Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am here today because I may have misunderstood the actions on the other side of the aisle. Something rather surprising has occurred. It would appear from their actions that my colleagues in the Democratic Party seem to believe that we ought to sing the national anthem, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and take the oath of citizenship in this country in something other than our common language, English.

Here is why I say that. On Monday, along with several other Senators, I introduced a very simple resolution, a resolution affirming that statements of national unity, especially the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, ought to be recited or sung in our common language, English. That is all it says.

Let me read the relevant part of the resolution. It says:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Senate affirms that statements or songs

that symbolize the unity of the Nation, including the

National Anthem, the Oath of Allegiance sworn by new United

States citizens, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of

the United States, should be recited or sung in English, the

common language of the United States.

This is not a resolution about what we are free to do in the United States; this is about what we ought to do in the United States. It is very straightforward. It does not infringe on anyone's right to free speech, or prohibit translation. It does not say Americans should not learn a second language. In fact, I encourage our children to learn a second language or even a third language to better compete in this global economy.

The resolution does say that we believe that we Americans ought to recite the pledge and sing ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' and other statements and songs that unite us as a Nation in the language that unites us as a Nation, English.

Last Monday, every Senate office received a request for the resolution to be passed by unanimous consent. I would not expect this resolution to just be bipartisan, I would expect it to easily be unanimous. That request was agreed to by every Republican, but on the other side someone objected.

Should I assume that the Democratic side objected because they believe we Americans should, at least some of the time, sing our national anthem in Spanish or some other foreign language? Do they believe we should recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Chinese, which is the second most spoken foreign language in the United States?

This is important. It is important enough that we inscribed in this Chamber, above the Presiding Officer, our original motto for this country: ``One from many.'' It is not ``Many from one.'' Our greatest accomplishment as a country is not our diversity, which is a magnificent achievement; our greatest accomplishment is we have taken all of this diversity and made it into one country. And we have a few things that unite us: our common history, the principles of our founding documents, and our common language. If we should lose that, we would be a United Nations, not the United States of America.

This is important because this is the emotion which underlies most of the immigration debate we are having. The concern among many Americans, other than the rule of law which has to do with securing the border, is to make sure that those who come to our country become Americans. And we do not do that by race, we do not do that by ethnicity, we do not do that by what country an immigrant comes from, we do it by a few simple uniting ideas: our founding documents, our common history, and our common language.

This has been true for a long time in our country. When a legal immigrant comes to the United States--and this has been the law for 100 years--and he or she applies to become a citizen, he

or she must, by law, demonstrate an eighth grade level of understanding of the English language.

It was 150 years ago we founded common schools. We call them public schools today. Albert Shanker, the former head of the American Federation of Teachers, said the reason for the common school was so we could teach mostly immigrant children to read and write in English, to do math, and what it means to become an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents.

We have always known it is important as Americans to have a common language because that is how we can communicate with one another. Immigrants to our country understand this. That is why they come here. They want to be part of our country that shares the values of liberty and equal opportunity. They want to contribute to our history of striving toward those values. They want to learn our common language, and usually do, as evidenced by long waiting lists for a number of English as a second language adult education courses across our country. That is why this Senate, just a few weeks ago, passed an amendment to the immigration bill by a vote of 91 to 1 to help legal immigrants learn English and to allow those who become fluent in English to become American citizens 1 year faster.

We value our common language. It isn't an argument that is hard to understand. In fact, when I first announced this resolution, the first supportive e-mail I received in my office came from Mr. Ramon L. Cisneros, the publisher of La Campana, a Spanish-language newspaper in Nashville with 18,000 subscribers.

He wrote:

. . . Thank you for this resolution. We are Hispanic

Americans and sometimes we write in Spanish for the benefit

of those newcomers who are in the process of learning

English. However, our common language as Americans is and

will always be English. And our national symbols should

always be said and sung in English.

I didn't ask Mr. Cisneros to write to me, but I am glad he did. He is proud of his Hispanic heritage. He performs an important service for Hispanics in the Nashville area, which is a growing part of our State, but he is also a proud, patriotic American. Our country is enriched by citizens like Mr. Cisneros.

I am puzzled by the reaction from some of my colleagues in the Democratic Party who seem to want to endorse the idea that we should sing the national anthem in some other language and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in some other language. We salute the American flag. We pledge allegiance to the United States, and we speak in our common language. That is how we unite ourselves.

Also, we might do a little bit better if we taught more U.S. history and civics in our public schools, which is another subject I have been working on with strong support on the Democratic side from Senator Kennedy, from Senator Reid, and especially from Senator Byrd.

I might note that in the House of Representatives, some Democrats have already chosen to cosponsor this same identical resolution. It has been offered by Congressman Ryun of Kansas. I have a hard time understanding why Democrats in the Senate are not supportive. Maybe I just made a mistake. Maybe I misunderstood what has happened. So let me try once again.

I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 458 be discharged from the Judiciary Committee; further, that the Senate proceed to its consideration. I further ask that the resolution and preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I think that makes my point. Apparently, I did not misunderstand. Apparently, the Democratic Party in the Senate does not agree that we should say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the national anthem, and take the oath of citizenship in our common language, English. That is a grave misunderstanding of our country's greatest accomplishment. Our diversity is a magnificent achievement, but our greater achievement is that we have taken all of this diversity and formed it into one country so that we are the United States of America. It is a central part of becoming American.

I am extremely disappointed by this objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the senate on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. to markup an original bill entitled ``Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho to be Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda is attached.

I. Nominations: Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Brett Kavanaugh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit; Milan D. Smith, Jr., to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Renee Marie Bumb, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Noel Lawrence Hillman, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Peter G. Sheridan, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Susan Davis Wigenton, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey.

II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, DeWine, Graham; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer; S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005, Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer.

III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Housing and Urbanization Issues in Africa.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a markup S.J. Res. 12, the Flag Desecration Resolution, on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 1 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent Practices in the Moving Industry.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism and Economic Development be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Promoting Economic Development Opportunities Through Nano Commercialization.

Five minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his courtesy. This will permit me to chair a hearing at 2:30 on time. I thank the chairman of the Energy Committee and the Senator from Louisiana.

May I ask the Chair to inform me when there is 30 seconds remaining of my 5 minutes.

Mr. President, across the country today, thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, are marching in a nationwide rally. Many are saying that they, too, want to become Americans.

But I am afraid the message is quite literally getting lost in translation. As part of these demonstrations, a new version of our national anthem, ``The Star-Spangled Banner,'' has been produced--in Spanish.

According to an article in the Washington Post on last Friday, at least 389 different versions of our anthem have been produced over the years in many musical styles, including rock and roll and country, but the Post also noted that never before has it been rendered in another language. This may be a first, but it is a big first step in the wrong direction. It is a mistake precisely because our Nation is a nation of immigrants.

Almost all of us are descended from immigrants from Britain or Germany or Italy or France or China or Mexico or some other country around the world. Our forefathers who came from these many different countries spoke

many different languages, but in coming here they agreed to speak one common language, one language to unify us as a nation, one language so we can all speak with one another. And that language is English. In fact, in order for a legal immigrant to become a citizen of the United States, one requirement is that he or she demonstrate at least an eighth grade level understanding of the English language.

A century and a half ago, we created common schools--the public schools--so that mostly immigrant children could learn English, learn how to write and read in English as well as to do math, and learn what it meant to be an American with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Only 2 weeks ago, this Senate encouraged the speaking of English by saying that it would knock a year off the waiting time to become a citizen if an applicant became proficient in English and authorizing $500 grants for people who are legally here who are seeking to become citizens. So for a long time, we have recognized that English is a part of who we are as Americans. It is a part of what unites us, just as we are united by our history and our shared values, such as liberty, equal opportunity, and the rule of law.

I worry that translating our national anthem will actually have the effect of dividing us. It adds to the celebration of multiculturalism in our society which has eroded our understanding of our American culture. Ours is a diverse nation, proudly diverse, but diversity is not our greatest accomplishment. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. What makes America unique is that we have taken all that magnificent diversity and turned it into one nation. Translating our anthem into multiple languages also erodes our sense of having a common language that allows us to speak with one another as one nation. Our national anthem is a symbol of all of those things which unite us. It is a product of our history.

``The Star-Spangled Banner'' was written by Francis Scott Key in 1814. Our Nation was then in the midst of the War of 1812. On September, 13, 1814, just a few weeks after the invasion of Washington, British forces began a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Through the day and all through the night, the rockets and bombs flew. And the next day, on September 14, standing aboard an American ship 8 miles out from Baltimore, Francis Scott Key looked and saw the stars and stripes were still waving over the fort, and the British were forced to withdraw. Our flag was still there.

I went to see that very same flag a few months ago at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. The museum is in the process of carefully preserving it so that our grandchildren's grandchildren will be able to see the original flag that inspired our national anthem. That flag and song are part of our history and our national identity.

It declares some of our national ideals, in being ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.''

That is why we should always sing it in our common language: English. And that is why today I will introduce, along with Senator Frist, Senator McConnell, and Senators Stevens and Isakson and Roberts, and I hope others, a resolution that affirms that statements of national unity, especially the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, ought to be recited in English. We wouldn't recite the pledge in French or German or Russian or Hindi or even Chinese, which, after Spanish, is the second most spoken foreign language in the United States, and we shouldn't sing the national anthem in Spanish or any other foreign language.

So in conclusion, in this land of immigrants, let's sing it together as one American Nation in our common language: English.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate passed a resolution to designate the week of May 1 through May 6, 2006 as National Charter Schools Week. I was joined in offering this resolution by Senators Lieberman, Gregg, Frist, Carper, Vitter, Landrieu, Burr, Coleman, Allard, DeMint, and Martinez.

One of my last official acts as U.S. Secretary of Education in 1992 was to write a letter to every school superintendent in America urging them to create charter schools. That year, the Nation's first charter school had opened its doors in St. Paul, Minnesota. I saw charter schools as ways to remove burdensome rules, regulations, and overhead so that teachers could have more opportunities to use their good judgment to help children and so parents could have more choices of schools. This was the time when General Motors' newest automobile plant was a start-from-scratch facility making Saturn cars. Al Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, said then, ``If we can have a Saturn plant, why not a Saturn school?'' A lot of educators agreed.

Today, there are over 3,600 charter schools serving more than 1 million students in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Over half of these schools report having waiting lists, and there are enough students on these waiting lists to fill another 1,100 average-sized charter schools.

Charter schools play a unique role in public education by offering students a variety of options to meet their different learning needs and styles. They

vary in specific mission and focus, but not in their commitment to excellence and preparing students to succeed. In return for autonomy and freedom from burdensome regulations and policies, they accept strict accountability for academic and fiscal success. If charter schools fail to educate their students well and meet the goals of their charters, they are closed.

Charter schools are raising student achievement. Research shows that charter school students are more likely to be proficient in reading and math than students in neighboring traditional schools, and that the greatest achievement gains can be seen among African American, Hispanic, and low-income students. Research also shows that the longer charter schools have been in operation, the more they outdistance traditional schools in student performance.

It is worth noting that not all charter schools are high-quality, and not all are outperforming traditional public schools. But charter schools whose students don't perform academically will close--as they should. It is also worth noting the impact charter schools are having on their neighboring traditional public schools. Districts with a large number of charter schools have reported that they are increasing interaction with parents and creating new education programs, many of which are similar to those offered by charter schools. These improvements benefit all our students, not just those who choose charter schools.

I am pleased that twelve charter schools have opened in Tennessee since passage of the State's charter school law in 2002. Ten of these charter schools are located in Memphis, where they enjoy critical support from local school officials, dedicated private partners, and philanthropic organizations.

Options for Memphis students range from programs for elementary students that stress mastery of reading, math, and foreign language skills to middle schools focused on health sciences and business. High school options include charter schools that emphasize science, liberal arts, or visual and performing arts.

I had an opportunity to visit one of these outstanding charter schools, the Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering (MASE), which was the first charter school established in Tennessee. MASE provides an academically challenging program to prepare at-risk students for college through an intensive math, science, engineering, and technology curriculum in grades 7-9, including the first ninth grade AP Biology class in the state. The school was established as an innovative public/ private initiative aimed not only at training a well-educated workforce for the city's rapidly growing bioscience industry, but also helping students excel in a technology-based environment, regardless of the career path they choose.

I am impressed by the school's clear record of achievement results. By the end of eighth grade, MASE students--who were failing or at risk of failing in their previous schools--more than doubled their pass rates on State reading, math and science tests compared to their achievement in sixth grade prior to entering MASE. Last year, MASE was the second highest performing school--public or charter--in Memphis, and a University of Memphis study found that MASE seventh graders scored better on the state math assessment than similar students in public schools.

Unfortunately, Tennessee's highly restrictive charter school law does not create the conditions that would enable more students to benefit from attending schools like MASE. The law received a grade of C in a recent Center for Education Reform study, which found that higher student achievement and higher-quality, more viable charter schools are found in States with stronger charter school laws.

Strong laws grant the power to approve charter schools to more than one entity, including local school boards, State education agencies, colleges and universities, and non-profit organizations. Strong laws also grant greater freedom and independence to charter schools, guarantee full per-pupil funding, and do not restrict the number of schools that may open or students who may enroll.

States should take the opportunity during National Charter Schools Week to examine their statutes and ensure that they create the conditions necessary to allow high-quality charter schools, and thereby options for students, to flourish.

Charter schools are also a key element of the education revival taking place in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina dealt a devastating blow to a school system already plagued by low achievement and corruption. The city has a truly historic opportunity to transform its education system into a network of high-performing charter schools that could serve as a model for urban education in the rest of the Nation.

So far, 25 of 117 public schools have reopened in New Orleans. 70 percent of these schools are charter schools managed by the Recovery School District, the Orleans Parish School Board, or the State Board of Education.

New Orleans officials are working diligently to open more schools to serve students as they return to the city. They have been assisted by a $21 million Federal Charter Schools Program grant, which helped reopen charter schools damaged by the hurricanes, create new charter schools, and expand existing charter schools to accommodate displaced students. I am encouraged that Louisiana continues to receive applications to open charter schools in New Orleans, but more work needs to be done to ready facilities for approved schools to accommodate the substantial student enrollment projected for this fall.

Charter schools in other parts of the country also leapt into action to serve students impacted by Katrina. After the hurricane, the high- performing Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), in partnership with the Houston Independent School District and Teach For America, exhibited extraordinary leadership by quickly opening a new charter school in Houston--New Orleans West College Prep--to serve over 300 students in grades K-8 displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

According to KIPP co-founder Mike Feinberg, ``When there's a problem, we at KIPP roll up our sleeves and look for a solution. Together with the [Houston Independent] District and Teach For America, we hope to provide students not only with a safe haven, but also with a rigorous academic environment. Even if they are not at home, these students will receive a top-notch education with caring, committed teachers.'' Mr. Feinberg's comments exemplify the attitude that motivates so many in the charter school community--that of doing whatever it takes to get the job done.

I expect that we will see charter schools continue to expand across the Nation as word of their success spreads. Four years ago, the President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which contains several programs that support charter school development, and provides school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools into charter schools. As we prepare to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, we'll take a close look at how these programs are performing to ensure that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to help create and sustain viable, high-achieving charter schools.

I commend the charter school students, parents, teachers, community leaders and others who, working together, are helping transform our system of public education. I encourage my colleagues to visit a charter school during National Charter Schools Week to witness firsthand the ways in which these innovative schools are making a difference in students' lives and in their communities.

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

Mr. President, I understand the remaining time on the Democratic side is not needed and may be yielded back.

Mr. President, I yield to myself 15 minutes.

Mr. President, there will be a rare opportunity about noon on the Senate floor. There will be a chance for the American people to have for themselves a handy list of big spenders, something they can put on their blogs, something they can put in their newsletters, something they can speak about at the dinner table, something they can read to friends. There is always a lot of talk around here about who is responsible for the fact that the Federal Government is spending more money than it ought to. We are about to see a good example of who is responsible for that, if things go true to form, because we will have two amendments before us at noon. One is by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and one by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Reid. Both of them are border security amendments.

There will not be very many votes in this body, I suspect, against border security. I want to speak about border security because the Gregg amendment takes very important steps to maintain our current level of security on the border, which is a minimum level of security. I am proud to cosponsor that. And the Gregg amendment pays for it by taking money from other parts of the President's budget. That is the Gregg amendment.

The Reid amendment, as I understand it, which we will be voting on side by side, does identically the same thing on border security the Gregg amendment does, except it pretends that money comes out of thin air, that it grows on trees, that it comes from nowhere. It is the thing we see time and time again around here, whereby someone comes up with an essential, good idea but with no way to pay for it. So we print the money, make it up, and the runaway spending goes on and on.

I wish to talk this morning a little bit about those two issues-- first, border security, the subject of the Gregg amendment and why I believe it is essential that we adopt it as part of the supplemental appropriations bill that is before us. I also want to talk about the difference between how it is paid for so the American people can get ready to make their handy list of big spenders because those who vote for the Reid amendment will be on a handy list of big spenders because that amendment is not paid for.

Let me start with the Gregg amendment and the condition of border security. Americans are angry about border security, or the lack of it. They have a right to be angry about border security, or the lack of it. That is not the responsibility of the Governor of the State of Arizona or the Governor of Texas or the Governor of California. It is a Federal responsibility. Immigration is our job. Border security is our job. It is a Washington job and it is a job that has been neglected for a long period of time.

At least to the credit of the majority leader, he has forced this Senate to deal with this issue and we are in the middle of it and we ought not rest nor go home again until we deal with the issue of border security. There are a lot of other issues that do not have to deal with immigration. How many temporary students do we want here in the United States? We have 572,000 of them today. They are an important part of our country, contributing to our standard of living. When they go home, they usually spread our values and our good will better than any foreign aid ever has. We have about half a million people who are here each year and we give them new temporary worker status. It is important to have them here as well, because in a vibrant, growing economy, we need more workers. We have an important debate to have about what to do about the 10 to 12 million people

who are illegally here, and what I think is the most important part of the whole immigration debate and that is how do we make sure those who are not citizens of this country are, for the most part, becoming Americans so we do not leave this country a large enclave of people whose allegiance is to some other country.

We are a big country, 300 million people. We have about 30 million people, or 10 percent of us today, who are noncitizens--about two- thirds legally here and one-third of those illegally here. But we need to make sure that for the most part, people who are here who are not citizens are learning English, are learning the saga of American history, are learning about our founding documents and are willing to take the oath which foreswears allegiance to where they came from and adopts allegiance to this country.

There are many important debates about immigration, but there is nothing more important than border security. Border security is the first issue before us because it is based upon the bedrock principle of the American character which is the rule of law. Most families who have come to this country are immigrant families. Almost all of us descend from those. Most of those families, in addition to wanting to make a dollar, wanting to improve their lives, wanting to gain freedom, wanted to come to a country where there is the rule of law. They did not want to live in some other country where some potentate could snatch you out of your bed in the middle of the night and, based on the whim of that ruler, decide your fate. Or where a contract that you made would be decided by some person, not by the rule of law, and where some people are higher than the law and some people lower than the rule of law. They wanted to come to this country, the United States, which honors the rule of law and upholds the rule of law.

Yes, people came here because they wanted freedom. They wanted to be able to drive across State lines, but they expected to have to stop at stop signs. They wanted to come to a country where they were free to make contracts with whomever they wanted, but they expected the contracts would be enforced. They wanted to come to a country where they have second amendment rights to own a gun, but they expected they wouldn't be allowed to shoot people with that gun.

This has been a country with the rule of law, and we have been ignoring that for the last number of years by looking aside while millions and millions of people stream back and forth across our borders illegally while millions of other people patiently wait in line, attesting to their good character, learning at least eighth grade English, passing a test on American history, waiting for 5 years, and preparing themselves to take an oath where they foreswear their allegiance from where they came and pledge allegiance to the United States.

Those people are bypassed by these people running back and forth across the border. It is unfair to them. Principally, it is an offense to the principle of the rule of law. There may not be anyone in this Chamber who does not agree with the principle of the rule of law and that we ought to secure and control our borders. If we believe that, we ought to do it.

I am growing increasingly to think that Senator Isakson is right as he suggests that the first thing we ought to do in this immigration debate is secure our borders, perhaps allow the President to certify they are secured, and then begin to deal with temporary workers and other issues that come up.

In any event, we want to secure or borders. That is why the Gregg amendment is so important. Senator Gregg has proposed we provide $1.9 billion in emergency funding as a critical investment in border security in this supplemental appropriations bill which is now before the Senate. This is an integral component of the war on terror.

Key critical capital improvements that are part of this bill include: No. 1, stemming the tide of illegal aliens entering the country; No. 2, ensuring that terrorists and weapons of mass destruction are not capable of slipping through our arguably porous borders; No. 3, decreasing the illegal drug flow.

The subject matter of the debate, the bill before the Senate, is an emergency appropriation for the war on terror. This is an integral part of the war on terror except that the border is on our southwest border and not somewhere in the Middle East. It is at home. It is part of what we ought to be talking about.

Here are a few examples of exactly what the Gregg amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor along with others, would do. These are improvements necessary to secure our borders. For example, we have an outdated fleet of aircraft. The P-3 fleet which serves as our border security's primary air surveillance is over 40 years old, 20 years beyond the average life of this type of plane. Last month, the entire fleet was grounded due to safety issues uncovered during a routine inspection. The entire fleet needs to be overhauled to extend its service life.

Example No. 2, outdated vehicles. Nearly 1,700 vehicles are virtually unusable due to the wear and tear of the desert, extreme environments and hard use, forcing border patrol agents and investigators to use vehicles with a high breakdown rate.

Example No. 3, lack of sufficient patrol boats. There are not enough patrol boats today, resulting in fewer patrol boat hours now than we had in 1998, about half the number of hours needed to meet the mission requirement.

Next example, lack of sufficient patrol aircraft. We currently detect 3 out of every 10 boats carrying smugglers. Of the boats detected by a patrol aircraft, we stop 75 percent of them. More aircraft are needed to act on intelligence regarding human and drug smuggling activities.

Next, unmanned aerial vehicles. We have only one unmanned aerial vehicle operating along our southwest border. In 7 months it has assisted in the apprehension of over 1,000 aliens. Yesterday morning it crashed while surveying the Arizona border. The department has only begun to grapple with how to replace this surveillance capacity until the next unmanned aerial vehicle is delivered in August. The department indicates that up to 18 are needed.

Armed helicopters is another example. So the $2 billion increase in border dollars will replace--or repair, when that is sufficient-- outdated vehicles, aircraft, helicopters, and boats. The money will also be used to improve law enforcement communications.

The point I am seeking to make is that these essential capital improvements on border security, the $1.9 billion this year, which is in addition to the amount of money that Senator Gregg and this Congress added to the budget in the last two budgets, will make capital improvements necessary to merely maintain our current capacity to enforce our borders. There is no need to pass any kind of immigration bill unless we have both the authority and the money to secure the borders. We should want to send a clear signal to the American people that before we establish a system of temporary workers and confirm our system of student visas and put into place other applications to help people legally here become American citizens, we should make sure we are doing our job of ensuring that border is secure.

Let me talk about the money. There are a great many urgent ideas expressed in the Senate. That is what we are for: Let ideas percolate, ideas that need resolution, debate them and solve them. It is a wonderful system. The more I travel and see the rest of the world, as I have over my lifetime, the more I admire the system we have, messy as it often is.

The No. 1 issue that might light up the switchboards would be border security. I judge No. 2 would be runaway Federal spending. That is why I say it is important for those paying attention to this debate to be ready to make a list of big spenders. For those who believe in voting for a good idea but then getting the money out of a tree or up off the ground or out of some imaginary printing press to pay for it, that is why we have a big Federal deficit. We vote for a big idea, and then we do not pay for it.

Senator Gregg pays for it. He does it by saying we will take the $1.9 billion from the 2.775 percent reduction in the $69 billion in funding provided for the Department of Defense in title I, chapter 3, and title II, excluding military construction money. Senators Cochran, Stevens, and Frist all believe that leaves the committees with sufficient flexibility to support our needs in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as our needs along the border.

The President has said he will veto a supplemental appropriations bill that just balloons to the sky, that goes over $92.2 billion. The letter came last night, and it does not say ``advisors predict'' or ``someone said.'' It says the President will veto anything over $92.2 billion. I intend to support the President if he does have to veto. I hope we will be fiscally responsible.

The Democratic amendment takes $106 billion and adds another $2 billion to it for this good idea, border security. The Gregg amendment says let's pay for it out of funds we have, keep it within the budget.

At noon today, we will have a chance, No. 1, to vote for border security. That is essential. Both amendments do the same thing. The second thing we have a chance to do is compile for the country a list of big spenders, those who believe in taking the money out of the air somewhere, printing it in a printing press. You can do a lot of talking, but if you do not offset the dollars, you are a big spender and you go on the list.

Perhaps one should be proud of being on such a list, but I would rather vote with Senator Gregg, which is why I am cosponsoring his amendment rather than the Democratic leader's amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not suppose there is a row of seats in the U.S. Senate that produces more passion and eloquence than the back row on the other side of the aisle. I enjoyed listening to the Senator from New York and the Senator from Massachusetts on this subject. I was especially struck by the Senator from New York, who spoke about budget deficits and talked about history and talked about an ocean of red ink and made a very impassioned speech. Then, when she got to the end of her speech, she volunteered to be on the list of big spenders that is going to be created at noon, which will be those who vote for the Reid amendment.

The Gregg amendment and the Reid amendment are identical. They are about border security. All the Reid amendment does is they took the Gregg amendment, which is a carefully structured approach to try to help maintain our border security on the southwest border, just at its present level, and they just struck out ``Gregg'' and they wrote in ``Reid'' and they did something else: they struck out the way to pay for it. So they are going to pay for it from thin air. They are going to pay for it with cotton candy.

There was talk about a brazen smokescreen. That is a brazen smokescreen. That goes on all the time here. I am on the Budget Committee. The Senator from New Hampshire is the chairman. We sat in the Budget Committee and voted down--I think it was 17 ``no'' votes--as the Democrats sought to add $128 billion over the next 5 years. Then the debate moved to the floor, and they tried to add $273 billion over the next 5 years.

So I guess it is all right to be fiscally irresponsible, but at least you ought to stand up and say: Yes, I am the one doing it. I am the one who has the good idea and then does not want to pay for it--which is exactly what the Reid amendment does.

The Senator from New York said: Oh, there must be other ways to pay for it. Why doesn't she suggest one? Why doesn't she cut something?

The Gregg amendment does not cut anything. This is a supplemental emergency appropriation for the war on terror. The war on terror is mostly in Iraq

and Afghanistan and in the Middle East, but it is also along our southwest border. I believe the Senator from New Hampshire believes that, and I believe most American people believe that. I believe it is appropriate to include that with the additional money that we are appropriating to support our men and women in uniform.

So the false choice--the false choice--is to stand up and say: We want to support border security, but we have no money to pay for it. That puts you on a list of big spenders. So as it stands today, the Gregg amendment is the responsible amendment. And the Senator, I am sure, will speak, as I have spoken earlier, on exactly what it does to help maintain our current infrastructure.

The Reid amendment is the identical amendment, except it is a smokescreen. There is no way to pay for it. So as to the list of those on the Reid amendment, those votes will be a handy list of big spenders, which can be taken to your blog, which can be taken to your dinner table. And when somebody says: Who is it in Washington who keeps coming up with these good ideas but then never pays for it with real dollars, and so as a result we have runaway spending, then you will have a list of people who do that.

This is not about the last 5 years. It is not about the next 5 years. It is about today's vote: the Gregg amendment, which is the border security paid for amendment; or the Reid amendment, which is the same amendment not paid for.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I wonder if, through the Chair, I might ask the Senator from New Hampshire a question. Typically, a piece of legislation that is paid for has a better chance of making it all the way through to the end than a piece of legislation that is not paid for; is that not correct?

There is some talk about a brazen smokescreen on the other side. I suggest the brazen smokescreen might be to first stand up and say we are going to have more border security but we are not going to pay for it, and then turn around 30 seconds later and claim to be the guardians of fiscal responsibility. You can't do that. That is a smokescreen.

Another way to have a brazen smokescreen might be to stand up and make an impassioned speech and say: Let's spend $2 billion for border security without paying for it, knowing full well that many amendments that are not paid for then get lost somewhere in the process and never are passed. And then the American will people say: What happened over there in the Senate? I saw them say they were for border security, but the money never came through.

The American people want us to maintain the border, pay for it, and do it. The Gregg amendment does it. The amendment offered by the distinguished Democratic leader does not.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 minutes of debate before the votes at noon be equally divided between the Democratic leader and the majority leader or their designees, with the final 5 minutes reserved for the majority.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 10 a.m., in SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the state of the biofuels industry.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Global Climate be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Marine and Terrestrial Systems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation's Subcommittee on Technology be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Fostering Innovation in Math and Science Education.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.-India Atomic Energy Cooperation.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following agenda:

Nominations: Richard Capka to be Administrator, Federal

Highway Administration, James Gulliford to be an Assistant

Administrator, EPA, William Wehrum to be an Assistant

Administrator, EPA.

Committee Rules: A proposal to amend Committee Rule 7(d) on

the naming of public buildings and facilities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Parity, Platforms and Protection: The Future of the Music Industry in the Digital Radio Revolution'' on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list is attached.

Panel 1: Anita Baker, Performing Artist, Toledo, OH; Todd Rundgren, Lead Singer, The New Cars, Darby, PA; Victoria Shaw, Songwriter, Nashville, TN; Edgar Bronfman, Chairman and CEO, Warner Music Group, New York, NY; Gary Parsons, Chairman of the Board, XM Satellite Radio, Washington, DC; Mr. Bruce T. Reese, CEO and President, Bonneville International Corp., Salt Lake City, UT; and N. Mark Lam, Chairman and CEO, Live365, Foster City, CA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Authorizations of Customs and Trade Functions''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing to address the reauthorization of Finance and Entrepreneurial Development programs administered by the Small Business Administration on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, beginning at 10:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a field hearing regarding ``Ensuring Early Diagnosis and Access to Treatment for HIV/AIDS: Can Federal Resources Be More Effectively Targeted?''

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

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

Mr. President, 14 years ago, when I was the U.S. Secretary of Education, I received an invitation to the annual Italian- American dinner in Washington, DC. To tell the truth, I really didn't want to go because there are lots of dinners in Washington, DC, and the hours were long when I was working in the President's Cabinet. I wanted to stay home with my wife and children. But that year, 1992, the dinner was in honor of my law school roommate, Paul Tagliabue, who is known to most Americans as the commissioner of the National Football League and the person who likely will be presiding over his last NFL draft this weekend.

So I decided I would go to this one more long, I expected, Washington, DC, dinner in honor of my friend Paul Tagliabue. When I got there, the place was bursting with enthusiasm. Nobody could have doubted that it was the Italian-American dinner. Italian-ness was everywhere. Stallone was there, Pelosi was there, Justice Scalia was there and, of course, the National Football League commissioner Paul Tagliabue was there. It was wonderful, and I was delighted that I went.

The room was filled with emotion. But the reason I tell this story is that the height of emotion on that emotional evening was when everybody in the room paused, put their hands over their hearts, and said the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag and sang ``The Star-Spangled Banner.'' There were a lot of tears at that moment. The point of it is that in that room of people who were so proud of the country of Italy, from where they had come or their parents or grandparents had come, and there was no mistaking that they were proud to be from Italy, but they were prouder to be American.

I mention that because this week we will begin to discuss immigration again. I believe we are missing the fundamental issue in the immigration debate. Of course, border security is important. Of course, a proper allocation of temporary students and temporary workers is important. There will be a lot of debate about what defines amnesty in any sort of legislation. But I believe the real underlying emotion in the immigration debate, the part that we are missing, is the question of how many new men and women can we absorb at one time in this country. How many men and women can come into this country and become Americans and accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? I believe what underlies a lot of the emotion, a lot of the concern about the debate we are having, is that Americans are afraid that we may be exceeding that limit. They want to make certain that almost all of those who come to live here expect sooner or later to become Americans, to accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

My rough calculation is that, in a country of about 300 million people who live in the United States of America today, about 10 percent of us are not citizens of the United States.

We have about 570,000 students from other countries. They are welcome here. They help improve our standard of living while they are working here, and when they go home, they usually spread our values better than any foreign aid we have ever passed.

We have about 500,000 temporary workers of one kind or another who are important to our free market system.

We have 11.6 million permanent legal residents, people with so-called green cards, some of whom are on their way to becoming citizens. But an increasing number of them are not electing to become citizens of the United States.

Then we have 10 million or 12 million people who are illegally here. They are here mostly to work. Some estimates are that they comprise about 5 percent of our workforce.

So, all in all, that is probably more or less 30 million people of the 300 million of us who live here who are not citizens of the United States, and there are another 2 or 3 percent of us who are dual citizens, citizens of the United States and of another country.

An important part of this debate is, how many is too many?

We know the benefits of immigration in the United States of America. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and we say that proudly. That spunk, bravery, and courage that caused people to come and still come to our country has defined our character. No other country in the world believes anything is possible, that anyone of any background can rise to the top.

My grandfather, who was a railroad engineer, used to say: Aim for the top, there is more room there. Most people think that is a silly statement. But we don't. That is an essential part of the American character. A lot of it comes from being a nation of immigrants. The diversity that comes into our country because of immigration makes our country more interesting. I once heard Robert Mondavi, the famous California winemaker, say that--and excuse me in Iowa for saying this-- 20 years ago we could not get a good meal in Des Moines, and into Des Moines came people from different cultures and different countries, and they brought their own recipes. And what makes the food so good today in Des Moines, said Mr. Mondavi, is not that one was an Indian dish or a Sri Lankan dish or a French dish or a Colombian dish, but they mixed it together and created an American cuisine.

The diversity brought to us by people regularly coming to our country makes a difference. And then the patriotism that comes from those who become new citizens enriches us. Our most patriotic citizens are often those who have just become citizens, reminding those of us

who have been here, as our family has for seven, eight, nine generations, that it is nothing to be taken for granted. As our population growth reduces in this country, and in our free market system as we produce a disproportionate number of the new jobs here, we find new workers coming into our country, whether they are skilled workers helping to win new jobs or win Nobel Prizes or whether they are unskilled workers who add to our free market system.

We know the value of immigration to the United States. We know two other things as well. One is that those who come here expect to come to a nation that honors the rule of law. In many cases, immigrants have come here fleeing a nation that didn't have rule of law, where you might be ordered to this place by the whim of a dictator or a potentate or someone who was above the law. That is what most people are fleeing from--nations and countries without the rule of law. It is important that we honor the rule of law here.

New Americans, new people who come to live here understand very well that they have the freedom to drive across State lines, but they cannot run a stop sign. They have the freedom to make contracts with whom they please, but they have to keep the contract. They have a second amendment right to own a gun, but they cannot shoot anybody. This is a nation that honors the rule of law, and new immigrants and those who are already here understand that.

The other thing is that new people coming into our country for the most part understand as well as we do, those of us who are already here, that we are a nation based upon an idea. We are not a tribe. We are not a racial culture. Our ancestry isn't what's most important to us. What matters to us most is the motto that is engraved in stone above the Presiding Officer's desk, ``E Pluribus Unum''--from many, one. This country's most magnificent accomplishment is that we have taken people from all different parts of the world and turned this into one Nation. We have done this by insisting that new citizens become Americans.

Becoming American--those two words have always been serious business in this country. In Valley Forge in 1778, as I mentioned on this floor several times, George Washington and his officers took an oath whereby they renounced their allegiance to their former ruler--King George III--and pledged their allegiance to this new country. Ever since then--since 1795 at least--the oath of allegiance that new citizens have taken has been essentially the oath of allegiance that George Washington and his officers took. They didn't renounce--in the case of those at the Italian-American dinner--their Italianess; they are proud of that. But they renounce loyalty to the Italian government and pledge allegiance to this country. They are clear about that, and we have been clear about that for more than 200 years.

When we have large numbers of new people coming into our country, as we did just 100 years ago, which was the last time we had such a large percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States, we went to great efforts to try to help them become Americans. Albert Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said in a meeting in Rochester, which I attended, that the common school, our public school, was created primarily for the purpose of helping immigrant children learn the three Rs--reading, writing, and arithmetic--and what it meant to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. The common school was an ``Americanizing'' institution. So was Ford Motor Company 100 years ago, as were many businesses.

Robert Putnam, in his book ``Bowling Alone,'' talked about how in this country civic associations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, and Rotary Club were all set up with the idea of reminding ourselves--those who are already here--to help new people coming into our country learn what it means to become an American, to learn our common language, learn our history, and to learn the principles that unite us as a country.

Other countries now are looking at the American experience and wishing they had some of it. Last year, France and England experienced great difficulties with the bombing in the London subways and the riots in France. What was it about? It was about people who had come from other countries to live in France and England and who didn't feel part of the country. They wanted to feel French; they wanted to feel English. People are starting to think how do you become French or English or German, when 5 or 6 years ago you had to be the son or daughter of a German in order to be a German. How do you become Japanese or Chinese? That is a foreign concept in most countries. It is hard to become German or French or Japanese.

But to become a citizen of the United States, you must become an American. We don't want to lose that. That should be the central focus of any immigration debate on the floor of the Senate.

I was in Rome last week, and I visited with our Ambassador to Rome, who is the grandson of an Italian immigrant. He said they have formed a council there in Italy to try to deal with the problem of how do you become Italian because Italy needs more people. It has a population of 58 million, the second lowest birth rate in Europe, the largest percentage of elderly, 2.9 million legal immigrants, over 500,000 illegal immigrants, increasingly Muslim. A large number of Muslims--1.5 million--who live there don't feel they are a part of Italy. If Italy doesn't have people coming from other countries, the number of people who live in Italy will go down and down and so will their economy. They formed a council in Italy. Four people who were Muslims and who live in Italy were sent to the United States, and one who came back--a woman from Algeria who came to Italy when she was 14 and is now 30--said to our Ambassador to Italy: For the first time, I feel Italian. He asked why. She said: When I went to America, the Muslims I met there felt American. They may be against the war in Iraq, but they all thought of themselves first as Americans.

That is a concept which we don't dare lose. All of us know that the importance of becoming American has been gradually diminishing in our culture, especially since the 1960s. Our schools don't teach U.S. History in the way they once did and in the way they should. In fact, the lowest score our high school seniors have on national tests is not in math, not in science, it is in U.S. History. Our colleges don't require a course in U.S. History. Our colleges of education don't turn out very many teachers of U.S. History.

In an age of globalization, some people say, well, nationality doesn't really make much difference.

Increasingly, official business in States and counties is conducted in more than our common language, English. Even some of our political leaders extol diversity over unity. They extol the pluribus over the unum.

Make no mistake, diversity is important to the United States. It is a great advantage to us, but diversity is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse. Iraq is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Our most magnificent accomplishment and greatest strength, and one we should not forget during this debate, is that we have taken all this diversity and formed it into one nation.

That is why I was pleased to see that the Senate adopted, before the immigration bill got off track, an amendment I proposed with a number of other Senators that would help prospective citizens become Americans. It would do it in a number of ways.

In the first place, it would raise to the level of law George Washington's oath, slightly rewritten, the same oath that a half million to a million new citizens have taken every year, an oath that recognizes that someone has waited that 5 years, learned English to an eighth-grade level, passed a test in our history, demonstrated their good character, and said: I foreswear allegiance from where I came, and I pledge allegiance to the United States.

The amendment, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, would also create grants to prospective citizens who needed help learning English. It would reduce from 5 years to 4 years the amount of time you need to wait to become a citizen if you were fluent in English. That is a level higher than eighth grade. It would create a foundation to help with grants to encourage the teaching of civics and English in the same way that we did throughout

civic organizations 100 years ago in this country.

In addition, we should also look carefully at other parts of what we do in our Government. We should have more support for English as a second language in the schools. We should not have waiting lines of adults who want to learn English in this country, our common language. People want to learn it. We should help them.

We should have more summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history and civics. This Congress approved that for the first time last year. We will have two this summer. We should have many more. And we should do more teaching through the traditional American history program that Senator Byrd and others put into the No Child Left Behind Act.

Those things do cost money, but in a $2.6 trillion budget, surely we can find something to take out so we can put those things in because nothing, I submit, is more important than making sure our children know what it means to be an American and to know that our new citizens do as well.

I am here today to remind myself and my colleagues of that story of my visit to the Italian-American dinner 14 years ago. I wish every Member of the Senate could have been there. I wish they could have seen the pride in the Italian-ness of all there to honor Paul Tagliabue, Justice Scalia, now the ranking Democrat in the House Nancy Pelosi, and Sylvester Stallone. It is important to be reminded that in that room, the greatest emotion was for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America. They may be proud of where they came from, but they are prouder of where they have come.

I will ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed, one entitled ``Citizenship is the Key'' by Noah Pickus, who is the associate director of the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University and who writes about the importance of hometown associations in the United States that link immigrants to their native community and culture while serving as a vehicle for engagement with American society.

He says:

All of these approaches--new citizenship processes, new

structures and strategies for incorporation and new

coalitions--can focus our attention on the important and

difficult work of building a nation here at home.

And secondly, an article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal about the teacher Christine Byrd who teaches children in Memphis who don't know English, our common language of English, and she wrote down what immigrant children have told her about their first impressions of America. It reminds us of the strength and vitality of new people coming here.

``You can take a shower with hot and cold water running at the same time,'' said a third grader from Sudan.

``You can have a fluffy towel to dry after a shower,'' said a first grader from Nigeria.

``You can go to school for free,'' said a student from Vietnam.

``You can go to a pet store and buy a pet,'' said a student from China.

``You can be rescued by the [Transportation Department] on the freeway,'' said a student from Vietnam.

``You can have ice cream any time you want,'' said a student from China.

I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the whip. I have three or four remarks on another subject.

I thank the whip. May I be granted time to finish my remarks?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, dated April 18, entitled ``Democracy by Decree.''

Mr. President, 25 of us in the Senate have introduced S. 489, a bipartisan piece of legislation--Senators Kyl and Cornyn on the Republican side and Senators Pryor and Nelson on the Democratic side, and a number of others--to try to put some reasonable limits on the use of Federal court consent decrees that take away from elected officials and State and local government the right to make policy decisions that they make so they can get on with their business without undue interference from the courts. It is based on a scholarship book called ``Democracy by Decree'' by two former lawyers for the National Resources Defense Council, David Schoenbrod and Ross Sandler.

Their scholarship has been applauded by a broad range of people, including former New York City Mayor Ed Koch and former Senator Bill Bradley. It talks about the importance of taking Federal court consent decrees, which can be very useful tools, and making certain they don't last forever.

To use a one-paragraph example:

In New York, a 1974 federal consent decree has mandated

bilingual education in the city's schools for more than 30

years--even though many parents want no part of it.

In Tennessee--my State--a Federal consent degree from 1979 prevents the state from requiring generic, rather than brand-name, drugs for Medicaid patients despite the fact that this is standard practice for many private drug plans and other State Medicaid Programs.

While the State waited for a Federal court to decide how much it wanted to intervene, it was costing the State enough to give every Tennessee teacher that year a $700 pay raise.

And in Los Angeles, a 1996 consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to spend 47 percent of its budget on city buses no matter what the MTA deems to be its priorities.

In the House of Representatives, the Republican whip, Roy Blunt, is the principal sponsor. Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Nashville, is the principal Democratic sponsor. Representative Cooper says this bill is about keeping democracy fresh. It has had hearings in the Senate. It is scheduled for markup. It is a good, reasonable bill. It is making progress in the House.

We are going to have to bring the growth of Medicaid spending under control over the next several years. We cannot ask State governments to do that unless we give them more authority over their own decisions. This bill would help do that.

I call this editorial to the attention of my colleagues.

I thank the Republican whip for granting me this extra time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 24, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the economic and environmental issues associated with coal liquefaction technology and on implementation of the provisions of the energy policy act of 2005 addressing coal liquefaction.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Choices for Seniors Act. My colleague from Tennessee, Representative Blackburn, has taken the lead in the House of Representatives, and I am proud to join with her by introducing this bill in the Senate. Our legislation is about giving seniors a new health insurance option by making it easier for them to create or continue using a health savings account (HSA) after they reach age 65.

A growing number of Americans are using HSAs, which allow individuals to save for future medical expenses on a tax-free basis. The money you put into an HSA is tax-deductible, the money in your account grows tax- free, balances can be rolled over year-to-year, and you can take money out of the account tax-free to pay for a wide range of health care expenses. Plus HSAs are portable--you can take them with you from job to job.

Many members of the Baby Boom generation are not planning to retire at age 65 and want more health care options. But the problem under current law is that seniors can't continue using health savings accounts after turning 65 because they are penalized if they don't join Medicare. The first penalty is that once you join Medicare, you can no longer make tax-free contributions into HSAs. The second penalty is that if you don't join Medicare, you can't collect your Social Security benefits. The third penalty is that if you delay enrollment in Medicare to a later age, you have to pay more. So, of course, almost everyone joins Medicare when they turn 65 instead of using an HSA for their health care needs.

At a time when health care costs are rising sharply, we need to move in the direction of giving Americans more options for getting health coverage at an affordable cost. Rather than forcing people into Medicare at age 65, the legislation that I am introducing today would make it easier for seniors to delay joining Medicare and to continue using health savings accounts. First, you could delay joining Medicare without losing the ability to make tax-free contributions into your HSA. Those

who delay enrollment in Medicare would be eligible for a monthly voucher of up to $200 for an HSA. Second, you could delay joining Medicare without losing your Social Security benefits. Third, if you use an HSA, you would not be penalized for putting off joining Medicare until age 70. With these changes, HSAs would become a real option for seniors in Tennessee and throughout the nation.

I am a strong supporter of HSAs, which show the promise of holding down health care costs by putting more health care decisions in the hands of individual consumers and families. Health savings accounts only became available in January 2004, but they have seen significant growth in both individual and employer markets. A recent census by America's Health Insurance Plans showed that high deductible health insurance plans (HDHPs) offered in conjunction with HSAs covered 3.17 million people in January 2006, up from 1.03 million in March 2005.

This bill is an important step toward giving seniors more options to manage their health care and to allow greater use of health savings accounts. I look forward to working with Representative Blackburn to build support for our legislation in both Chambers of Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Choices for Seniors Act. My colleague from Tennessee, Representative Blackburn, has taken the lead in the House of Representatives, and I am proud to join with her by introducing this bill in the Senate. Our legislation is about giving seniors a new health insurance option by making it easier for them to create or continue using a health savings account (HSA) after they reach age 65.

A growing number of Americans are using HSAs, which allow individuals to save for future medical expenses on a tax-free basis. The money you put into an HSA is tax-deductible, the money in your account grows tax- free, balances can be rolled over year-to-year, and you can take money out of the account tax-free to pay for a wide range of health care expenses. Plus HSAs are portable--you can take them with you from job to job.

Many members of the Baby Boom generation are not planning to retire at age 65 and want more health care options. But the problem under current law is that seniors can't continue using health savings accounts after turning 65 because they are penalized if they don't join Medicare. The first penalty is that once you join Medicare, you can no longer make tax-free contributions into HSAs. The second penalty is that if you don't join Medicare, you can't collect your Social Security benefits. The third penalty is that if you delay enrollment in Medicare to a later age, you have to pay more. So, of course, almost everyone joins Medicare when they turn 65 instead of using an HSA for their health care needs.

At a time when health care costs are rising sharply, we need to move in the direction of giving Americans more options for getting health coverage at an affordable cost. Rather than forcing people into Medicare at age 65, the legislation that I am introducing today would make it easier for seniors to delay joining Medicare and to continue using health savings accounts. First, you could delay joining Medicare without losing the ability to make tax-free contributions into your HSA. Those

who delay enrollment in Medicare would be eligible for a monthly voucher of up to $200 for an HSA. Second, you could delay joining Medicare without losing your Social Security benefits. Third, if you use an HSA, you would not be penalized for putting off joining Medicare until age 70. With these changes, HSAs would become a real option for seniors in Tennessee and throughout the nation.

I am a strong supporter of HSAs, which show the promise of holding down health care costs by putting more health care decisions in the hands of individual consumers and families. Health savings accounts only became available in January 2004, but they have seen significant growth in both individual and employer markets. A recent census by America's Health Insurance Plans showed that high deductible health insurance plans (HDHPs) offered in conjunction with HSAs covered 3.17 million people in January 2006, up from 1.03 million in March 2005.

This bill is an important step toward giving seniors more options to manage their health care and to allow greater use of health savings accounts. I look forward to working with Representative Blackburn to build support for our legislation in both Chambers of Congress.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that expresses the Sense of Congress that colleges and universities should continue to educate their students about the importance of intellectual property and the harm caused by copyright infringement. I am joined in introducing this resolution by Senators Leahy, Hatch, and Nelson of Florida, and I thank them for their support.

The intent of this resolution is to help draw attention to the problem of digital piracy on campus through the use of university computer networks to illegally share copyrighted materials. Efforts to combat digital piracy were bolstered last year when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. That ruling has allowed the movie and recording industries to take additional steps to protect intellectual property and prevent what Justice Breyer described in the Grokster decision as ``no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.''

However, truly stamping out digital piracy requires that we challenge the widespread belief that there is nothing wrong with illegally downloading music and other copyrighted material, and that it doesn't hurt anybody except for rich performers and corporate executives who have plenty of money. I can tell you that's not true because I have personally met with songwriters from Nashville who have explained how illegal downloading has hurt their livelihoods. There are many other Americans without million-dollar bank accounts who have been hurt by copyright infringement as well.

The place to start turning that belief around is at our institutions of higher learning. For many students, a college campus is the first place where they have high-speed Internet access and are exposed to technology that allows them to trade copyrighted files with other computer users. At the same time, college campuses are the source of some of our Nation's most valuable intellectual property. The combination of these two factors makes our colleges and universities the ideal place for students to develop a respect for intellectual property and to understand the harm caused by copyright infringement.

The resolution that my colleagues and I are introducing today encourages colleges and universities to take a leadership role in educating students regarding the importance of protecting intellectual property, and to take steps to prevent unauthorized downloading on their computer systems. Throughout the country, many schools are already meeting this challenge. In my own State, Vanderbilt University has taken steps to instill respect for intellectual property in its students, while taking action to prevent its computer system from being misused. For example, Vanderbilt has created VUmix, a music downloading service, to help its students understand the digital piracy issue and provide them with a legal alternative. The VUmix service is part of

the university's Digital Life Initiative, a comprehensive approach to offering music, film, and other forms of digital media to the Vanderbilt community. Other schools are doing similar things to combat copyright infringement, and this resolution encourages such efforts.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and promote respect for one of America's most valuable assets: its intellectual property.