Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senators who will be here will be Senator Isakson, Senator Burr, Senator Kirk, and Senator Enzi. Will you let each of us know when we have consumed 5 minutes?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Republican Senators have come to talk about education, No Child Left Behind, and I ask consent to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi and I thank him for his leadership and the constructive way he and Senator Harkin are working together. I should emphasize, as I said in my remarks, the respect all of us have for Secretary Duncan. He has done a terrific job staying in touch with us without regard to political party, and the President and he have stuck their necks out on some issues that are not entirely popular with their Democratic constituency. We respect that as well. As I said, our effort is to take these ideas and recognize we are in the ninth year of a bill that was supposed to be fixed after 5 years, and to get it done before the end of the year. One example of what we could do the Senator from Illinois will talk about. He has been the leader on expanding opportunities for parents and communities to use charter schools. The House of Representatives acted on that bill yesterday. Senator Kirk.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. Every American knows that every American's job is on the line. Every American knows that better schools mean better jobs. We are ready to work with the President and with our Democratic colleagues to create an environment for better schools in this country by fixing No Child Left Behind. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Elementary and Secondary Education: How Has the Environment Changed Over the Past 10 Years? 1. Standards: All states have content standards in place for reading/language arts and mathematics. 44 States are working together in a Common Core state-led effort to improve their standards. 2. Assessments: All states are conducting annual assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics that are aligned to state standards and are publicly reporting their results. Two groups of states are working together to develop common assessments aligned to the Common Core standards. 3. Data: Disaggregation of data by states and districts provides greater information on how schools and students are performing by race, income, English proficiency and disability. This makes it easier to identify the achievement gaps and target efforts to address problems. 4. Auditing: All states are participating in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP/Nation's Report Card, which serves as an audit of the quality of state standards and assessments. 5. Robust Awareness: Because of data, parents, teachers, principals, legislators, and Governors are paying more attention to education issues, and thus holding their districts, schools, and teachers accountable. 6. Charter School Growth: The number of students enrolled in public charter schools has more than tripled to 1.4 million and the percentage of all public schools that were charter schools has increased from 2% to 5%, comprising 4,700 schools nationwide. 7. School Choice: Not much, but some growth in school choice (i.e. Milwaukee, Florida). What the Nation Has Learned From No Child Left Behind: The Good and the Bad The Good Disaggregated Reporting: The disaggregation of data by subgroups has allowed us to see how all students are performing. Annual Assessments: Provides basic information on the performance of students in mathematics, English/Language Arts, and Science. Public Reporting: Increased public reporting of state, district, and school performance has provided the public with better information on the quality of local schools. Parental Involvement: Provides greater information to improve parental involvement in school-level decisions. The Bad Goal of 100% Proficiency by 2014: Sets unrealistic and unproductive mandate that all students are proficient by 2014. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Rigid federal mandates of how to achieve proficiency and tells states from Washington which schools are succeeding and which are failing. Highly-Qualified Teachers (HQT): Onerous federal definition of what constitutes a qualified teacher. Unfunded Mandates: Federal mandates far exceed the 9-10% federal investment in education. Ineffective spending: Dedicates billions in limited federal dollars to small and ineffective programs that don't have a record of success. Why We Need To Fix No Child Left Behind 100% proficiency by 2014 will not happen. Adequate Yearly Progress with its prescriptive 64-part formula will result in every school getting a failing grade. Teachers focus too much on testing and no one understands what the results mean. Sanctions impact rural schools more. Highly Qualified Teacher requirements create unusual restrictions particularly with respect to rural, special education, and English as a second language teachers. State and local flexibility is limited and there are duplicative and overlapping programs. Allowable uses of federal funds are too limited and restrictive. One size fits all mentality of Washington's ``good'' ideas. We need local solutions. Parents are too often left out of the equation. How To Fix ``No Child Left Behind'' 1. Set a new, realistic but challenging goal to help all students succeed. 2. Free 95% of schools (91,000 schools) from the federal requirement of conforming to a federally-defined adequate yearly progress mandate. 3. The federal government will help states fix the bottom 5% of their schools (4,500 schools). 4. Require states to have high standards that promote college and career readiness for all students. 5. Encourage the creation of state and school district teacher and principal evaluation systems to replace federal highly qualified teacher requirements. 6. Continue necessary reporting so that parents, teachers, schools, legislators, and communities receive good information on schools. 7. Provide school districts with the ability to transfer funds more efficiently among the five largest federal education programs. 8. Consolidate and streamline more than 80 programs within NCLB and eliminate those that are duplicative and unnecessary. 9. Empower parents. How To Fix ``No Child Left Behind'' 1. Set a new, realistic but challenging goal to help all students succeed. Establish a national goal that all students will be `college and career ready' by high school graduation. States will use annual reading and mathematics assessments, including student growth, to measure progress toward the goal. 2. Free 95% of schools (91,000 schools) from the federal requirement of conforming to a federally-defined adequate yearly progress mandate. 95% of schools will no longer face federal sanctions. These schools will continue annual reading and mathematics assessments and public reporting requirements. The emphasis will be on helping states to catch these successful schools and struggling schools doing things right, instead of announcing their failure. 3. The federal government will help states fix the bottom 5% of their schools (4,500 schools). States will identify, for federal accountability purposes, the bottom 5% of schools that receive Title I funding. These schools will be required to choose an intervention model from a defined list of options. The models will be broad and include options for rural schools and provide flexibility for state innovation. 4. Require states to have high standards that promote college and career readiness for all students. Require states to adopt `college and career ready' standards that are aligned with higher education, career and technical education standards, and workforce skills within the state. There will be no preference or prohibition for states to adopt a specific set of standards, including the Common Core standards. 5. Encourage the creation of state and school district teacher and principal evaluation systems to replace federal highly qualified teacher requirements. Encourage states and school districts to develop teacher and principal evaluation systems to identify high performing teachers and principals and eliminate the federal ``highly qualified teacher'' definition. Innovative teacher and principal pay programs will continue to be supported through the Teacher Incentive Fund program. 6. Continue necessary reporting so that parents, teachers, schools, legislators, and communities receive good information on schools. States, school districts and schools will continue to report information regarding student achievement on annual reading, mathematics and science assessments. Other reported information will include high school graduation rates and teacher certification. All of this information will continue to be disaggregated by race and ethnicity, socio-economic status, disability status, English proficiency, gender, and migrant status to maintain public accountability for all student subgroups. Unnecessary and irrelevant federal reporting requirements will be eliminated. 7. Provide school districts with the ability to transfer funds more efficiently among the five largest federal education programs. School districts will have more flexibility to meet their local needs by transferring funds among the 5 major federal education programs. This will allow school districts to better target federal resources to improve student academic achievement. 8. Consolidate and streamline almost 60 programs within NCLB to allow State and local leaders to meet student needs in their states and districts. Consolidate the programs authorized in NCLB into flexible funding streams that allow States and local school districts to fund locally-determined programs that meet the unique and specific needs of the students in their States and districts. 9. Empower parents. Parents will receive meaningful information on the performance of their children's schools so they can be more effectively involved in their children's education. The law will continue to support the expansion of high-quality charter schools. For those parents whose children attend the state-identified bottom 5% of schools, they will have the option of public school choice to transfer to another public school. The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments Act of 2011 Empowering State and local education leaders to improve public schools Establishes College & Career Readiness Goal: States are asked to develop and maintain academic content standards and assessments that will prepare students for college- and career-readiness without interference by the Federal government about whether to work alone or in partnership with other states. Empowers State and local leaders to develop their own accountability systems: Instead of a ``One Size Fits All'' Washington-approach, states will develop their own systems designed to ensure that all students graduate from high school college- and career-ready, without Federal interference or regulations on state standards, assessments, growth models for accountability, or how to develop teacher and principal evaluation systems that are based on improving student achievement. Eliminates Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The Federal government is taken out of the business of determining if local schools and districts are succeeding or failing in educating their students by ending the Washington-based AYP system of how to identify schools. Asks States to Identify the Bottom 5% of Lowest Performing Schools: States will be required to identify the bottom 5% of Title I receiving elementary and secondary schools, using their state-developed accountability system, and local school districts will be required to implement a school improvement strategy for their lowest performing schools. School districts will continue to be required to provide public school choice to students in these lowest performing schools. Eliminates ``Highly Qualified Teacher'' Requirement: States will be freed from the onerous ``Highly Qualified Teacher'' requirements and empowered to maintain and improve their own teacher and principal licensure and certification requirements. Maintains Public Reporting Requirements: States and local school districts will continue to report disaggregated data on student achievement, while requiring annual report cards at the school, school district and State level. Reduces Paperwork & Federal Intrusion: The bill dramatically simplifies the Title I State plans that are submitted to the Secretary to reduce unnecessary paperwork and frees states from Washington interference. The Teacher and Principal Improvement Act of 2011 Preparing, training, and recruiting effective teachers and principals to improve student achievement Addressing State and local needs for teacher and principal training: States and local school districts will conduct a needs assessment to determine what professional development teachers and principals need to improve student achievement and then target resources to meet those needs. Supports the State-led Development of Teacher/Principal Evaluation Systems: States and local school districts are empowered to develop their own teacher and principal evaluation systems that are based significantly on student academic achievement. The Federal Government would be prohibited from regulating or controlling those state and local evaluation systems, allowing local innovation and leadership to flourish. Maintains Strong Reporting Requirements: States and local school districts will provide important data on the quality and effectiveness of teachers and principals, as well as the results of teacher and principal evaluation systems if developed, to inform parents and the community about who is teaching in the classroom and leading our schools. Teacher Incentive Fund: Authorizes the Teacher Incentive Fund to provide competitive grants for states, districts, and partnerships with private-sector organizations to implement, improve, or expand comprehensive performance-based compensation systems for teachers and principals, while leaving broad latitude in how states develop such systems, as well as prioritizing high-need schools. Encourages Innovative Private-Sector Involvement: Authorizes competitive grants for national non-profit organizations, such as Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools, to help states and local school districts that have a demonstrated record with teacher or principal preparation, professional development activities, and programs. Reduces Paperwork and Federal Intrusion: The bill dramatically simplifies the Title II State plans that are submitted to the Secretary to reduce unnecessary paperwork and frees states from Washington interference. Empowering Local Educational Decision Making Act of 2011 State and local school districts, not Washington, D.C., are the best makers of educational decisions. Unfortunately, in the last few decades, the federal government, believing it knew best, has exploded the number of small, categorical education programs in K-12. Almost every year, yet another new program has been created in pursuit of the newest educational rave. And with each of these new programs, States and local school districts have lost flexible federal funding sources that allow them and not the latest fad to determine how best to allocate federal resources to meet the unique and specific needs of the individual students in their States and districts. The Empowering Local Educational Decision Making Act of 2011 streamlines 59 programs into 2 flexible foundational block grants. Rather than Washington and the federal government determining funding priorities for States and local school districts, the Empowering Local Educational Decision Making Act puts locals in charge by allowing them the flexibility to fund locally-determined programs and initiatives that meet the varied and unique needs of individual States and localities. Fund for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning Consolidates 34 programs into ONE flexible, formula-driven Fund for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning to fund locally-determined needs and initiatives related to-- Increasing the capacity of local school districts, schools, teachers, and principals to provide a well-rounded and complete education for all students. Increasing the number of teachers and principals who are effective in increasing student academic achievement. Ensuring that low-income students are served by effective teachers and principals and have access to a high-quality instructional program in the core academic subjects. Safe and Healthy Students Block Grant Consolidates 25 programs into ONE flexible, formula-driven Safe and Healthy Students Block Grant to fund locally- determined needs and initiatives for improving students' safety, health, and well-being during and after the school day by-- Increasing the capacity of local school districts, schools, and local communities to create safe, healthy, supportive, and drug-free environments. Carrying out programs designed to improve school safety and promote students' physical and mental health well-being, healthy eating and nutrition, and physical fitness. Preventing and reducing substance abuse, school violence, and bullying. Strengthening parent and community engagement to ensure a healthy, safe, and supportive school environment. Enhanced Flexibility through Funding Transferability To provide additional funding flexibility to State and local school districts, under the Empowering Local Educational Decision Making Act of 2011 districts will be able to transfer up to 100% of their allocations under the Fund for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning and the Safe and Healthy Students Block Grant between the two programs or into Title I, Part A. Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act 2011 Senator Kirk Charter School Bill This bill will modernize the charter school program by encouraging the expansion of high-quality charter schools and allowing charter school management organizations to receive assistance directly from the federal government. Modernizes the Charter School Program to address present realities for public school choice, by incentivizing expansion and replication of successful charter models, providing support for authorizers, and enhanced opportunities for facilities financing. Encourages states to support the development and expansion of charter schools. Streamlines federal Charter School Program funding to reduce administrative burdens and improves funding opportunities for the replication of successful charter models and facilities assistance. Allows proven, high-quality charter school management organizations to apply directly to the federal government, as well as local education agencies, deleting a layer of bureaucracy with the State government. Facilitates the establishment of high-quality charter schools and further encourage choice, innovation and excellence in education. Supports an evaluation of schools' impact on students, families, and communities, while also encouraging sharing best practices between charters and traditional public schools. The State Innovation Pilot Act of 2011 The bill clarifies waiver authority that is currently in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The clarified waiver provision authorizes State educational agencies and local school districts to submit a request to the Secretary of Education to waive any statutory or regulatory requirement of the law. State and local leadership: The bill improves the waiver authority currently in law by clarifying that the waiver process is intended to be led by state and local requests, not Washington mandates. Deference to state and local judgment: If the Secretary chooses not to immediately approve a waiver request, the bill directs the Secretary to develop a peer review process that defers to state and local judgment on waiver requests. Transparency: The bill ensures that the peer review process will be open and transparent so that it is clear what states and local school districts are asking to waive and what peer reviewers think about those waivers. Prohibiting additional regulations: The bill prohibits the Secretary from imposing by regulation any additional requirements to waiver requests not authorized by Congress. The bill encourages State and local education leadership in developing and implementing innovative strategies in: College and career ready academic content and achievement standards for all public elementary and secondary school students; High-quality academic assessments that are aligned with and are designed to measure the performance of local educational agencies and schools in meeting those standards; Accountability systems that are based on those college and career ready standards, as well as other academic indicators related to student achievement; and Programs to improve principal and teacher quality and effectiveness.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe I have up to 20 minutes?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the Chair please let me know when 5 minutes is remaining.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, tonight we welcome President Obama to the Congress to deliver a jobs address. The President will be coming at a time when we have had persistent unemployment at a greater rate than at any time since the Great Depression. No one should blame our President for problems with an economy that he inherited, but the President should take responsibility for making the economy worse. Unemployment is up. The debt is up. Housing values are down. The morning paper reports we may be on our way--at least the chances are 50-50, the newspaper says this morning--to a double-dip recession. The number of unemployed Americans is up about 2 million since the President took office. The amount of Federal debt is up about $4 trillion. As I mentioned in discussing the proposals of the Senator from Nebraska, the President's policies, rather than helping over the last 2\1/2\ years, have thrown a big wet blanket over private sector job creation. They have made it more expensive and more difficult for the private sector to create jobs for Americans. Let me be specific about that. The President chose, 2 years ago, rather than to focus exclusively on jobs, to focus on health care. His proposal was to expand a health care delivery system that already cost too much, that was already too expensive. So we have new health care taxes and mandates that make the economy worse. Why do I say that? I met, for example, with the chief executive officers of several of the nation's largest restaurant companies. They reminded me that restaurants and hospitality organizations in the United States are the largest employers, outside of government, and that their employees are mostly young and mostly low income. One of the chief executives said because of the mandates of the health care law it would take all of his profits from last year to pay the costs, when it is fully implemented, so he will not be investing in any new restaurants in the United States. Another said they operate with 90 employees per store, but as a result of the mandates and taxes in the health care law, their goal will be to operate with 70 employees per store. One of the largest employers is saying instead of having 90 employees per store, we are going to have 70. That doesn't help create new jobs in the United States. Let's take the debt. The President inherited the debt but he has made it worse. The economists who look at debt say we are heading toward a level that will cost us, in the United States, 1 million jobs every year. Undermining the right-to-work law--the President's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board have told the Nation's largest manufacturer of large airplanes that they cannot build a plant in South Carolina. It is the first new plant to build large airplanes in 40 years in this country. The Boeing Company sells those airplanes everywhere in the world. It could build them anywhere in the world. We want them to build them in the United States. Those kinds of actions by the National Labor Relations Board make it worse. Regulations that put a big wet blanket over job creation, such as the one the Senator from Nebraska talks about, make it worse. The President's refusal to send trade agreements to Congress makes it worse. Let's be clear about this. Since the day the President took office, he has had on his desk three trade agreements, already signed by both countries. They simply need approval by Congress--one with Panama, one with South Korea, one with Colombia. We are ready to approve them in a bipartisan way if he will send them here. What will that mean in Tennessee? We make a lot of auto parts in Tennessee. We can sell them to South Korea. At the present time, Europeans sell them to South Korea at a lower price because of the tariff situation, because the President has not sent the three trade agreements to Congress. So all these steps have made the economy worse. Of course, with a bad economy home values have stayed down. That is making it worse, too. So what can we do about this? What are the kinds of things the President could talk about tonight and that we could work on together to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs? We could change the tax structure in a permanent way, not short-term fixes but long-term lowering of tax rates for everyone, closing loopholes, creating a situation where our businesses are more competitive in the world marketplace. That is one thing we could do. We could stop the avalanche of regulations that is throwing the big wet blanket over job growth. The Senator from Nebraska suggested a few--a moratorium on new regulations; avoiding guidance, as he suggested, that circumvents the rules or regulations; stopping wacky ideas such as regulating farm dust, as if everybody did not know that all farms create dust. More exports--the President could send, today, the three trade agreements to Congress. We could ratify them and then crops grown in Tennessee and Nebraska and every other State in this country, and auto parts, and medical devices, could be sold around the world. Our State alone has $23 billion and tens of thousands of jobs tied up in exports. This could add to that. In addition to that, we could agree on advanced research. The President's recommendations have been good on that. But we should agree on that and move ahead with appropriations bills and a fiscal situation that permits us to do the kind of advanced research we need to do to create jobs. We need to fix No Child Left Behind. Better schools mean better jobs. We need a long-term highway bill. We need roads and bridges in order to have the kind of country we want. We need to find more American energy and use less. We should be able to agree on that. There is an agenda, not of more spending, not of more taxes, not of more regulation, but an agenda that would make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs and get the economy moving again. In another time a President named Eisenhower said ``I should go to Korea'' and he was elected President. He went to Korea before he was inaugurated and then he said ``I shall focus my time on this single objective until I see it all the way through to the end.'' The country felt good about that, they had confidence in him, he did that, and the Korean war was ended. President Obama chose, instead of focusing on jobs 2\1/2\ years ago in the same sort of Presidential way, to expand a health care delivery system that already was too expensive and in fact makes the problem worse. Tonight is an opportunity to make it better and we are ready to join with him in doing that, especially if he were to recommend lower tax rates, fewer loopholes on a permanent basis, fewer regulations, and if he were to send the three trade agreements to us to ratify. I wish to turn my attention to a different subject. September 11 is Sunday. I listened carefully, as most of us in the Senate do, to words that seem to resonate with my audiences. I have consistently found there is one sentence that I usually cannot finish without the audience interrupting me before breaking into applause, and it is this: ``It is time to put the teaching of American history and civics back into its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American.'' The terrorists who attacked us on September 11 were not just lashing out at buildings and people. They were attacking who we are as Americans. Most Americans know this, and that is why there has been a national hunger for leadership and discussion about our values. Parents know our children are not being taught our common culture and our shared values. National tests show that three-fourths of the Nation's 4th, 8th, and 12th graders are not proficient in civics knowledge, and one-third don't even have basic knowledge, making them civic illiterates. That is why I made making American history and civics the subject of my maiden speech when I first came to the Senate in 2003, and by a vote of 90 to 0 the Senate passed my bill to create summer residential academies for outstanding teachers of American history and civics. Every year I bring them on the Senate floor, and those teachers from all over our country have a moment to think about this Senate. They usually go find a desk of the Senator from Alaska, if they are an Alaskan teacher, or the Senator from Tennessee, or Daniel Webster's desk, or Jefferson Davis's desk, and they stop and think about our country in a special way. The purpose of those teachers is better teaching, and the purpose of the academy is more learning of key events, key persons, key ideas, and key documents that shape the institutions of the democratic heritage of the United States. If I were teaching about September 11, these are some of the issues I would ask my students to consider. No. 1, is September 11 the worst thing that ever happened to the United States? Of course the answer is no, but I am surprised by the number of people who say yes. It saddens me to realize that those who make such statements were never properly taught about American history. Many doubted that we would win the Revolutionary War. The British sacked Washington and burned the White House to the ground in the War of 1812. In the Civil War we lost more Americans than in any other conflict, with brother fighting against brother. The list goes on. Children should know why we made those sacrifices and fought for the values that make us exceptional. The second question I would talk about is, What makes America exceptional? I began the first session of a course I taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government 10 or 11 years ago by making a list of 100 ways America is exceptional, unique--not always better but unique. America's exceptionalism has been a source of fascination ever since Tocqueville's trip across America in 1830 when he met Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie on the Mississippi River. His book, ``Democracy in America,'' is the best description of America's unique ideals in action. Another outstanding text is ``American Exceptionalism'' by Seymour Martin Lipset. A third question I ask my students is, Why is it you cannot become Japanese or French, but you must become an American? If I were to immigrate to Japan, I could not become Japanese. I would always be an American living in Japan. But if a Japanese citizen came here, they could become an American, and we would welcome that person with open arms. Why? It is because our identity is not based on ethnicity but on a creed of ideas and values in which most of us believe. The story Richard Hofstadter wrote: It is our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one. To become American citizens immigrants must take a test demonstrating their knowledge of American history and civics. Fourth, what are the principles that unite us as Americans? In Thanksgiving remarks after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush praised our Nation's response to terror. ``I call it the American character,'' he said. Former Vice President Gore, in his speech after the attacks, said: We should fight for the values that bind us together as a country. In my Harvard course that I mentioned, we put together a list of some of those values: liberty, e. pluribus unum, equal opportunity, individualism, rule of law, free exercise of religion, separation of church and state, laissez-faire, and the belief in progress, the idea that anyone can do anything. Anything is possible if we agree on those principles. I would say to my students, Why is there so much division in American politics? Just because we agree on the values doesn't mean we agree on how to apply those values. Most of our politics, in fact, is about the hard work of applying those principles to our everyday lives. When we do, we often conflict. For example, when discussing President Bush's proposals to let the Federal Government fund faith-based charities, we know, in God we trust--we have it here in the Senate--but we also know we don't trust government with God. When considering whether the Federal Government should pay for scholarships that middle- and low-income families might use at any accredited school--public, private, or religious--some object that the principle of equal opportunity can conflict with the principle of separation of church and state. What does it mean to be an American? After September 11, I proposed an idea I call Pledge Plus Three. Why not start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance--as many schools still do--and then ask a teacher or a student to take 3 minutes to explain what it means to be an American. I would bet the best 3-minute statements of what it means to be an American would come from the newest Americans. At least that was the case with my university students. The newest Americans appreciated this country the most and could talk about it the best. Ask students to stand and raise their right hands and recite the oath of allegiance just as immigrants do when they become American citizens. This is an oath that goes all the way back to the days of George Washington and Valley Forge. It reads like it was written in a tavern by a bunch of patriots in Williamsburg late one night. I recited this with my right hand up during a speech I recently gave on my American history and civics bill. It is quite a weighty thing and startles the audience to say: I absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty [and agree to] bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law. The oath to become an American taken by George Washington and his men and now taken today in courthouses all across America is a solemn, weighty matter. Our history is a struggle to live up to the ideas that have united us and that have defined us from the very beginning, the principles of what we call the American character. If that is what students are taught about September 11, they will not only become better informed, they will strengthen our country for generations to come. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska on his typically commonsense, reasonable presentation about how we might take steps to deal with the smothering regulations that are putting a big wet blanket on job growth in this country, and the idea of a timeout to stop the avalanche of new regulations makes sense. Farm dust--the idea of regulating farm dust makes no sense. Slowing down the ability of Federal agencies to get around the regulatory process by issuing guidance, that is commonsense. These are three sensible steps that would help create an environment that would make it easier and cheaper for job creators to create private sector jobs in this country and I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska for his comments.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska on his typically commonsense, reasonable presentation about how we might take steps to deal with the smothering regulations that are putting a big wet blanket on job growth in this country, and the idea of a timeout to stop the avalanche of new regulations makes sense. Farm dust--the idea of regulating farm dust makes no sense. Slowing down the ability of Federal agencies to get around the regulatory process by issuing guidance, that is commonsense. These are three sensible steps that would help create an environment that would make it easier and cheaper for job creators to create private sector jobs in this country and I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska for his comments.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mark Hatfield was elected to the Senate in 1966. It was a distinguished class that included some prominent Republicans, sort of a new wave in the Republican Party. In addition to Governor Hatfield, a former two-term Governor, there was Charles Percy of Illinois, former President of Bell & Howell; there was Ed Brooke of Massachusetts, the first African American popularly elected to the Senate. Also in that Republican class were Cliff Hansen, a prominent rancher from Wyoming, and a young man who was a son-in-law of then-Republican leader, Everett Dirksen, Howard H. Baker, Jr. I hitched a ride with Howard Baker to Washington, DC, in that year and went to work as Baker's legislative assistant in 1967, and, of course, had a chance to meet Senator Hatfield. At that time, there was less space for Senators than there is even today. So new Senators were put into rooms with each other. For example, Senator Baker and Senator Brooke and all their staffs were put in a single room, separated only by a partition. They got along with that for 6 months. But Senator Hatfield did not like it very much. After all, he had been a Governor for two terms and was not used to being treated in that way. He was polite about it, as he always was. But soon he made a mission. He went around the Senate and the Capitol and he counted up all the rooms that then-Senator James Eastland of Mississippi had taken to himself. He found 34 different rooms that were assigned to Senator Eastland and only half a room was assigned to Hatfield. Senator Hatfield then reported to the Republican conference that Eastland had 34 rooms and that apparently someone was living in one of the rooms because someone from Restaurant Associates was putting a tray of food outside the door of this room in the Capitol and every morning two arms would come out and bring the food in. This was Senator Hatfield's first report to the Senate. I saw him about 25 years later, when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and had a lot of power. I said: Senator Hatfield, how many rooms do you have now? He just smiled. My guess is he probably had 34. But what I remember about Senator Hatfield, as a very young aide, was how unfailingly courteous he was to every single person. If you caught his attention, you had his full attention. It is easy to see why he was elected to the Senate for 30 years. It is easy to see why he won 11 elections. Of course, the other reason, he was so interesting. He was a Baptist. He was a Libertarian. He was a great friend of Billy Graham. He was pro-life, not just on abortion but on the death penalty as well. He was antiwar. He was antibalanced budget. He was an interesting, independent, decent man. I simply wanted to say, from the vantage point of someone who feels privileged to serve in the Senate, what an impression this man from Oregon made on a 26-year-old young aide to Howard Baker in 1967. I remember him for his courtesy, his decency, and for his independence. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, later today the Senate will consider the nomination by the President of Judge Bernice Donald for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Donald is from Memphis, TN. I know her well. I am here today to introduce her to my colleagues and to encourage them to support her confirmation. Judge Donald has been before the Senate before. She has been a Federal district judge since 1995. Our Judiciary Committee in the Senate has looked over her qualifications again and has recommended her to us without dissent. The American Bar Association has reviewed her credentials and said she is either qualified or well qualified. I think there is not much doubt about her fitness to serve on the court of appeals, so in my remarks I would like to talk more about Judge Donald's role in the community and her role as a pioneer in our country during her lifetime. She is the sixth of 10 children. Her parents were a domestic worker and a self-taught mechanic in DeSoto County, MS, which is just south of Memphis. As a young person, she was among the first African Americans to integrate in her high school during the period of desegregation. She obtained a bachelor's degree from the University of Memphis and graduated from its law school. She focused her career at the beginning working among the most vulnerable citizens in Memphis in the Office of Legal Defender. Here is where the pioneer story continues, not just in desegregating her high school or working with vulnerable citizens, but only 3 years after she left law school, she began a judicial career that has spanned nearly three decades. She became the first African-American female judge in the history of our State in 1982. Six years later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon which she has been nominated to serve by the President, appointed her to serve as U.S. bankruptcy judge for the Western District of Tennessee. Again she made history--an African- American female judge had been appointed as a bankruptcy judge in the United States. Then, in 1995, as I mentioned earlier, President Clinton nominated her to be a Federal district judge. On December 22 of that year the Senate confirmed her by unanimous voice vote, and she became the first African-American female district court judge in the history of Tennessee. She served in that capacity for 15 years. She has flourished in her career, not just on the court but in her profession. She has just concluded a 3-year term as Secretary of the American Bar Association, and she has previously served on its Committee on Governance and on its Board of Governors. She has been equally active in the local and Tennessee bar associations. She gives a good deal of her time to community organizations: the Memphis Literacy Council, the University of Memphis alumni board, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Calvary Street Ministry, the YWCA, and others. It is coincidental, but I think it is fitting that Judge Bernice Donald, a pioneer in so many ways in our State's history, will be the first nomination for the Federal bench that this body will consider after the opening of the Martin Luther King Memorial in the Nation's Capital. Her life, which is full of education and service and achievement, is a testimonial to the success of Dr. King's movement and the kind of leadership he inspired. I commend her on all that she has accomplished both in her profession and in our State and in her community. I know Memphis is proud of her. I look forward to voting in favor of her confirmation this afternoon, and I hope my colleagues will do so as well. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, finally, Washington is taking some responsibility for spending money that we don't have. At a time when the Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, this is a welcome change in behavior. I gladly support it. Make no mistake, this is a change in behavior--from spend, spend, spend, to cut, cut, cut. Let me give you one example. On Christmas Eve 2010 Congress raised the debt ceiling and attached to it $1 trillion in new spending over 10 years in the new health care law. This time, for every dollar we are raising the debt ceiling, we are reducing spending by a dollar, not adding to it. This reduction in spending over 10 years is about $2.4 trillion. Here is another example: According to Senator Portman, who used to be the Nation's budget director, the CBO would say if Congress did this kind of dollar-for-dollar reduction for spending every time a President asked us to raise the debt ceiling, we would balance the budget in 10 years. Here is another: The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that because of these spending cuts, the discretionary part of the budget, which is about 39 percent of the entire Federal budget, will grow over the next 10 years at a little less than the rate of inflation. If we could control the rest of the budget so that it would grow to anything close to the rate of inflation, we would balance the budget in no time. Balancing the budget is exactly what our goal ought to be. I did it every year as Governor of Tennessee. Families in America do it every day. It is time to balance the government's books and live within our means. These spending reductions are an important step, but they are just one step, and no one should underestimate how difficult the next steps will be. These spending cuts do almost nothing to restructure Medicare and Social Security so that seniors can count on them and taxpayers can afford them. The President's budget projections still double and triple the Federal debt. Under the President's budget, according to the CBO, in 10 years we will be spending more in interest on the debt than we now spend on national defense. In January 2013, the very first thing the next President will have to do is to ask the Congress to increase the debt ceiling. This problem wasn't created overnight, and it will not be solved overnight. If I were sitting at Union Station trying to catch a train to New York and someone offered me a ticket to Philadelphia or Baltimore, I would take it, and I would find a way to get to New York from there. Today's vote is an opportunity to take an important step in the right direction, toward stopping Washington from spending money it doesn't have. We should take it and then get ready to find ways to take the next steps. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes under the time allocated to the Republican side.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. As one Senator, I thank the majority leader and the Republican leader for their comments. We all know what we need to do. We have two objectives. At a time when we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we need to reduce the debt. We also need to honor our obligations, and we know why. There is nobody on the Republican side of the aisle I know of who thinks we should not honor our obligations. We know that on August 3 there will not be enough money to pay all the bills. We don't want the most creditworthy Nation in the world to go to a place where it begins to pay its bills selectively out of a cigar box, which is why I am hopeful--and I believe all of us are hopeful--that we can find a way for the two leaders to recommend to us and the House a solution that the President will sign, which will reduce our debt and honor our obligations. But to suggest that the majority leader's proposal--his bill--which he offers in good faith, I know that--is a compromise, that is a little hard to accept. It is a Democratic proposal. The other side has spent most of its time this week saying: We can get 53 of us to make sure that as soon as the Republican proposal passes the House, if it does, we will beat it in an hour. We will not even consider it. We will kill it. We are not going to vote on it. We will table it and put it away. That is not the spirit of compromise. The proposal the Speaker is trying to pass may be about the only thing he can pass in the House of Representatives. That may not be what a Democratic Senate would like, but this is a Democratic Senate and that is a Republican House. We have to come up with something that both can pass and the President will sign. We all know that. I hope the spirit of today, tomorrow, and Sunday is that we spend less time plotting about how we can defeat each other's proposals as quickly as possible and more time working together to come up with ways to reduce spending and honor our obligations. The Democratic whip is on the Senate floor. I have probably undermined his support in some groups for complimenting him for his courage. I support the same thing he does. For example, the work of the Gang of 6 is supported by one-third of the Senate, a very good example for the rest of us in the Senate about what can be accomplished when we work together. I hope we will recognize the Speaker is trying as hard as the majority leader to come up with something that can pass the House. The majority leader wants something that can pass the Senate, but it must pass both and be signed by the President. We must reduce our spending and we must honor our obligations, and every single Republican Senator as well as every Democrat knows that, I think. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Texas for her remarks, for her leadership, for her willingness to be involved in and support a variety of ways for us to meet the two goals we have before us, one of which is to make a significant step to reduce our Federal debt, to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have; second, to do so in a way that honors the financial obligations of the United States of America, the most creditworthy country in the world. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which has passed the House and has 37 cosponsors in the Senate--I am proud to be one of them--I think is a superior piece of legislation. I hope when we vote on it, it gets a majority of votes in the Senate and becomes law. Before I speak about the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, I would like to speak for a moment about those two goals that are before us as we consider our debt, consider our financial obligations, and consider all of them up against what is said to be a point on August 2 where the debt ceiling needs to be increased. As I think about those two goals, reducing our debt, honoring our obligations, I think about a friend of mine in Tennessee who pays his bills out of a cigar box. This is how it works: A bill comes in to my friend and he puts the bill in a cigar box. Then another bill comes in and he puts that bill in a cigar box. Then the next week maybe some money will come in. So my friend will reach down to his cigar box and he will pull a bill out and he will pay that bill. Then, when a little more money comes in the next week, he will reach down and pull out another bill and pay that bill. My friend pays his bills out of a cigar box. Now what happens to my friend if he wants to go down to the local bank and says: I would like to borrow some money in order to pay all the bills I have in my cigar box. I think what the banker is going to say is: I am sorry, my friend, but we are reluctant to loan money to you or, if we do, we are going to charge you more for it because we don't know whom you are going to pay. You might reach into your cigar box and pay the whiskey store instead of the bank. You might pay the grocery store instead of the principal on your loan. You might pay the service station before you pay us. So because you selectively pay your bills out of your cigar box, you are not a good risk. We are going to charge you more to borrow money or we are not going to loan you money at all. That is the risk we take if we play around with this idea of the United States of America--the most creditworthy country in the world--selectively paying its bills, going from being the most creditworthy country to being a country that pays its bills out of a cigar box. There are three obvious reasons why we should not do that. Reason No. 1 is, it is going to cost us more. Today, the United States of America can borrow money for 10 years at about 3 percent. We are so creditworthy--people trust us so much to pay our obligations--that they will give us money for a short period of time at no interest. It is a tremendous advantage to us. The United States has the most risk-free credit in the world, and I might add the most risk-free credit in an increasingly turbulent world. What if we decided after August 2, when we are told sometime in that month we will begin to not have enough money to pay all our bills, what if we decided not to raise our debt ceiling and that we would pay our bills out of a cigar box? We might say: OK. We don't have enough money, so we will pay China before we pay grandma her Social Security. Oh, better not do that. In fact, I saw a fellow in Portland, TN, on Monday and he said: What is this about my Social Security not being paid? I said: I think it will be paid. It might be two or three days, but the telephone calls would come in and Congress will fix it and it will get paid. He said: It better not be 5 minutes. So we might want to pay all of our Social Security benefits, but the President might say or the Secretary of Treasury might say: Well, we will pay grandma her Social Security, but we won't pay the wife of the soldier at Fort Campbell who is in Afghanistan on his third tour. That is not such a good idea. So maybe we won't pay the veteran's benefit. We will pay the wife. That doesn't sound so good, either. What about those 12 million, 15 million students who are headed off to college in the next few weeks with a student grant or a student loan from the government? Should we pay just those going to public colleges and let the private colleges take care of their own--just the for- profits, not the nonprofits? We see what could happen if we have a country that--especially a country such as the United States--instead of paying all of its obligations on time, whether it is to China or Japan or to grandma or to the veteran, begins to selectively pay those bills when we have the money. I think I know what would happen. Instead of being able to borrow money for 10 years at 3 percent, we might have to pay a little more for it. Let's say it just went from 3 percent to 4 percent. What would that mean to us? It would mean, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the taxpayers would have to pay $1.3 trillion more in interest over 10 years. So if it goes up 2 percentage points to 5 percent, it is twice that. That is what happens when we pay our bills out of the cigar box. It is not just the taxpayers. My son said to me the other day: Dad, my mortgage loan resets in October. If you all don't work this out, it means my interest rate might go up. Let's say he has a $100,000 house loan, and it goes up 1 percent. That gets to be some money for him. So if it is a credit card loan, if it is a home loan--whatever loan it is, it would begin to go up. Paying our bills out of a cigar box would raise our costs. There is a second obvious reason not to do this. In 2008, we were smacked in the face with a world economic crisis. We didn't expect it. Most of us didn't cause it, but we had to deal with it. Here in the Congress, we had to do some very unpopular things: We had to bail out banks, even some industries. The American people hated that, even though most of the money has been paid back. We don't know what we averted--probably a much worse problem--but we are still suffering from what happened in 2008. But we didn't do that deliberately. In this case, if we were to deliberately go from being the most creditworthy country in the world to a country that paid its bills out of a cigar box, we would be deliberately injecting uncertainty into a turbulent world. Look at Europe, with the eurozone trembling over the debt in Portugal and the debt in Greece, with sovereign nations perhaps having to bail out European banks. Look at Japan, the third largest economy, in a 10-year recession, with a third of its powerplants closed after the tsunami, sweating through the summer, with an inability to sell their goods. Look at China. China is a big success story, but it may be growing too fast. Its inflation is up, and it has a lot of unreported debt at the provincial level. Look at our markets. We make trades in milliseconds, and twice in the last year we had sudden drops in the market which we couldn't explain for months. Do we really want to inject this level of uncertainty into the turbulence we have today and into the financial markets when we know we could avoid it? I think not. Then there is a third reason, and this is a purely partisan reason. Maybe it is not even appropriate to talk about it on the Senate floor, but let's talk about it for a moment anyway. The President has done a pretty good job of blaming his predecessors for problems, but lately people have said: Mr. President, we don't blame you for the problems you inherited, but we do hold you responsible for the decisions you have made to make it worse. You have made it worse with the health care mandates and higher individual health care policies. You have made it worse with the financial regulations bill. You have made it worse by not sending over the trade bills. You have made it worse with the high cost of energy. You have made it worse with your National Labor Relations Board appointments and undermining right-to-work laws. You have made it worse by doubling and tripling the debt. People are listening to that. They agree with that. But what would happen if the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or any group of people have the primary responsibility for turning this country from a country that is the most creditworthy country in the world into one that pays its bills out of a cigar box? The President will say--instead of us saying, Mr. President, you made it worse, he will say, you made it worse. There is every reason in the world to regard the debt ceiling decision we have to make as an opportunity to take a significant step to reduce the debt. We can do that while still honoring our financial obligations, and we should. And today we are talking about one of those ways to do it. Republicans have offered--with Democratic cosponsorship in a number of cases--at least five major ideas for taking a significant step toward stopping Washington from spending money it doesn't have. There are five ways to do that: There has been the Corker proposal, which is bipartisan and over 10 years would bring our spending, which is the real problem, from its present level--about 25 percent of our total output in the country--to about 20 percent, which is the historical level. There is the balanced budget amendment, which is the most obvious solution for a nation that is spending more than it takes in. Families do it, States do it--balance their budgets, live within their means-- and the Federal Government can do it. Over time, we can get back to the point where we were not many years ago, where we spend about the same amount of money we take in. As Governor, I know that for 8 years we did that. As a result, we have almost no debt in the State of Tennessee, and as a result of that, we can use our gas tax money, for example, to pay for roads instead of interest on the debt. Then there is a third idea that has bipartisan support; that is, the Gang of 6, which came out this week. The President said it was a gang of seven. He thought I was in it. I would have to say with respect, Mr. President, I am a law-abiding citizen. I am not a member of any gangs. But I support what they do because I think it is a serious, bipartisan effort to help stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Then there is another proposal which has bipartisan support that Republicans as well as Democrats have initiated. Senator Isakson from Georgia has taken the lead on it. It is the 2-year budget proposal which would allow us time every other year to focus our efforts on eliminating rules and eliminating regulations instead of adding so many. So there are four ideas we have suggested--in some cases with bipartisan support--where we can take a significant step to reduce our debt while still honoring our financial obligations. Today, we are talking especially about cut, cap, and balance. The legislation that passed the House of Representatives with 234 votes this week has come to the Senate floor. We are going to be voting on it in the next day or two. It has 37 cosponsors, and I am one of them. I especially commend Senator Lee for his work on putting this bill together and doing it in a way that would attract the largest amount of support. This is a very reasonable proposal. The cut part is to say that for the first year, we would spend a little less than we did last year. Now, that is a reasonable proposal. The State of Tennessee, where I was once Governor--the current Governor is presiding over a State that is spending $1\1/2\ billion less than it spent last year. Now, they don't like to do that. There are some unfortunate consequences from it. But they still balanced their budget, they are still getting along, and they are hoping for the day when the economy recovers and they will have more revenues coming in without raising taxes. So step one is to cut what we are spending today in next year's budget. Then we cap, according to the economic output of the country over the next 10 years, the amount we spend over those 10 years. Then the third step is to balance the budget--the most obvious solution of all--over time, to say we are not going to spend more money than we have coming in. This is our proposal to begin to control spending in a government that borrows 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, a government the economists tell us is costing our Nation 1 million jobs because of the high level of debt. This is an urgent problem. It urgently needs a solution. In conclusion, almost all of us here in the Senate are good at making speeches. That is one way we get here. But we have not become as good at the rest of our job, which is to get a result. The American people expect us to do that. They have to do that in their everyday lives. So they respect our principles, they respect our speeches, but they know our principles sometimes conflict, and in the end, we have to have a result. We have to have a result here. We have to find a way, first, to significantly reduce the debt and, second, to do it in a way that honors the financial obligations of the United States. I have suggested five ways we can do that, including cut, cap, and balance. In order to do that, it means each of us is probably going to have to accept as a part of the solution an idea that is not our first choice. But why should we be exempt from that requirement? That is what we have to do in a marriage. That is what we have to do in a family. That is what we have to do in a business. That is what we had to do in creating the Constitution years ago. This Senate wouldn't exist if it weren't because of a grand compromise. Otherwise, how could we justify two Senators from Wyoming and the same number of Senators from California, which is so much larger? To get a result, after we make our speeches, we need to be willing to accept some ideas that are not our first choice. That is why I am a cosponsor of several different kinds of ideas--cut, cap, and balance, the Corker proposal, the Gang of 6 proposal. That is why I support the Isakson-Shaheen effort on the 2-year budget. That is the kind of attitude we need in the next couple of weeks. Cut, cap, and balance is a good way to meet our two urgent goals: take a significant step to reduce our debt and do it in a way that honors our financial obligations. We are perfectly capable as a country of fiscally disciplining ourselves. We are capable of reducing our debt and of stopping spending money we don't have and, at the same time, avoiding turning the most creditworthy Nation in the world into a country that pays its bills out of a cigar box. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank Governor Johanns. It is terrific to be on the Senate floor with other former Governors. When we were doing the health care bill last year, I said everyone who voted for it ought to be sentenced to serve as Governor for 8 years and actually try to implement it. But let me try to answer the question briefly so we can hear from the other Governors. I became Governor 30 years ago, in the early 1980s. Inflation was 20 percent. It is hard to imagine, in the early days of the Reagan administration, they had driven up interest rates to 12 percent to try to bring inflation down. We had terrible times. Of course, we still had to balance our budget. We had to live within our means. We had to have the amount of money coming in equal to the amount coming out. Let me tell one story of the difference that has made in our State and how it could make a difference in the Federal Government. The other day, in the Environmental and Public Works Committee, the Tennessee chief highway engineer was testifying. He was there when I was Governor. He is still there. One of the Senators, the chairman, suggested perhaps some flexible Federal financing would be a good thing for Tennessee; in other words, loaning some money to the State of Tennessee to build roads. The State engineer said: Madam Chairman, with all respect, we don't want to borrow any Federal money. The State of Tennessee has zero road debt. That about brought the hearing to a halt because several Senators had not ever heard of such a thing. He said: Yes, that is correct. We have zero road debt. We use all of our gas tax money to build roads, none of it to pay interest. That means, I say to the Senator from Nebraska, when we have a tough time like we did when I became Governor, as when he was Governor, as we do in the country today, if our interest rates are low or we pay no interest, we can use that money to get through tough times. A lot of the businesses and the families today who have less debt are making their way through these tough times more easily. On the other hand, the Federal Government, according to the President's budget, by the year 2020, would be spending more money on interest on the Federal debt than it would on our national defense. Interest on the Federal debt would be $931 billion by 2021. What if that money could be put back in our pockets through tax cuts or used to help send kids to college or build roads in the State or energy research to lower the cost of gasoline? One way, I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, that balancing the budget helps create jobs is if we keep our interest payments down, we keep our taxes down, we can spend our money wisely on things that count.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Illinois said and I congratulate him not necessarily for the specifics of what he said but for his general demeanor and attitude throughout this entire discussion about the deficit and the debt. He has been one of those Senators--there have been some on both sides of the aisle--who have made some difficult choices and some difficult decisions and recognizes that at a time when Washington is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we have a serious problem and we have to look at our entire fiscal condition in order to solve the problem. The people of this country expect us to do that. So Senator Durbin has, by his willingness to make some hard decisions, set a pretty good example for all of us in the Senate. Today, my hope is the meeting the President has with our congressional leaders of both sides succeeds, because if they succeed, our country succeeds. The country expects us to do that. I hope they think big. I hope they swing for the fences and get a result and bring it back to us and let us consider it and hopefully enact it and get on to other business. The debt is a major long-term problem, not just for our grandchildren but for us today. We have a bigger issue facing us which is the fact that we have had persistent unemployment in an economy that is not growing, and that is hurting too many people. So the sooner we swing for the fences and get a result and get our debt under control and deal with it in a bipartisan way, the better for the country and the quicker we will be able to get on to the larger question of jobs. Of course, economists have made clear to us getting the debt under control has a lot to do with jobs. When our total debt is as high as it is today--nearly 100 percent of our gross domestic product--that probably costs us 1 million jobs a year. We can't solve all of that in 1 day or 1 month, but we can take a big step in the right direction, and that is what our countrymen and women want us to do. I am glad I was able to be here to hear part of the Senator's speech and I am glad I have a chance to commend him for his leadership on this vexing and important problem we need to deal with. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank Senator Schumer for his leadership, as well as Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman. I will make my full remarks following the vote, but I do want to say this bill helps the Senate do its job under the Constitution. Article 2, section 2 tells us to designate those persons where we do not give advice and consent. We are reducing that total by 169, we are expediting about 272 more, and we are removing about 2,600 from the officer corps. This is a good example of bipartisan work here, and I want to thank my colleagues for improving the bill, amending it, and pointing out things to us that needed to be changed. One of those individuals has been Senator DeMint, and I yield the remainder of our time before the vote to Senator DeMint to speak on his amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma on his remarks and participation in this debate. Before long, we should have--whenever the majority leader decides--a vote on the Coburn amendment. We are in a position on this resolution that relevant amendments are in order. At the moment, we don't have any others. If we don't have others, then we will proceed to the final bill later this afternoon when the majority leader decides we should do that. We passed the bill this morning with 79 votes. I will have more to say about this resolution in a moment. I wish to say something that is directly relevant to what the Senator from Oklahoma talked about. We keep talking about duplication, which is an important part of our oversight responsibilities. Sometimes that leads to the elimination of government bureaucracies, which is a rare event. Ronald Reagan once said a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see on this Earth. I had an example of that this morning, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, in a Rules Committee hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to review the qualifications of three excellent men and women who were nominated by the President to serve on the Election Assistance Commission. But what I said at the hearing and what I would like to say on the floor--with all due respect to those excellent nominees--instead of considering the nominees, we should be abolishing the Commission because it doesn't have anything to do. It has finished its work and it ought to be abolished. The Election Assistance Commission was commissioned in 2003. Since then, the Rules Committee didn't have one single oversight hearing on the Commission. My predecessor asked for an oversight hearing, but we didn't have one. I asked for one earlier this spring, and we didn't have one. At a time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every $1 that Washington spends, we should not have been there this morning considering new appointments to a commission that is out of work. We should have been there considering recommending to this body that the Commission cease to exist. This is why. It was created by the Help America Vote Act in 2002. It was authorized for 3 years and given certain tasks. The primary task was to distribute Federal payments to the States to help them upgrade their voting systems. We appropriated $3.2 billion for these payments. That has been distributed. Given our current financial situation, it is very unlikely that any more Federal payments will be forthcoming. We don't have any more money for that purpose. President Obama seems to agree with this, since in his last two budgets he has requested no funds for this purpose. The Commission was also directed to develop voluntary voting system guidelines and a testing and certification program for voting machines. The actual work involved in this process is performed by another agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which develops the guidelines, and the independent laboratories that conduct that testing. So in the spirit of Senator Coburn's comments, we don't need two agencies assigned the same responsibility. Finally, the Commission was to act as a clearinghouse to collect and distribute information on best practices in election administration. Yet the intended beneficiaries of this service don't seem to have much use for it. The National Association of Secretaries of State--every State has one--a bipartisan organization made up of our country's chief State elections officials, has twice voted in favor of a resolution calling for abolition of this agency, the Election Assistance Commission. So here we have a classic example of: I am the government. I am here to give you help you don't want. As a former State official myself--I was Governor of Tennessee--I have a little bit of a bias. I don't see the need for a Federal clearinghouse of best practices for secretaries of state. I don't know why the secretaries of state themselves can't do that. When I was a Governor, I didn't need a Federal agency telling me the best practices of the Governor of Oklahoma so I could use them in Tennessee. We had regular Governors' conferences, and we got to know each other pretty well. If Governor Graham of Florida had a good idea about education, I borrowed that. If I had a good idea on education, Governor Clinton borrowed that, and it worked pretty well. We didn't have to fly to Washington to have a clearinghouse. So the tasks of this Commission have either been completed or can be performed by more appropriate entities. This is in the spirit of Senator Coburn's amendment. The Commission did its job. We should thank the Commission and their staff for their service. But if the completion of their appointed task isn't enough of a reason to close it down, the Commission also appears to have a serious management problem or two. Though its mission has dwindled, its staff has grown. It has less to do but has more people doing it. The Commission had a staff of 20 in 2004. Last year, it had three times that many. It had 64 people--more staff needed for less work. I am sure there are some very good people there. There must be, because the average salary--according to Congressman Gregg Harper of the House of Representatives--for all the members of the Election Assistance Commission is over $100,000 a year. This year's budget submission from the Commission proposes spending $5.4 million to manage $3.4 million worth of programs. Does that make any sense, when the cost of overhead and staff salaries exceeds the programs they have to administer? Clearly, something is wrong. That is precisely the kind of small thing in the big picture we are dealing with that adds up and up and up and creates an environment in which we seem to be content in spending more and more and borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. Finally, the Commission has an unfortunate history of hiring discrimination. The Office of Special Counsel found they engaged in illegal discrimination when, during the search for a general counsel, an employment offer was made and then withdrawn when the Democratic Commissioners discovered the applicant was a Republican. This resulted in a substantial financial settlement being awarded to the applicant; thereby forcing taxpayers to bear the cost of the illegal acts of Commissioners. Amazingly, it has been reported that in a subsequent interview with another applicant for the same position, one of these Commissioners again tainted the hiring process by asking the applicant what the Department of Labor has termed ``inappropriate questions about his military service.'' Apparently, the Commissioner didn't want Republicans or members of the military working at the Commission. The Department of Labor has reportedly found the applicant's claim of discrimination to be meritorious and, if not resolved, this case may be referred to the Office of Special Counsel. I said this morning that the three men and women whom President Obama nominated seem to have exceptional backgrounds, and they are not to blame for any of these incidents. But what I also said was, since they seem to be exceptionally good nominees, maybe we should find a commission where there is something for them to do, instead of a commission that has finished its job and where we are just perpetuating it with employees who, on average, make $100,000 a year in salary, according to Congressman Harper. Even if we were to assume these nominees before us could right the ship and correct the problems, the question remains: Where would the ship sail, and why would they make the trip? Do we need the Commission, with its main job completed? Couldn't any remaining duties be better performed somewhere else? Can a government program ever be terminated? As I said at the beginning of these remarks, Ronald Reagan once said: A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see. Shouldn't we try to use this opportunity to prove that Ronald Reagan was, in that case, wrong? I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma for his work on duplication. This isn't the first time. This is one of the many times he has spoken and acted on the subject. I offer this example of the Election Assistance Commission as one small step we could take in the right direction by, in the appropriate way, canceling the Commission instead of confirming three new nominees to it. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.