of global trade rules. The European Union has already announced that it intends, therefore, to impose $2.2 billion in retaliatory sanctions on American imports sold in Europe, ranging from footwear to fruits and vegetables. And that would destroy still another batch of American jobs. If these steel tariffs continue through the years 2004 and 2005, as scheduled, there will be a wave of plant closings across Tennessee and other steel-consuming States, especially among auto parts suppliers. Ironically, many of the steel-producing jobs themselves will also disappear for two reasons: One, when the tariffs eventually end, the protected and inefficient steel mills will find they are unable to compete in the world marketplace. And second, the demand in this country for this kind of steel will have dropped because automakers and auto parts suppliers will be buying parts overseas instead of buying U.S. steel to make parts in the U.S.A. Fortunately, the President has an opportunity in September to review the decision that he made in March 2002 to impose steel tariffs. I respectfully urge him to chalk this one up to experience, to acknowledge that this exercise proves once again that protective tariffs are self-defeating and usually boomerang and to finally end the tariffs. Ending the tariffs would allow America's steel-consuming auto parts manufacturers and other American manufacturers a fair chance to make their products in the U.S.A. instead of overseas. I began to first notice the effects of the new tariffs during my campaign for the Senate during 2002. Tennessee is home to at least 900 auto parts suppliers employing almost 100,000 people. Let me describe just how important these jobs are to us Tennesseans. Before the auto industry came to Tennessee in 1980, we were the third poorest State. Only Mississippi and Arkansas were below us in family incomes. Our average family incomes were 80 percent of the national average family income. Then Nissan came to Tennessee. Then Saturn came to Tennessee. Then BMW and Toyota and other automobile plants put their assembly plants in other parts of the South and the Southeast. These automakers wanted just-in-time quality auto parts suppliers close by. So to attract them, Tennessee built the best four-lane highway system in the United States. As a result, and as a result of our central location, over the last 20 years, the number of auto parts suppliers in our State has grown phenomenally, from a couple dozen to at least 900. These auto parts suppliers became the greatest contributors to a new prosperity in our State. During the 1980s, Tennessee became the fastest growing State in family incomes. Our incomes by 1990 became 100 percent of the national average family income--from 80 percent in 1980 to 100 percent by 1990. During this time, of course, we were losing many other jobs, especially in the textile industry, but the textile jobs were being replaced by new higher paying jobs in the auto industry, and these auto parts plants usually came to smaller communities, to Shelby, to Rogersville, to Lexington, and to dozens and dozens of smaller Tennessee communities, usually adding 100, 200, 300 $30,000- to $50,000-a-year jobs with good benefits. And because labor costs of these auto suppliers are low--typically 15 to 25 percent of the cost in an auto supplier's budget is labor cost these higher wages are not enough of the whole total to justify having to move the plant overseas. At a time when our greatest challenge seemed to be how do we keep our manufacturing jobs from moving to China or to Mexico or to Southeast Asia, the auto parts suppliers in Tennessee seemed like a godsend. They were good jobs that seemed likely to stay--stay, that is, unless some unexpected new costs forced the auto plants and suppliers to look outside the United States for a more competitive environment. Enter the steel tariff. The President's decision in March 2002 boils down to this: It slapped a tariff of up to 30 percent on 10 different categories of imported steel. For Tennessee, most of it affected hot and cold rolled steel, the kind that is used to make cars and trucks in our country. Here is the irony. At the time of the tariff in March 2002, many auto parts suppliers in America were buying only about 5 percent of their steel overseas. In other words, of about $5.4 billion the U.S. auto industry purchased in 2002 of steel, only about $270 million came from overseas. But as soon as this tariff was placed on the 5 percent that came from overseas, domestic steel producers in this country raised their prices on the 95 percent of steel that was being produced in the United States, and suddenly auto parts suppliers and other steel-consuming businesses were paying up to 30 percent more for all their steel. In some cases, even more than that because of shortages. In addition, steel companies broke their contracts in order to charge higher prices to auto parts suppliers. The auto parts suppliers then turned to their customers, the big automobile companies, and tried to pass along these price increases. The answer from the auto companies was: Sorry, we are cutting costs; we are not increasing them. So because the auto suppliers could not raise prices to cover increased costs, they suffered losses, and they began to lay off employees. In a few instances, entire plants closed. Both the automakers and the auto parts suppliers began to consider the next logical step: looking offshore in another country for a place to build parts where steel is cheaper and is pegged at the global market price, not an artificial price as it is here. Most small American manufacturers live on the edge. They are constantly under pressure to cut costs, and if costs cannot be cut, they cut a job or two. And if cutting a job or two does not do it, the only option is to move all the jobs overseas where costs are lower. It is that or go out of business. Let us think what will happen during 2004 if the tariffs continue. It is very predictable, and it is this: Auto parts suppliers will move from Tennessee, from Wisconsin, from West Virginia, from Minnesota, from steel-consuming States, particularly auto parts suppliers. They will move to Mexico, to Korea, to Japan, and to Germany. There are many such countries capable of making quality auto parts where steel is at global market prices. Since the United States tariffs do not apply to auto parts, only to the steel material, the auto parts suppliers will do only what they can do: Make the parts in Japan and ship them to the Nissan plant in Tennessee at a much lower cost than what they can make in Tennessee using United States steel. This means small manufacturing plant after small manufacturing plant in small American town after small American town in State after State in 2004 will be closing their doors and shipping those good paying jobs with benefits to Korea, to Germany, to China, and to Japan. These same jobs that more than any other factor helped my State of Tennessee become prosperous will be gone, and I am afraid it will be hard to get them back. Let me say just a word about steel-consuming jobs, like auto suppliers, versus steel-producing jobs, like steel plants. This tariff is a good-faith effort by the administration to save jobs in U.S. steel mills. There are more than 200,000 of these steel-producing jobs nationwide. Here is the backfire. According to a study by Dr. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman, almost 200,000 Americans in steel-consuming industries have lost their jobs in the last year since the imposition of the steel tariffs. So when one considers the huge number of jobs in the steel-consuming sectors of American business, especially the auto industry, compared with a relatively small number of steel-producing jobs, I am afraid what happened last year is only a fraction of the job losses that will occur during 2004 and 2005. Tennessee, for example, has only 3,396 steel-producing jobs, but Tennessee has 100 times that many steel-consuming jobs, 328,000, and 95,000 of those jobs are those auto-related jobs, those $30,000 to $50,000 jobs with good benefits that are in the small towns of Tennessee. This is not just a Tennessee story, Mr. President. The United States has 12.8 million steel-consuming jobs, 2.1 million of which are auto related. The United States has only 226,000 steel-producing jobs. I have selected at random a dozen other States and compared the number of steel-consuming jobs versus the number of steel-producing jobs. I will run through just a few of them. Ohio has 770,000 steel-consuming jobs. Those are the auto parts suppliers. Ohio has over 38,000 steel-producing jobs; Florida, over 470,000 steel-consuming jobs. Florida has only a little over 1,500 steel-producing jobs. Even Pennsylvania, 72,300 jobs are auto related; 553,315 jobs are steel consuming like the autoparts suppliers. Only 35,730 are steel-producing jobs. Michigan, nearly 800,000 are steel consuming, 11,744 steel producing. West Virginia, 8,800 are auto related, 57,932 steel consuming, only 6,718 steel producing. Same in New Mexico. Same in Iowa. Here is an interesting one. Minnesota has 248,047 steel-consuming jobs; 36,550 of those are autoparts suppliers. Minnesota has only 1,087 steel-producing jobs. The same in Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, and in many other States. In conclusion, let me say a word and give two or three specific examples of how the steel tariff has affected my State, Tennessee, during the last year. Tennessee ranks fourth in production of cars and trucks in the United States. It has nearly 100,000 employees in the automobile industry. It is the seventh largest State employed by the auto industry and a growing number of indirect and direct jobs in this sector. According to the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association, more than 70 percent of the employment of the auto industry comes from auto-parts suppliers. One example of how a steel-consuming company has been affected by the tariffs is Arvin Meritor. Arvin Meritor is a leading automotive supplier. It sells to the passenger car and commercial truck and trailer markets, as well as their related aftermarkets. Arvin Meritor currently has six facilities in Tennessee in Loudon, Morristown, two in Pulaski, one in Brentwood, and one in Columbia. It employs 1,500 people. In 2002, Arvin Meritor purchased more than 1 million tons of steel globally. More than 95 percent of that steel consumed by Arvin Meritor in the United States during 2002 came from North American steel mills. Now, Arvin Meritor has faced a number of critical challenges since the inception of the tariffs. In terms of pricing, Administration officials advised the company only to expect a 4 to 6 percent increase in the cost of steel in the United States after the tariffs, but their experience was far worse. They found that cold-rolled steel prices from one of the company's U.S. steel suppliers rose by as much as 25 percent after April 1, 2002, just a few weeks after the steel tariffs were imposed, as compared to before the imposition of the tariffs. The current price is 13 percent higher. Galvanized steel prices from one of Arvin Meritor's U.S. steel sources increased as much as 40 percent after April 1 of last year as compared to before the imposition of the tariffs, and the current price is 28 percent higher. Once, Arvin Meritor had seven facilities in my State, but earlier this year, Arvin Meritor announced the closing of its 317-employee Gordonsville, TN, facility which produces doors, seats, and sunroofs. These are the $30,000, $40,000, and $50,000-a-year good jobs with benefits gone from Gordonsville, TN. This closure and the related reduction of Arvin Meritor's employment levels at its Pulaski, TN, facility, which produces aftermarket parts, they have cut down by 100 jobs. Both those incidents were due to the increased cost of the company's business units attributed in large part to steel tariffs. A second example, the Dana Corporation, is one of the world's largest suppliers of axles, driveshafts, frames, brakes, chassis, et cetera. The company employs approximately 60,000 people worldwide. On April 1, 2002, Dana employed 3,000 people in facilities in Tennessee. Dana is one of the largest single purchasers of domestic steel in the U.S. with more than 95 percent of its total steel requirements purchased from U.S. steel producers. Due to its product line, steel is Dana's largest single cost. As in the case of many auto suppliers in Tennessee and across this country, steel represents a large part of the overall production costs of automotive components. So after March 2002, Dana experienced steep price increases on domestic steel ranging from 20 to 50 percent. Coupled with delivery delays and supply restriction, in other words, shortages, the tariffs have forced Dana to begin seriously evaluating a number of steps to limit its exposure to problems arising from steel tariffs. Among these steps is the use of offshore facilities to produce intermediate and finished products, as well as the active procurement of steel from exempt countries such as Mexico and Canada. Now, if the goal is to save American jobs, how does it help to cause Dana, a large auto supplier, to move its facilities offshore--those are not Tennessee jobs--and to buy steel overseas? Those are not Tennessee steel producers. A last example, Dura Automotive Systems, has five facilities in Tennessee, Gordonsville, Greenbrier, Lawrenceburg, Milan, and Pikeville. Dura employs 1,765 individuals in my State. It is the world's largest independent designer and manufacturer of driver control systems and a leading supplier of seating control systems, engineered assemblies, and structural door modules. Dura is a leading supplier of door and window systems. Dura is an American company that used to purchase 100 percent of its steel from U.S. steel sources, once again, a prominent supporter of this Nation's domestic steel industry. Dura experienced a loss of $10 million in 2002 due to the higher steel prices, mainly for hot- and cold-rolled stripped steel, and was forced to increase its steel purchases from the spot market which is even more costly. In addition, Dura's lead time for deliveries of steel from domestic sources, sources in this country, increased from 10 or 12 weeks to 18 or 20 weeks, adversely affecting just in time the manufacturing process and imposing significant additional costs on Dura. American automobile companies and companies from all over the world that make automobiles in this country do not want delays in their autoparts. They want them the same day they order them, and if the tariff produces delays, that is just as costly as tariff price increases. Overall, the prices for Dura's required steel have increased by an average of 30 percent since March of last year. The result, Dura is currently considering a number of strategic alternatives such as moving production overseas and sourcing its steel from offshore sources. That is very bad news to Tennesseans in Gordonsville, Greenbrier, Lawrenceburg, Milan, and Pikeville; 1,765 families who have these good jobs. Our President, George Bush, is working hard to improve this economy. I am his strong supporter. I believe he is on the right track. I believe his jobs growth plan is working. I want him to succeed. I believe the economy is beginning to recover, and the last thing we need is any new cost on a major segment of American manufacturers that slows this economy's growth down. I fear if the steel tariffs stay on as scheduled that we will see wave after wave of plant closings in the automobile industry across this State, in Tennessee, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, and we do not want to see that. So I respectfully hope as the President comes to September and sees this opportunity, he will say: I did my best. I made a good-faith effort to help save those steel-producing jobs. It has not worked. It has backfired. It is the wrong policy, and the best thing I can do for the American worker is to end the steel tariffs. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the whip for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. I am new to the Senate. This situation is very disappointing to me as a Senator from the Sixth Circuit. I will give one example of how this affects people in real time and real lives in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan. Thirty-one assistant U.S. attorneys in the Eastern District of Michigan have written a letter to Senator Levin to complain that the vacancies have slowed justice, have complicated prosecutions, have enabled criminals to commit more crimes while awaiting trial, have led to less consistency in decisions, and have deprived the United States of en banc review in some cases. A group of law professors, in a letter to the majority leader, stated that because of the unfilled judicial vacancies, the Sixth Circuit takes as long as 15 months to reach a final disposition, 5 months more than the national average. This is unfair to the people in our State. I hope the Judiciary Committee will move swiftly to hearings and the Senate will move swiftly to consider, vote on, and hopefully confirm the Michigan four. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 144, S. 558.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the Right Honorable Tony Blair, Member of Parliament, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, into the House Chamber for the joint meeting tomorrow.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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