Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. For the information of all Senators, the leader has asked me to say that tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Under the previous order, when the Senate resumes debate on the bill, Senator Harkin will be recognized to speak for up to 25 minutes. Following Senator Harkin's statement, the Senate will continue the amendment process. We have an order of Democratic amendments locked in, and it is the chairman's intention to begin working through those amendments tomorrow morning. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes to begin in the morning and Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled. It is the hope of the majority leader to complete action on the Department of Defense appropriations bill tomorrow. In order to complete work on this bill tomorrow, Senators should prepare for votes throughout the day and into the evening. As a reminder, Prime Minister Tony Blair will give an address to both Houses of Congress at 4 p.m. tomorrow. Members should gather in the Senate Chamber in order to proceed to the Hall of the House of Representatives at 3:40 on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m., Thursday, July 17. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, as provided in the previous order.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 287, 288, 289, and 290. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want my Senate colleagues to know I have decided to join Senators Carper, Chafee, and Gregg as cosponsors of the Clean Air Planning Act. I have studied major clean air proposals before the Senate and have concluded that this legislation is the best balanced proposal because it would reduce pollution emitted by powerplants while permitting the maximum possible economic growth and energy efficiency. I hope other colleagues will come to the same conclusion as the debate about how to clean America's air becomes front and center. Cleaner air should be the urgent business before the Senate. The condition of the air in my State of Tennessee is completely unacceptable to me and ought to be completely unacceptable to every Tennessee citizen. My home is 2 miles from the boundary of the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, which has also become the Nation's most polluted national park. Only Los Angeles and Houston have higher ozone levels than the Great Smokies. Only a few miles away from the Great Smokies is Knoxville, which is on the American Lung Association's list of top 10 cities with the dirtiest air. Memphis and Nashville--our two largest cities--are on the top 20 list. Chattanooga barely escapes the top 25 list. This polluted air is damaging to health, especially that of the elderly, small children, and the disabled. It ruins the scenic beauty of our State, which is what most of us who grew up in Tennessee are proudest of. And it is damaging to our economic growth. Clean air is the No. 1 priority of the Pigeon Forge Chamber of Commerce. Business leaders there at the foot of the Smokies know that visitors are not going to drive 300 miles and spend their tourism dollars to see smoggy mountains. The mayors of our major cities in Tennessee also understand that cleaner air means better jobs. They know that if our metropolitan areas are not able to meet Federal standards for clean air, new restrictions will make it harder for auto parts suppliers and other industries to expand and bring good new jobs into our State. The mayors also know our cities cannot comply with the Federal standards without some help. Tennessee's clean air problem requires a national solution. Much of our air pollution is our State's own doing--specifically, that which comes from emissions from cars and trucks and from the coal powerplants of the Tennessee Valley Authority. But as much as a third of our air pollution comes from outside Tennessee. Winds blow pollution south from the industrial Midwest and north from the South toward the highest mountain range in the eastern United States, the Great Smokies. And when the wind gets to the mountains, the pollution just hangs there, which is an additional reason the Great Smokies and the Knoxville metropolitan area have such a problem. There are three major clean air proposals before the Senate. I have studied each to determine which would be the best for Tennessee and for our Nation. The most important of these is President Bush's Clear Skies legislation. The President deserves great credit for putting clean air at the top of the agenda, as only a President can do, because his proposal relies upon market forces instead of excessive regulation. It limits costly litigation and creates certainty. In addition, the President's proposal would take significant steps forward in reducing sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants. Last year, during my campaign for the Senate, I made clean air a priority and often said the President's proposal is an excellent framework upon which to build meaningful clean air legislation but that it does not go far enough, fast enough to solve Tennessee's problems. The Clear Skies legislation is a good start, but it does not go far enough, fast enough in my back yard. I believe the Clean Air Planning Act, which I am cosponsoring, is the best proposal for Tennessee and for our Nation. Here are the reasons: First, the Clean Air Planning Act adopts the market-based framework of the President's proposal so that it also reduces regulation, litigation, and creates certainty. Second, it would take our country farther faster in reducing three major pollutants: sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury. Third, it extends its market-based framework of regulation to carbon dioxide with a modest requirement that by 2013 the carbon emitted by powerplants would be at 2001 levels, causing a 3- to 5-percent reduction in the overall United States projected level in 2013. Fourth, the Clean Air Planning Act, of which I am a cosponsor, does not weaken existing laws in important ways that the Clear Skies proposal would. Here are the two ways the Clear Skies proposal does that: First, Clear Skies would prevent Tennessee, for 10 years, from going in to court to force another State to meet the Federal clean air standards. Since pollutants blowing in from other States is one of our greatest problems, this is a legal right we do not want to give up. Second, the Clear Skies proposals would remove the right of the National Park Service to comment on the effect of powerplant emissions more than 30 miles away from a national park. Again, since much of the pollution in the Smokies is blown in from more than 30 miles away, this is a review that ought to be considered. While the President's proposal, in my judgment, does not go far enough, the other major proposal before this Senate goes too far too fast. It is a proposal by Senator Jeffords, the Clean Power Act, which requires carbon emissions of the utilities sector to be at 1990 levels by the time we reach the year 2009. I believe this proposal would cost so much to implement that it would drive up the cost of electricity and drive offshore thousands of good jobs. It would significantly damage our economy and our future. There is also the Climate Stewardship Act sponsored by Senators McCain and Lieberman which would regulate carbon emissions produced by the entire economy and does so on a very rapid timetable. I would not support these two proposals because I am not convinced they are based upon good science. It would be foolish to take huge, expensive steps to solve problems which we do not know exist. But it is also unwise to completely ignore what we do know. My reading of the Report of the National Academy of Sciences on Global Warming and my discussion with scientists, especially those at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have persuaded me that some additional steps must be taken to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The Senate is working on clean air legislation that will likely govern our production of energy and the accompanying pollution for the next 10 to 15 years. It would be unwise to do nothing, just as it would be unwise to do too much. The President himself has recognized the seriousness of problems with carbon emissions and has initiated a voluntary program of emission reduction which is having some success. But for the next 10 to 15 years, I believe we should take the next step and institute modest, market-based caps. It is important to recognize that our Clean Air Planning Act applies only to carbon produced by powerplants, not that produced by the entire economy. In fact, it would permit powerplants to purchase credits from other sectors of the economy which can prove to be a substantial benefit and income for agriculture. There is still much to learn about the effect of human activity on global warming, specifically that caused by the production of carbon dioxide. I will continue to monitor the science as it is presented and make my judgment at the time based upon what I believe to be good science. Senator Carper has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to review our proposed legislation to determine its effect on the health of Americans, and its cost. According to the EPA analysis prepared in November of 2002--last year--the Clear Skies Act would prevent 11,900 premature deaths, 7,400 chronic bronchitis cases, and 10,400 hospital visits. Our Clean Air Planning Act would prevent 17,800 premature deaths from air pollution, 5,900 more people annually than under Clear Skies, and save $140 billion in health care costs, $50 billion more than Clear Skies. The EPA internal analysis from November of 2002 also estimates that Clear Skies would cost electric utilities $84.1 billion in the year 2010, while our legislation would cost $86.2 billion in the year 2010. In 2020, Clear Skies would cost $100.9 billion. Our legislation would cost $103.4 billion. In short, according to that EPA internal analysis, our legislation does a better job of improving health and reducing health care costs and would cost only slightly more. Last week, before the Senate Energy Committee, we discussed again the emergency that is being caused by a shortage of natural gas and the consequence of higher prices. Chemical companies in America are reducing salaries and pushing jobs overseas. Americans living in homes heated by natural gas should expect a 30-percent increase in their bills this winter in our State. During the last week in July, the Senate will have the opportunity to consider both the natural gas crisis and the urgent need for cleaner air. We will be debating the Energy bill which has been reported by our committee. The bill's purpose is to encourage a diversity of cleaner, newer technologies for producing energy so that we may have a steady supply of low-cost energy and, at the same time, a cleaner environment. Mr. President, as I said, during the last week in July the Senate will have an opportunity to consider both the natural gas crisis and the need for cleaner air. We will be debating the Energy bill which has been reported by our committee. We have worked hard on that bill, both parties. We believe we have a good bill. The bill's purpose is to encourage a diversity of cleaner, newer technologies for producing energy so that we may have a steady supply of low cost energy and at the same time a cleaner environment. But for us to avoid facing repeated winters with higher gas prices, to avoid keeping jobs from moving overseas, and to keep our air clean and healthy, we are going to have to face some tough decisions and make different choices than we have so far been willing to make. We need to explore for natural gas in Alaska and other offshore areas in the United States and build a new pipeline to bring it south. We need to shed our reluctance to use nuclear powerplants that we invented and join France and Japan and the rest of the world in expanding our use of this clean form of energy. We need to advance our understanding and use of clean coal technologies, especially coal gasification. Coal produces one-half of our electricity and will continue to produce much of it for the foreseeable future. We should increase the use of other renewable forms of energy, including solar, ethanol, and wind power. We need to get serious about sensible conservation practices, such as using alternatives to idling truck engines when truckers are stopped for a break. I am proud to be the principal sponsor of President Bush's hydrogen car proposal which offers great promise in the long term to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to clean our air because its fuel uses no oil or gasoline and its only emission is water. In summary, President Bush has made a good beginning by placing clean air on the agenda as only a President can and by offering a framework to build a strong proposal. But with respect, he hasn't gone far enough, fast enough. On the other hand, my colleagues, Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Jeffords, go too far, too fast, relying on unsettled science to put controls on our economy that are unjustified and that would cost so much that thousands of jobs would go overseas. The Clean Air Planning Act, which I cosponsor, is, in my judgment, the best balanced solution. It has the advantages of the market-based approach suggested by the President. It goes further faster than the President's proposal in reducing pollutants from sulfur, from nitrogen, and from mercury. It places modest controls on carbon, and it does not weaken the existing clean air law. Devising a plan for maintaining the proper balance of clean air, efficient energy, and good jobs for the next 10 to 15 years deserves the urgent attention of the Senate. I look forward to being an active participant in the debate.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I rise to speak in support of the managers' amendment and its inclusion of the President's proposal for Millennium Challenge Accounts, or MCA. MCA is a new approach for foreign aid. Instead of providing aid based solely on need, as is largely the approach under our current system, Millennium Challenge Account assistance will go only to those countries which meet certain criteria for good governance, free markets, and educational and health support. MCA will not replace foreign aid to countries in need; need-based assistance will continue. Nor will MCA be a subsidy for wealthy democracies--it will only go to poorer nations that qualify. MCA, once implemented will be the first time foreign aid is provided based on a country's efforts to improve itself. This is important for two reasons. First, by investing in countries that are already showing a commitment to sound development principles, MCA assistance is far more likely to make a positive difference in improving conditions in that county. Second, by clearly delineating the criteria used for selecting countries to receive MCA funding, the proposal will provide strong incentive for other countries to make changes so they will also qualify. I am particularly excited about another aspect of the MCA proposal: how the funds will be used. Because a limited number of countries will qualify for MCA assistance, the aid will go a long way. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, or MCC, which will manage the accounts, will work with government and citizens in the recipient country to ensure funded projects will make a significant contribution toward helping a country move to a new level in its economic growth. I hope recipient governments, in working with the MCC, will select projects that emphasize their strengths. By focusing on their strengths, recipient countries will not only improve their comparative advantage economically, but also strengthen and build new institutions, and cultivate national pride. When I was Governor of my State, that was the approach we took to helping cities grow economically. In Chattanooga, for example, the people and local government chose to focus on one of their strengths: the riverfront. State government joined in this effort which resulted in major renovations including a new aquarium that is the envy of the region. In Memphis, State government joined with citizens and local government to focus on improving Beale Street--the home of the Blues. Again, the area became a major attraction and highlight of the city. In both cases, the projects resulted not only in economic growth but a renewed sense of pride in their homes for both Memphians and Chattanoogans. I also want to take this opportunity to commend Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, and Senator Hagel for the compromise language reached in the managers' amendment for authorizing the Millennium Challenge Corporation. My distinguished colleagues have worked out an approach for authorizing a separate agency, as the President proposed, but having it report to the Secretary of State--much as USAID does--in order to maintain continuity in our Nation's foreign policy. This is an excellent compromise, and I am fully supportive of it. Millennium Challenge Accounts represent the most significant change in our approach to foreign aid in years, perhaps ever. I urge all my colleagues to support it and look forward to watching its implementation, particularly with African countries in my role as chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my concern with the rising cost of medical liability insurance. I have heard from doctors and hospitals from one end of Tennessee to the other, all concerned with the sky rocketing cost of medical liability premiums. The increasing cost of medical liability insurance is creating a patient access crisis because doctors are leaving the practice of medicine. At Hardin County General Hospital in Savannah, TN, both an orthopedist and an OB/GYN have left the hospital to go practice in other States because their insurance premiums were too high. High medical liability insurance is one more reason it is difficult to recruit specialists to rural areas. At the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis, young people just entering the profession are being sued at a horrifying rate, discouraging them from continuing with the practice of medicine. Since 1990, one third of all residents in training have been served with a malpractice suit. Some specialties, such as OB/GYN and Neurosurgery, are being sued so frequently that students are not pursuing these specialties. This will soon cause a crisis in access to specialty care. Tennessee hospitals experienced liability insurance premium increases of 75 percent to 400 percent last year. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation in Memphis, TN, had liability coverage of $2.7 million for 2002. For 2003, Baptist was quoted $8.3 million for liability coverage. This is an increase of $6 million in 1 year. In 2002, the medical liability premium for an OB/GYN in Tennessee was $62,000. In 2003, the premium more than doubled to $160,000, and in 2004, it is estimated to more than double again to $285,000. This sort of increased cost is not sustainable. I am worried about who will deliver babies in my State. Other physicians are also feeling the squeeze. In 2002, the medical liability premium for a family practice physician was $44,000. In 2003, the premium increased to $117,000. Again, this sort of increased cost is not sustainable. I believe that S. 11, the Patients First Act, is a great step in the right direction. The Patients First Act will reduce the effects of excessive liability costs by placing a sensible cap on non-economic damages. The bill will still allow unlimited economic damages. If a patient is injured, they will have unlimited access to economic damages to pay for their recovery. S. 11 will help stem the tide of rising medical liability premiums before patients lose access to medical care. I hope we reach cloture on the motion to proceed so that we can consider this very important legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the antipiracy amendment that the Senator from Virginia just discussed and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. I am delighted that Senator Biden from Delaware, Senator Graham from South Carolina, and other Members of the Senate are either cosponsors or interested in this amendment. The Senator from Virginia has explained, very clearly, why this is important, why it is important to authorize the State Department to establish an antipiracy program that will help foreign governments establish and protect intellectual property rights. It authorizes $5 million for the program, which is an important amount, a good start, but a relatively small amount in the overall bill. The antipiracy program, as the Senator from Virginia explained, would help protect American intellectual property abroad by, first, providing equipment and training for foreign law enforcement of intellectual property rights; second, train judges and prosecutors; and, third, assist foreign governments in complying with obligations under appropriate international copyright and intellectual property treaties and agreements. We all know the importance of this. We have come to take it for granted in our country. We are a country of inventors, of artists, of entrepreneurs, of creators. So much of our wealth and our uniqueness comes from that. The Senator from Virginia knows that because of the technological progress in his State, as there is in mine. We know it in Tennessee especially because of our musicians. We know the importance of protecting physical property in America. The owner has bought it or built it, and it belongs to them. Intellectual property should be treated no differently. Whether it is a song or a computer program, a patent or a piece of art, someone has created it, and it should belong to him or to her until he or she chooses to sell it or to give it to someone else. Nashville is the home of country music. Memphis is the home of the blues. A lot of our Tennessee music started in Bristol which spreads itself across the States of Virginia and Tennessee. We have strong feelings about this in our part of the world. The music business is suffering because of mass piracy of intellectual property. In the past 4 years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen by 26 percent. In terms of sales, revenues are down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in 1999 to $12.6 billion last year. The music industry worldwide has gone from a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to $32 billion in 2002, which is a decline of 18 percent. Much of this decline is due to music piracy, most of which occurs on the Internet. Computer users illegally download more than 2.6 billion copyrighted files, mostly songs, every month. At any given moment, approximately 4 to 5 million users are on line offering an estimated 800 million files for copy. According to a November 2002 survey by Peter D. Hart Research, by a 2-to-1 margin most consumers who say they are downloading more music report that they are purchasing less. Much of this problem is domestic. We need to acknowledge that. But some of it also comes from abroad. About 25 percent of the total files available on unauthorized Internet services are hosted outside the United States. In my State of Tennessee, this theft of intellectual property hurts a key sector of our economy. Nashville is home to more than 29 different major and independent record labels and 52 recording studios. It has one of the Nation's largest concentrations of song writers, performers, and music publishers. An estimated 20,000 Nashvillians work in music tourism, broadcasting, and related fields. The city is home to more than 1,500 entertainment companies. Musicians unions have more than 5,500 members in Music City. I think the Presiding Officer can understand, especially because of his leadership on this issue, why protecting their intellectual property rights means more than just helping one artist earn money off a hit record. It means protecting thousands of jobs and maintaining an industry that brings joy to millions of fans in this country and around the world. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment which authorizes a small but important amount of money to protect intellectual property rights around the world. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership and yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, recently, I visited with Reverend Jacob Bazzel Mull and his wife, Elizabeth, in Knoxville, TN. They host the Mull Singing Convention, a popular gospel radio program. Reverend Mull is a legend with an interesting story to tell. He was born in 1914 in Burke County, NC, into a musical family. When he was 11 months old, he lost his eyesight after falling into an open-pit fireplace. As a child, he played in a gospel group made up of his mother, father, brothers and sisters. He began preaching in 1939 and hasn't stopped since. In 1942, he moved to Knoxville to start his first radio program, and the rest is history. He became well-known nationwide during the 25 years he sold Chuck Wagon Gang Records on several 50,000-watt radio stations. This year, all of his many accomplishments were recognized when he was honored by the Gospel Music Association for his ``outstanding contributions to gospel music.'' During our visit in April, Reverend Mull gave me 2,000 letters and a number of petitions with thousands of names on them from Americans angry over the Ninth Circuit's decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Reverend Mull solicited these letters from his listeners across the country, and I was delighted to see the passion people across America have for the Pledge. It made me proud to answer all of those letters. It is inspiring to me that every day Reverend Mull brings out the best in America. He challenges us to think, and he encourages us to be involved in issues. He also reminds us to turn to our religious faith for guidance. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I wanted to find out how to bring out the best in people in Tennessee and across this country, all day, every day. I believe the answer to how we do that lies with the people. In August of 2002, I spent the night with Jim Coley, a Tennessee Government high school teacher, and his family. One idea that came out of that visit was the importance of putting the teaching of American history and civics back into our classrooms. From that discussion, we came up with the framework for the American History and Civics Act of 2003 that just passed the Senate. The bill establishes summer residential academies for teachers and students to encourage the teaching and learning of American history and civics in a more inspired way than is happening today. We can't expect our students to learn what it means to be an American if we don't teach them. I would also like to see students in every classroom across this Nation beginning each schoolday with the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be followed with a student or teacher explaining in his or her own words what it means to them to be an American. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we saw how quickly we Americans could come together as one people, united in purpose, despite our diverse backgrounds. Although we are almost 2 years removed from that time, there is no reason this sense of unity and purpose cannot continue as part of our lives every day. Americans have a reputation for being resourceful, resilient, and having common sense. These are good qualities for helping to bring out the best in the entire Nation. I thank Reverend Mull for his commitment to this country, for inviting me to visit with him, and for sharing American's outpouring of support in favor of the basic values and principles on which this Nation was founded. I also appreciate the opportunity to bring Reverend Mull's good work to the attention of our country.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to voice my support for the inclusion of disease management as a permanent part of the Medicare fee-for-service program. I consider disease management a way to reform the fee-for-service program. I am concerned about the long-term fiscal viability of the Medicare program. As we add a much needed drug benefit to the Medicare program, we must do so in a way that seniors can afford and that our country can afford. Consistent with a letter I signed to the President, I continue to look for ways that we can take this opportunity to reform the current program and ensure we keep the program strong for future beneficiaries. I understand that the Medicare bill we are debating incorporates disease management as part of the new Medicare Advantage Program, so that private plans offer these services to beneficiaries and that there are several demonstrations to test out a variety of care management techniques in the traditional, fee-for-service program. That is a positive step in the right direction. But I think we need to go further. I believe strongly that seniors will get better care in a private plan option under this bill, and I encourage them to do so. But I also know there will be seniors that choose to stay in traditional, fee-for- service Medicare. And these will likely be older seniors, the ones that do suffer from multiple chronic conditions and are in the most need for efficient management of their health care. I ask you, can we afford to allow these beneficiaries' health to worsen and to subsequently bear the enormous costs of their care? We cannot. I believe that adding disease management to the traditional-fee-for-service program is a way to reform the system, and to help bring down costs for these seniors. Disease management can reform the system to improve the long-term sustainability of Medicare. Last week the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees both voted in support of legislation that would incorporate disease management into all of Medicare--both private plans and the traditional, fee-for-service programs. I ask that as we move into conference, I hope we can accept the House language that phases in disease management as a permanent part of the Medicare fee-for-service program. Without a doubt, it is critical to the health of seniors and to the pockets of taxpayers that we implement effective reforms such as disease management in Medicare now--to more rationally and effectively manage care for beneficiaries with chronic conditions, and to ensure the fiscal sustainability of the Medicare Program.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to read a book cowritten by a friend and law school classmate of mine, Professor Ross Sandler. The book, ``Democracy by Decree,'' cowritten by Professor David Schoenbrod, is a fascinating discussion of an issue that has bedeviled our democracy since the 1960's: the control of State and local political institutions by the Federal courts. When I served as Governor of Tennessee, I had the opportunity to attend many meetings with my fellow Governors. I learned that at that time, the prisons in virtually every State were under the control not of the Governor but of the Federal courts, whose decrees governed almost all aspects of prison management. Many of these decrees had lasted for years and years, and most would continue in force past the time I left the Governor's mansion. Under our Federal system, the enforcement of criminal laws had been left to the States. With all of these decrees in force, however, instead of elected officials controlling a central aspect of law enforcement, a small group of lawyers and judges in each State could and would dictate penal policy by controlling the decrees. Nearly all these cases started out with the salutary purpose of protecting the constitutional rights of prison inmates to be free of prison brutality. They ended up going much further than the Constitution required or even permitted. Federal judges in some States were deciding how hot the coffee had to be in the prison commissary or how often the windows had to be washed. Judicial decrees of this nature had lasted so long that no one quite knew how to terminate them, and prison officials even got used to them. Not only had prison officials become comfortable with judicial management, they sometimes even colluded with litigants to force elected officials to provide a greater percentage of government resources to the penal system, even when the Constitution did not so require. When the situation of judicial abuse over the management of prisons came to the attention of Congress, this body responded effectively by enacting the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at section 3626 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. This law, largely developed by Chairman Hatch, Senator Specter, former Senator Abraham, and others, limits the period of time Federal judges could impose decrees managing State and local prisons. Under the act, a judicial decree governing prison conditions cannot remain in effect for more than 2 years, unless the issuing court reviews the conditions at the prison and affirmatively determines that the decree is still needed to remedy a current violation of law or the Constitution. The burden of proving the need for the continuation of the decree remains, as in the original suit, with the plaintiffs. The 2-year time limit applies equally to consent decrees and to decrees entered after trial. I believe the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been effective at restoring control of State and local penal facilities to the democratic branches of the States. According to Professor Sandler, many of the 20 and 25-year-old decrees governing prison conditions have been terminated or modified. This very fact demonstrates that the constitutional shortcomings that had initially prompted many of the lawsuits had been fixed, but there was no effective mechanism for allowing political actors to resume control over these institutions. At the same time, however, there has been no evident impact on the ability of the Federal courts to protect prison inmates from current or ongoing violations of the law or the Constitution. What the Prison Litigation Reform Act accomplished so successfully and in a carefully balanced way should serve as a model for Congress to emulate in other areas of Federal law. Federal courts, prodded by activists and plaintiffs' lawyers, have taken control through negotiated consent decrees of multiple State and local social programs. The same problems that bedeviled Governors, State legislators, and prison administrators before the Prison Litigation Reform Act now confronts those democratically responsible actors who seek to manage foster care, special education, mental health services, Food Stamps, and welfare programs. In many States and local communities, any number of these programs is under direct judicial supervision. As was the case with prison decrees, many of the orders governing these myriad social programs have been in place for many years, binding elected officials to obligations imposed for a different set of circumstances, with no requirement that the court review the underlying facts to determine if continued judicial oversight is warranted or appropriate. As a former law clerk to one of this Nation's most eminent Federal judges, I know that judicial oversight can often be a crucial tool, sometimes the only tool, with which to vindicate people's constitutional or legal rights. I know that Federal judges did not seek to usurp the prerogatives of Governors, mayors, and legislators. Over time and often incrementally, however, they did so. Judges, in fact, were and are often reluctant to intrude into the operations of government programs. When they seek to encourage a negotiated resolution, however, they empower plaintiffs' lawyers and government lawyers to negotiate and decide the outcome. Often, the parties to the negotiation find that they can make common cause, particularly in finding non-democratic means for improving programs and prying more money and authority from Governors, mayors, and legislators. Working behind closed doors, and unaccountable to the people, the lawyers and the activists negotiate elaborate decrees of hundreds of pages, often encrusted with horse trades that often have little or nothing to do with the law or the alleged violations but a lot to do with long-term agendas of the parties to the negotiations. Only a small cadre of people is involved behind these closed doors. And at the end of the process, these self-interested negotiators present the judge with a decree that reflects the ``consent'' of all parties but bypasses the democratic process. These decrees are put into effect, and often no one ever reviews whether the legal bases on which they may be founded remain viable. Instead, they remain in effect for years and years, tying the hands of elected officials, even if there is no violation of law to remedy. Building on the proven model of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Congress can and should limit the harm that institutional reform decrees do to local democracy without precluding judges from vindicating legal and constitutional rights when necessary. Congress ought to consider legislation in different areas to limit judicial decrees in institutional reform cases to correcting only actually proven systemic violations of federal law or the Constitution. Further, Congress ought to allow courts to consider and make modifications of consent decrees in institutional reform cases any time a public official with an interest in the case has a good and compelling reason to seek changes. Finally, Congress should compel termination of decrees after a fixed time, unless plaintiffs demonstrate that current violations of law necessitating the continuation of the decree exist. Reform by Congress of the general procedures governing judicial decrees in cases seeking reform of State and local government institutions along the lines suggested by Professor Sandler in his book will strengthen our State and local democratic institutions while ensuring the continued protection of constitutional and legal rights. I hope to look for opportunities to pursue and effectuate some of the proposals I have outlined above as the Senate considers relevant authorizing legislation. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on March 4, I made the maiden speech the majority leader has encouraged each of us new Senators to make. I chose two urgent issues I care most about: The education of our children, No. 1; and the principles that unite us as Americans, No. 2. I then introduced S. 504, the American History and Civics Education Act of 2003. In a few minutes, we will vote on that bill. Its purpose is to help put the teaching of American history and civics in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. Its purpose is to inspire better teaching and more learning of the key events, key documents, key persons, and key ideas that shaped the institutions and democratic heritage of the United States of America. This legislation would do that by creating summer academies for students and teachers of American history and civics. There will be up to 12 Presidential Academies for teachers. These might last 2 weeks and be sponsored by an educational institution or a nonprofit organization. And there will be up to 12 4-week Congressional Academies for students. It also creates a State-by-State national alliance of history and civics teachers, and authorizes $25 million for these purposes. We need this legislation because our children are not learning what it means to be an American. In his testimony before our committee, author David McCullough spoke of Ivy League college students who think Abraham Lincoln was President before the Civil War and that Germany and Italy were our Allies during World War II. One-third of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders do not even have basic knowledge about American history and civics, making them what one might call civic illiterates. They are not learning it because, in too many instances, it is not being taught. Civics too often is dropped from school curricula. More than half the States have no requirements for a course in American government and American history. When it is taught, it is too often watered down. The textbooks are too dull, the pages too often feature victims and diminish heroes. Because of politically correct attitudes from the right and from the left, teachers are afraid to teach the great controversies, the great conflicts, the great struggles, the great stories that are the heritage, the essence of American history. This effort has overwhelming support in the Congress--36 U.S. Senators of both parties. An identical bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and 160 Members of the House, of both parties, support it. I want especially to reiterate my thanks to the majority leader who, during a busy time, has found time for this small but important piece of legislation, and to the Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, who has also made it possible for there to be time for this in the midst of this debate and who is the prime cosponsor of this legislation. I thank Chairman Gregg of our committee for reporting it promptly and for cosponsoring it, and Senator Kennedy, the ranking member, who did not just cosponsor it but was busy gathering other cosponsors. I want to acknowledge, too, the support of Conrad Burns, the Senator from Montana, a historian who is chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, and especially Senator Byrd of West Virginia, who has been a leader in other legislation that has passed this body on American history, and who took the time to come to the hearing on this legislation, in person, and to testify. I yield the floor and reserve whatever time remains.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, for his comments late last evening when we discussed this bill and for his support. I look forward to working with him on other education legislation in a bipartisan way. I am glad he talked about appropriations. Senator Stevens also is a cosponsor of the bill, for which we are pleased. People from potential sponsoring institutions have asked me how this might work. First, the legislation has to be passed. But given the strong bipartisan support it has in both Houses, if it were to be passed and the money were to be appropriated in a reasonable period of time, the first of these academies might open in the summer of 2004. For that to happen, the National Endowment for the Humanities would need to receive applications beginning this fall. I hope the universities, the nonprofit organizations, and the State educational institutions will begin to prepare for that. They might look at the Governors' Schools across this country in many States as models. At a time when the United States of America is under attack because of who we are, it is crucial that our children learn the values and principles that make this the United States of America. When you move to France or Japan, you don't become French or Japanese. When you move to the United States and seek to become an American citizen, you become an American, because of what we believe in, a few principles--liberty, equal opportunity, individualism, laissez-faire, the rule of law, federalism, e pluribus unum, the free exercise of religion, the separation of church and state, and a belief in progress. We almost all agree on those principles. Our politics is about applying them. That is what we debate every day here. We need to be teaching our children, as the Senator from Nevada said, these principles so they will grow up knowing what it means to be an American. I urge all Senators to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment to S. 504, which is at the desk, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 8 is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I now ask for its second reading and object to further proceeding on this matter.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m., Friday, June 20. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of Calendar No. 140, S. 504, the American History and Civics Act of 2003, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Gregg, Kennedy, and Dodd to pass the conference report for S. 342, ``The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.'' I also want to congratulate Senator Gregg, the chairman of the conference committee, and commend his leadership. Unlike many Federal Government programs, this is a relatively small level of funding, but it is vital for the safety and sanctity of our most precious resource--our children. S. 342 reauthorizes the ``Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, (CAPTA),'' which provides grants to States to improve child protection systems and grants to support community-based family resource and support services. The changes made to this program will encourage new training and better qualifications for child and family service workers. Additionally, this program will create or improve coordination between child protection services and education, health, mental health, and judicial systems to ensure that children who are abused and neglected are properly identified and receive referrals to appropriate services. Tennessee has used CAPTA funding for many innovative pilot programs, such as Therapeutic Visitation Services. This is a pilot project that provides intensive service to families with children in the foster care system from four rural areas in east Tennessee. The goal is to preserve and strengthen family relationships while facilitating visitation between children and biological parents. Children in the pilot program saw their parents sooner and more frequently. In Davidson County, the Chap-Plus program provides service and helps coordinate care for families that are stressed due to their child's medical condition, such as a life threatening disease. Another program that receives CAPTA funding is the University of Tennessee Legally Defensible Child Interviewing program, which trains Child Protective Services case managers. This training is focused on improving interviewing skills of investigative teams when they interview children who are the possible victims of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. These important programs will benefit from this legislation. I thank my colleagues for voting for this bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. 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.