Floor Statements

Madam President, the Senator from New Mexico and I have a number of common interests in energy and science technology, and one of our common interests is making certain as we move into a more competitive world marketplace that we maintain our brain power in the United States of America because over the last period of time since World War II, about half of our good new jobs have come from there. I look forward to continuing the work within this budget, to set priorities that do that.

In this first year of a little bit of fiscal discipline, which is about all we are exercising this year, we may not do as much of that as we may be able to in the future, but I for one want to make sure that over the next 5 to 10 years while we are dealing with unsustainable growth in what we call mandatory spending--Medicaid and Medicare, spending that is on automatic pilot--as we try to deal with that growth, we do not squeeze out the investments in science and technology and higher education and advanced computing that we need to maintain our standard of living.

This budget is, in my view, a good budget. It does begin to exercise some fiscal discipline, but it is a modest exercise of fiscal discipline.

The bottom line is if we were to adopt the budget as presented, we spend $2.6 trillion--a number none of us can imagine. One way to get it into reality is to say it is $100 billion more than we spent this year. So, $100 billion, how much is that? It is enough to run the State of Tennessee for 8 years, and the State of Tennessee is not the biggest State; it is the sixteenth largest State. It collects about $12.5 billion a year of State taxes. We are spending a lot more money next year. We are not cutting the amount of money the Federal Government is spending of taxpayers' money; we are increasing it by $100 billion next year within this budget.

The Senator from North Dakota, who is as compelling and persuasive a speaker as we have on the Senate floor and has a wonderful way of presenting his charts, was making the point repeatedly. I heard him today saying that the debt is going up. He is right. The debt is going up. We are arguing about proposing to reduce the size of the annual deficit and to cut that amount in half, which means that every year we do not take down to zero the annual deficit, the debt goes up. I suppose his chart includes Social Security funding, too, so the debt goes up.

But this is a modest effort at fiscal discipline that means if this budget were adopted, we believe the deficits each year would be cut in half.

Now, these spending constraints are never easy, and they involve setting priorities. The President is right. I believe the budget we have proposed is right, to start, by trying to be as committed to the military men and women of this country as they are to this country. So it raises overall defense spending by 4.8 percent so we can provide our military with the equipment they need to safely and successfully finish their jobs of spreading democracy in the world.

The President's tax initiatives are continued. But within this budget there are significant investments other than for military and homeland security, which are our first priority.

Let me see if I can talk a moment about education since that was the subject of the statement by the Senator from New Mexico. Some of the figures that were used I did not quite understand because I have done my own calculating. For example, there is this constant reference to shortfalls in funding of No Child Left Behind. Now, I was not here when that happened. I do not know what the deals were that were made, what arrangements were made, and with whom. But the Senator from New Mexico said there was a $39 billion shortfall. I cannot imagine where that figure comes from because this year we only spent $37.8 billion on all of K-12 education.

The U.S. Government only contributes about 7 percent of the funding for our local schools in 15,000 school districts across the country. That is all it has ever contributed. It is not likely to contribute a much larger percentage. So there cannot be a $39 billion shortfall in No Child Left Behind since we only spent less than that total amount of money from the Federal Government.

In addition to that, let's look at what happened over the last five Bush budgets. There has been a 46-percent actual increase in Federal spending on No Child Left Behind. By comparison--I don't know what period of time that is for the Clinton years, so I won't say. But let's talk about President Bush. There has been a 46-percent increase over 5 years.

I checked in the State of Tennessee, where I am from, and the amount of increase in State spending for kindergarten through the 12th grade, through this period of time, would be more like 15 or 16 or 17 percent. Federal spending for kindergarten through the 12th grade during the Bush years, the last 5 years, has increased at the rate of about three times of what State spending has been. So if there is a tin cup, it

is not in Washington, it is at the State capital.

I think it is very important that even in this time of fiscal restraint, when we cannot increase spending this year as much as some of us might like, that over the 5 years it has increased 46 percent.

This budget does include enough money for another $1 billion for No Child Left Behind, another $500 million for special education.

This is not an isolated commitment. Let's take another example of what has happened over the last 5 years. There has been a 34-percent increase in total U.S. Department of Education discretionary funding.

Title I was mentioned. Title I is the Federal education program that is directed, with a lot of flexibility, toward poor children. Now, it may not be reaching the poorest children. It goes directly to schools. And my guess is that the reason why the Senator from New Mexico was able to point out that some States were getting less and some States were getting more is that maybe No Child Left Behind is directing more of the Federal dollars where they are supposed to go; which is, to help our poorest children who are not learning reading and math.

In any event, there has been a 52-percent increase in title I spending over the last 5 years, at a time when State spending has been increasing at less than 20 percent, which is 35 or 40 percent of the Federal spending increase.

It is the same story with special education. There has been a 75- percent increase in Federal spending on special education over the last 5 years. Improving teacher quality: a 38-percent increase over the last 5 years under President Bush and this Congress.

Let's remember, the President does not appropriate a penny. We are shortchanging ourselves when we stand here and say No Child Left Behind was not properly funded. We do all the appropriating. They do not do any of it down at the White House. They send a budget up here, and we don't have to pay any attention it to at all. We do what we want to do.

What we have done over the last 5 years--I was only here for 2--is increase Federal spending for education at a Federal rate of two or three times as fast as it has increased in the States.

Let me give an example of improving teacher quality. There is an account in Washington in No Child Left Behind that gives about $50 million a year to the State of Tennessee for improving teacher quality. If all that money were spent on teachers, it would give each teacher in Tennessee about a $900 pay increase. It is a lot of money. Now, half that money came from closing another account. So let's say there is only $25 million new No Child Left Behind dollars for the teachers of Tennessee. That would be $400 or $500 per teacher. That is a substantial investment by the Federal Government, on an annual basis, to help those teachers improve their quality and become highly qualified teachers.

Now, if the State of Tennessee chooses to spend that on some other purpose, whether it is education or something else, that is the business of the State of Tennessee. But the money was appropriated here in Washington for that purpose.

And finally, all of us are interested in continuing higher education for the largest number of Americans. Sixty percent of our college students have a Federal grant or loan that follows them to the college or university of their choice. It is perhaps the most successful set of grant and loan programs anywhere in the world. It has created an opportunity for more Americans, a higher percentage of them, to go to college than anywhere in the world. We have the best system of colleges and universities anywhere in the world, primarily because we respect the autonomy of those colleges, and we appropriate a lot of Federal money, and we let students choose the college or institution of their choice to attend.

What has this Congress done over the last 5 years, including this budget that is proposed? There has been a 56-percent increase in actual Federal dollars for Pell grants. So when we talk about education, let's not sell ourselves short. We have been putting a very high priority, urged on by President Bush, on education over the last 4 years, and in this budget as well.

Let me mention three other areas about this budget. One has to do with opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. Over the next few weeks, gasoline prices across this country are going to go up by about a quarter. Gas prices are already pretty high. We are bringing in oil from other places in the world, 70 percent of our nation's need. That does not make a lot of sense when we have a lot here on our own. We could bring in a million barrels of oil a day from Alaska if we would only vote to do it. That is about as much oil as Texas produces. We could begin to reduce our dependence on the rest of the world and lower our gasoline prices. We ought to do that.

In 1985 and 1986 I was chairman of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors. We recommended that we begin taking some of the money we use for drilling oil and gas on Federal lands and putting it into conservation purposes. Specifically, we said, let's create a billion-dollar fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I am pleased to say that under Chairman Gregg's leadership, this budget includes a provision that begins to follow that recommendation of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. It says if this Congress decides to allow exploration of oil in Alaska in the ANWR area that for 4 years $350 million will come from those revenues into a conservation reserve fund, and that then will be used for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for wildlife preservation, for coastal protection, and for other purposes.

Our Commission thought, in 1985 and 1986, it made sense when we place any environmental burden that we balance it with an environmental benefit. We believe this is a sensible way to do it, and I hope other Members of the Senate will notice this important provision.

There is also in this budget something I want to talk about in a moment that has to do with unfunded mandates. But the last part of the budget I want to mention has to do with Medicaid.

There is a serious attempt in the budget proposed by our Budget Committee to begin to deal with what we call mandatory spending, the spending that is on automatic pilot. It is basically Social Security, which the President is urging us to deal with, Medicaid, and Medicare. The health care programs are about to consume all the money we have. If they are left on automatic pilot, as they are, we won't have any money for first-class universities, for preschool education, for implementing No Child Left Behind, for national parks, for local policemen, for local firemen.

The testimony we heard in the Budget Committee showed that unfunded Federal liabilities over the next 75 years will begin to take 25 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. The whole Federal budget today takes less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

We can't sustain that. So this budget suggests that we restrain the growth of Medicaid spending by $14 billion over the next 5 years. We will be spending $1.12 trillion on Medicaid from the Federal Government over the next 5 years, and we are suggesting a $14 billion restraint in growth. No one should get a very big merit badge for that much fiscal discipline, but at least a little merit badge for trying.

That won't work unless we are willing to change some Federal laws because Medicaid is administered partly by the Federal Government and partly by the State government. But the trouble is, from a Governor's perspective, that the Federal Government sets the entitlement criteria. There are a dozen or so programs that States must offer in their Medicaid programs. The Federal Government decides--the bureaucracy-- whether Governors get a lot of flexibility or none, and then the Federal courts increasingly have been saying that Governors can't take steps even to change or amend or reduce optional services as a way of restraining the growth of Medicaid so there will be money, for example, for pre-kindergarten.

Let me suggest the principles on which I believe this body could help the Federal Government and the State governments at the same time slow the growth of Medicaid a little bit. We are

only suggesting that we slow the growth from a projected 41-percent growth in funding over the next 5 years to 39 percent. It is not much, but it is enough to cause some discomfort unless we make some changes. The principles we should follow then are: One, any reforms that we require ought to save money for both the States and the Federal Government. Two, the reforms must be voluntary. The Governors who manage these programs have to have flexibility. Three, we should not be cutting people off Medicaid who won't have any other health options.

There are some ways to do that which I will talk more about at another time. But, for example, we could change the law to make it easier for Medicaid to avoid overpaying for prescription drugs. We could change the law to permit States to crack down on Medicaid spend down abuses when wealthier individuals give away their money with the expectation that Medicaid will cover their health care costs. We could change the law to allow Governors to require copayments for benefits from those optional Medicaid programs which Governors choose to offer that the Federal Government doesn't require. We could change the law to give States more flexibility to allow mothers and children to enroll in what we call the SCHIP Program. And finally, we could make it easier for States to provide home- and community-based care for beneficiaries who prefer it to more costly nursing home care.

It is never pleasant to restrain spending, but it is absolutely necessary. Fifteen years ago, I spent my time as Governor trying to restrain health care spending so I could create centers of excellence at the universities, so I could maintain low tuitions, so we could pay teachers more. We were successful. But when I left the Governor's office in 1987, we were spending 51 cents out of every State dollar on education. Today it is 40 cents. Why? Because then we were spending 15 cents on health care. Today it is 31 cents on health care and headed up. If we don't begin to try to control mandatory spending in Medicaid and then Medicare, we will not allow the States or ourselves to invest in those programs that have to do with job creation that help us maintain our standard of living.

There is one other area I would like to mention. It has to do with a provision in this budget which increases to 60 votes the number of votes it would take to impose on State and local government what is called a Federal unfunded mandate. Tomorrow, March 15, is the 10th birthday of the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, affectionately known around Washington as UMRA.

Now, the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was supposed to stop the one thing that made me mad as Governor, and that was some Congressman coming up with some big idea, passing a law, holding a press conference, bragging about it, and then sending the bill back to Tennessee for me and the legislature to pay. And then the next weekend that same Congressman would usually be back in Knoxville or Memphis making a big speech about local control. The Unfunded Mandates Act was supposed to discourage the Federal Government from imposing new laws and new rules on State and local governments without paying for them.

I am sorry to say that it was a noble idea that was hard to pass 10 years ago. It got a big vote in the end. But it hasn't worked very well. It is raising property taxes to pay for new EPA storm water runoff rules. School boards are taking money out of one classroom and putting it in another to meet Federal requirements for children with disabilities. The National Council of State Legislatures has identified $29 billion in Federal cost shifts to States in transportation, health care, education, environment, homeland security, election laws, and in other areas. And last year, in the name of lowering Internet access taxes, some in this Congress tried to take away from State and local officials local control over how to pay for governmental services.

Not long ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that will soon be before us that would turn 190 million State driver's licenses into national ID cards with States paying most of the bill. And last week, Governors asked the President, when they met with him at the White House: Mr. President, how can we reduce the growth of Medicaid spending in the States when Federal laws dictate eligibility standards, Federal bureaucrats limit State flexibility, and Federal courts just say no? These are just the unfunded Federal mandates I was describing.

Just as ominous a threat to a balanced partnership among Federal, State, and local governments is Congress's failure to act on important areas of policy which also are running up the cost to State and local governments. For example, Congress's failure to deal with 10 million illegal immigrants fills up hospital emergency rooms, schools, and jails. Our failure to reform Medicaid has allowed a 40-percent increase in caseloads over the last 5 years to soak up State and local revenues that might have been spent for schools, colleges, police, parks, and roads. And then the Federal courts have piled on, using outdated consent decrees to run Medicaid in Tennessee, foster care in Utah, transportation in Los Angeles, and the teaching of English to children in New York City.

During the last 10 years about the only part of the Federal Government that has recognized the importance of strong State and local governments in our Federal system is the U.S. Supreme Court, which has rediscovered the 10th amendment to the Constitution that reserves to States powers that are not expressly granted to the central government.

So here is the picture of Federalism today. In Washington, DC, Democrats still stuck in the New Deal are reflexively searching for national solutions to local problems. We Republicans, having found ourselves in charge, have decided it is more blessed to impose our views rather than to liberate America from Washington's views. And across America, Federal judges have discovered the joys of acting like Governors and mayors without having to run for office.

Meanwhile, in the States and cities, Federal funds make up as much as half of State and local budgets, bringing with them more and more rules that direct and limit what mayors and Governors are able to do with revenues raised from State and local taxes.

As a result, the job of mayor and Governor is becoming more and more like the job of university president, which I used to be; it looks like you are in charge, but you are not.

That is why to celebrate the 10th birthday of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, I propose 3 steps to give mayors and Governors, legislators and local councils, more authority to do what they were elected to do.

The first of those steps is in this budget resolution. It would amend the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to increase to 60 the number of Senate votes it takes to enact legislation that imposes unfunded Federal mandates. This proposal was approved last Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee. For the last 10 years, the number has been 50, and it hasn't been used once as a budget point of order. It was said that this point of order with 50 votes would become like a penalty flag. Well, it has become a penalty flag that hasn't been thrown for 10 years. Make it 60 votes and it may do some good.

Second, I would propose making it easier for Governors and mayors to change or vacate outdated Federal court consent decrees. This legislation introduced last week by Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Nelson, Senator Kyl, Senator Cornyn, and myself would do that. It would put term limits on consent decrees and shift to plaintiffs the burden of proving that decrees need to be continued, and require courts to draw decrees narrowly, with the objective of putting responsibility back in the hands of the elected officials as soon as possible.

Finally, the third proposal is do not allow any new Federal statute to preempt a local law, unless the new Federal law specifically states there is a direct conflict with State and local law.

I am still optimistic about our Federal system. I am optimistic because I believe excessive centralization of Government runs against the grain of what it means to be an American. Americans do expect Washington to take care of war, welfare, Social Security, health care, and debt. Americans do not want Washington running schools, colleges, law enforcement, fire departments, cities, parks, and most roads.

Lest anyone think I am wrong, I invite them to step out with me on the campaign trail. I remember our last referendum on federalism in the mid-1990s. Newt Gingrich and 300 Republicans stood on the Capitol steps and said: no more unfunded Federal mandates. Bob Dole, the new Republican leader in the Senate in 1995, made the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act S. 1, and then Senator Dole campaigned across the country reading the 10th amendment to his audiences.

I was doing my part. I was running for President, too--not so successfully. I was walking across Iowa and New Hampshire wearing a red-and-black shirt, proposing to abolish the U.S. Department of Education as we knew it, move the Agriculture Department from Washington, DC, to Des Moines, and to cut the pay of Congress in half and send them home for 6 months each year to spend more time with their neighbors instead of Washington lobbyists. You can imagine how popular I was in these chambers while proposing to cut their pay and send them home. I can clearly remember in a Washington Post editorial meeting, when the late publisher Kay Graham asked me:

Governor Alexander, if you so dislike Washington, DC, why

would you come here?

That was a good question, and there is a good answer. One of the most important reasons to come to Washington to serve is to remind those already here that a plane ticket to Washington doesn't make you any smarter.

The parents and teachers of 50 million students in 15,000 districts usually can do more to improve a child's education than some national school board. If Washington says you must spend more for Medicaid, that usually means less for preschool education, and someone who is elected and is closer to the problem ought to make that decision.

In some countries, that arrangement might work. In those countries that are smaller and ethnically more the same, it may be possible to have a national school board, state church, and a central government calling most of the shots. We know that doesn't stand a prayer of working in the United States. De Tocqueville, in his early writings about America, pointed out that our country works community by community. We are so big, we have so many different views, we come from so many backgrounds, we need a lot of places to work things out in different ways. Put too many one-size-fits-all jackets on Americans and the place explodes.

In our country, such explosions, thankfully, still occur at election time. That is why most candidates for President run against Washington, DC. That is why U.S. Senators from Washington are rarely elected President and Governors from outside Washington often are. That is one reason why Americans elected the Republican Congress in 1994.

I am optimistic about federalism because Democrats are now looking for a way to get into office, and we Republicans are looking for a way to stay in office. I believe that whoever wins that argument will have to get on the right side of the federalism issue. So as a good Republican I am using this birthday celebration tomorrow of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act to remind my Republican colleagues that we promised the people no more unfunded mandates. We said, ``If we break our promise, throw us out.'' I am sure if we forget our promise, our Democrat friends will remind us of it.

Most of our policy debates in Congress involve conflicting principles. The principle of federalism should not always be the trump card. There are other important principles to weigh: liberty, equal opportunity, laissez faire, and many others.

But the federalism that the Republican Congress was elected to protect in 1994 has gotten lost in the weeds. It is time for us to find it and pick it up and to put it back up front where it belongs. Step No. 1 would be to pass this budget, which would increase to 60 the number of votes it takes to enact an unfunded mandate. Then we should move to put term limits on Federal court consent decrees, which has strong bipartisan support in the House, as well as the Senate, and then require Congress to announce when it decides to preempt State and local law.

If we in Congress do that, then maybe on the 20th birthday of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act, 10 years from now, we can celebrate an American Federal system that has the kind of respect for mayors and Governors, legislators and local council members that the Founders of this great Republic envisioned.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, during the last session of Congress, Senators on the other side of the aisle blocked an up-or-down vote 20 times on 10 of President Bush's nominees for the Federal appellate courts. Filibusters were threatened against five more judicial nominees. With one possible exception, this has never happened before. The Senate has a 200-year tradition of majority rule when it comes to confirming judges. In fact, until the last session of Congress, the idea of not voting on a President's judicial nominee once it reached the floor was unthinkable.

It would be difficult to imagine a case in which passions ran higher than during the confirmation proceedings for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. Yet President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas in July of 1991, and 3

months later the Senate voted to confirm him, 52 to 48. There was never any discussion of blocking his nomination by blocking an up-or-down vote.

So in the spirit of compromise, I would like to, once again, offer my solution for avoiding what some in the minority call the ``nuclear option'' that would change Senate rules to prevent filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

In an address on this floor 2 years ago, on March 17, 2003, I said I would reserve the right to vote against any judicial nominee of any President but that I would not filibuster the qualified court nominee of any President. That was before I knew whether the President would be named Bush or Kerry.

This is what I said then:

Before I finish my remarks, I make this pledge. I may be

here long enough, and I hope it is a while, before I have an

opportunity to cast a vote for a nominee for a Federal

judgeship that is sent over by a Democratic President, but I

can pledge now how I will cast my vote. It will be the same

way I appointed 50 judges when I was Governor. I look for

good character. I look for good intelligence. I look for good

temperament. I look for good understanding of the law and of

the duties of judges. I will look to see if this nominee had

the aspect of courtesy to those who come before the court. I

will reserve the right to vote against some extremists, but I

will assume that it is unnecessary and unethical for the

nominee to try to say to me how he or she would decide a case

that might come before him or her. When it comes time to

vote, when we finish that whole examination, I will vote to

let the majority decide.

That is what I said 2 years ago. I also said:

In plain English, I will not vote to deny a vote to a

Democratic President's judicial nominee just because the

nominee may have views more liberal than mine. That is the

way judges have always been selected. That is the way they

should be selected.

Mr. President, that was my pledge 2 years ago. That is my pledge today. And if a few other Senators of both parties would individually make this same pledge to eventually allow up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees, then there would be an end to this discussion of the so-called nuclear option.

I have no doubt that changing the Senate's cloture rule by a majority vote is clearly constitutional. Some have argued that the Senate's cloture rule, which allows just 41 of us to block up-or-down votes, carries over from one Congress to the next by rule V. But no less an authority than the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, when he was majority leader, argued very persuasively and with great common sense that this is not true. He said:

This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand

of the past. The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19

rules by a majority vote. Those rules have changed from time

to time. . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789

and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment

think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates

would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as

reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law

providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-

thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next

Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to

change it and would repeal it by majority vote.

That was the Senator from West Virginia talking. So, very simply, the Constitution provides that 51 Senators can change Senate rules to allow a majority to cut off debate on a President's nominee of an appellate court judge.

Now, that does not mean that we ought to rush to make a change in that way. To extend the analogy, nuclear weapons have been effective in world history because of the threat of their use, not because of their actual use. And that has been true here on this Senate floor.

In the debates on the adoption of Rule XXII on the Senate floor in 1917, and later modifications in 1953 to 1959, and then 1960 to 1975, the debate and eventual compromises were driven by the threat of the constitutional option, which we are discussing today.

The chairman of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, has said he ``intends to exercise every last ounce of [his] energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option.'' I hope he will continue that effort.

The Senate protects the minority party's rights for a reason. In writings about early America, Alexis De Tocqueville warned that one of the potential failings of democracy would be the ``tyranny of the majority.'' South Africa succeeded in creating a constitutional government because the new Black majority was willing to protect the minority rights of White citizens. As we watch the people of Iraq struggle to create a constitutional government, we know that a major sign of their success will be whether they are able to include and protect the rights of Sunnis who are only 20 percent of the country but who formerly dominated the country.

I can remember back when I came here as a legislative assistant to Howard Baker in the Senate in 1967, Republicans were the ones worrying about protecting minority rights then. There were 64 Democrats and 36 Republicans. And then, 10 years later, when I came back to the Senate as an aide to Senator Baker for a few months, when he was elected Republican leader, there were 38 Republicans. In 1979, when the distinguished Senator from West Virginia made his persuasive argument that a majority of the Senate could change Senate rules, there were 58 Democrats and 41 Republicans.

So just as our Republican majority should be cautious about making changes that would lessen minority rights, I would respectfully suggest that the Democratic minority should be equally cautious about provoking such a change.

One way, of course, to avoid provoking rules changes would be for the Democratic Senators who opposed the President's nominees in the last session to look them over again and reconsider their basis for opposition.

For example, I believe if some of the Senators on the other side would really study the record of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi, they would be impressed with his commitment to civil rights. At a time when it was hard to do, he testified against a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in 1967, and did it in open court. At the same time, he put his children in public schools when many White Mississippians were putting their children in what were called ``segregation academies.''

Any Senator who carefully looks at the record of former Attorney General Bill Pryor of Alabama, I believe, would admire his record on civil rights. He was a law clerk for Judge John Minor Wisdom, probably the leading civil rights Federal judge of the last century. Bill Pryor showed, as attorney general, he could take a position on abortion, on prayer before football games, on reapportionment, and on displaying the Ten Commandments that were at odds with his personal views because he believed the decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution required it.

Both Judge Pickering and Judge Pryor have served in recess appointments and have even more of a record now to consider favorably.

But the other way to avoid a lengthy and damaging procedural battle is simply for individual Senators now to declare their willingness to support allowing an up-or-down vote of any qualified nominee for the bench by any President. This would apply to this Republican President's nominees or to some future Democratic President's nominees.

I do not know what terrible grievances in the past have caused such strong feelings on the other side causing them to take these unprecedented steps to block an up-or-down vote on nominees once the nominee gets to the floor. As I say, there is a 200-year tradition--a 200-year tradition--in this body of then moving to an up-or-down vote.

It never happened before like this. And if it continues, even though I hope it does not, it will almost certainly force a Senate rules change. I hope we don't come to that. I have suggested two ways to avoid it. I have taken a step myself to forgo some of my rights as an individual Senator as one way to help solve the problem. I hope others will do the same.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks from March 17, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, some say we are living in the post-Christian era, but you would not have known it yesterday if you were among the 13,829 worshippers, as I was, at the retirement tribute to pastor Adrian Rogers at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis. I am a Presbyterian--but Presbyterian or Baptist, believer or nonbeliever, one could not help but be inspired by the services on Sunday and especially by Dr. Rogers himself.

Adrian Rogers is one of America's best-known preachers. His ``Love Worth Finding Ministries'' is broadcast in more than 150 counties in both English and Spanish. He has authored 17 books, 48 booklets and 78 cassette tapes. He has been elected three times to lead the Southern Baptist Convention.

Dr. Rogers came to Bellevue in Memphis in 1972 when the Church was in Midtown, the enrollment was 9000 and the annual budget was $625,000. Today the church spreads across 375 acres in Cordova, the enrollment is 29,000 and the budget is $21 million.

What impresses me most is not this growth but the man himself. Like his friend Billy Graham, Adrian Rogers has not allowed his fame to diminish him personally. The most moving statements yesterday came from his children who testified that this man who everyone knows can talk the talk always walks the walk at home. Those who know him best say that he practices what he preaches. When he told his congregation, ``I am what I am by the grace of God,'' it was not mock humility.

There was much love expressed yesterday for Joyce Rogers, who Adrian said ``is the only girl that I have ever dated.'' She has sung in the choir, taught Sunday school and been his partner since their marriage in 1951.

Our founders made sure that we do not have a state church but that we do have freedom of religion. As a result of this constitutional guarantee, there is a church of some denomination on almost every American corner. This freedom has also proved to be a nurturing environment for independent leaders such as Adrian Rogers whose good lives attract us and inspire us and lead us to be among the world's most religious people.

No mortal is perfect. I know of one blemish on my friend Adrian Rogers: He is a Florida Gators fan. In the spirit of yesterday, the Christian thing to do is to forgive him.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, for giving me an opportunity to speak, and also my colleague, the Senator from Alabama.

The Senator from Connecticut and I, Senator Dodd, on behalf of ourselves, and Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Roberts, and Hatch, yesterday introduced the Caring for Children Act of 2005 which reauthorizes the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. This is a program that is very important to families across this country. I am pleased that our committee is progressing in a bipartisan way on the very important piece of legislation.

Today I want to talk about a piece of legislation I introduced earlier this week. It is called the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act. It has to do with federalism, with democracy, with responsibilities of State and local government. It has to do with our effort to try to restrain the growth of the cost of Medicaid so that we can properly fund other programs such as higher education, elementary and secondary education, and research. I introduced that legislation, along with Senator Pryor of Arkansas, who is the lead Democratic sponsor. Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl joined us at that time.

Since that time, 12 other Senators have asked to join us. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to S. 489, the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act: Senators McConnell, Bennett, Cochran, Craig, Domenici, Hutchison, Inhofe, Lott, Roberts, Santorum, Smith, and Warner.

I failed to mention an early sponsor and a principal sponsor, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Senator Nelson of Nebraska is a former Governor. Senator Pryor is a former attorney general. Senator Cornyn is a former attorney general. I am a former Governor. That explains part of our interest in this. Congressman Jim Cooper, by the way, a Democrat from Nashville, will be the principal Democratic sponsor of this legislation in the House. It has strong bipartisan support.

As I will show in a few minutes, it strongly supports the idea of limiting what we call democracy by court decree. Limiting the idea of Federal courts running the Government has strong bipartisan appeal. It has strong support from the left and the right, because democracy by court decree interferes with democracy. It interferes with the ability of voters to elect officials who are accountable, and then throw them out if they don't like what they are doing.

Consent decrees, which are judicial orders based on the consent of the parties engaged in civil court action, can be an effective judicial tool when drawn narrowly, and with respect to State and local policy choices. Congress passes legislation and sets conditions on grants that must be followed by State and local governments. When they are not followed, it is important for citizens to be able to turn to the court to see that their rights and the rule of law are upheld. That is the heart of the idea of federalism.

Unfortunately, in many cases, rather than preserving the separation of powers between the Federal Government and the State government, consent decrees have the opposite effect. What we are seeing in State after State is government policy controlled by courts and judges instead of by Governors, mayors, and legislators.

For example, in Maine in 2003, the Governor had to propose deep cuts to mental health services for children because consent decrees made it almost impossible to restrain other parts of the budget.

In New York City, Latino parents are upset because schools are forcing their children into bilingual education programs when they want them in a different kind of program to learn English. And why is that happening? Because for the last 30 years, bilingual education in New York has been mandated by a consent decree that the schools have no choice but to obey.

In Los Angeles, a consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to spend $110 million per year on improving city buses. That sounds like a good idea. But that is 47 percent of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's budget spent on just buses, leaving the remaining 53 percent to pay for street and freeway improvements, rail systems, transportation planning programs, and the reduction of debt. Meanwhile, ridership on MTA buses increased only marginally in the first 6 years of judicial management, and residents of Los Angeles complain that other MTA services are suffering, and their elected officials are not able to do anything about it because the courts are running the transit authority.

The State of Tennessee has also become a victim of democracy by court decree. Tennessee, like every State, has to balance its budget. I can speak from experience. I did it for 8 years. I know it involves some difficult choices. Our Democratic Governor Bredesen of Tennessee is making some of those choices. But he can't do it because the Federal Government has refused to let him to do what he feels he needs to do to balance the budget.

Late last year, it became apparent that the costs of the Medicaid program in Tennessee are rising at an unsustainable rate. The Medicaid caseload has gone up 40 percent across this country in the last 5 years. When you combine that with sharp increase in the rate of inflation for health care costs over the regular inflation rate, we get a staggering impact, not only on the Federal Government but especially on State Governors who are balancing their budgets. The inevitable result of that is the Governors reach to find somewhere else to get the money to balance their budget. Where does it come from? It comes from education. It comes from especially higher education. In the last 4 years, Federal spending for K-12 education has gone up about 40 percent. In Tennessee, spending for K-12 education over those same 4 years has gone up about 11 percent.

In other words, Federal spending is going up three times the rate of State spending. The reason is Medicaid is eating up the money, and the Governor is unable to control the growth of Medicaid because the Federal court says it can decide better than the Governor can where those dollars ought to be spent. For example, pre-K education is something on which Governor Bredesen wants to spend the money. He can't charter a preschool program, an important program such as I suppose the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is advocating nationally. His hands are tied. Governor Bredesen has tackled TennCare. He ran for office and said, ``I wanted to be elected to fix the TennCare Program.'' He has come up with a plan that would result in Medicaid spending in Tennessee rising only $75 million this year instead of the $650 million it will rise without those changes. But he is constrained by a series of four Federal court consent decrees entered into by his predecessors going back 25 years.

These consent decrees dictate policies on medical screening for children, requiring the States to provide patients with high-cost, brand name prescription drugs, and affecting the ability of States to verify the eligibility of the patients they serve. But most importantly, they deny the voters the opportunity to have a new Governor and a new legislature look at all of their programs and make choices about how and where to spend the money.

In the face of enormous pressures, the Federal courts are going to force Tennessee to maintain programs that the Governor says he would rather not maintain because he would rather spend the money for education.

Governor Bredesen is making painful, difficult decisions. He has proposed cutting 323,000 adults from TennCare and limiting the benefits for the remaining 396,000 adults because he wants to strengthen Tennessee's pre-K and K-12 programs, and have a first-rate system for colleges and universities.

I might emphasize that the services the Governor hopes to limit are not required by the Federal Government. They are optional services that States may or may not offer, according to the Federal law, except they are not as optional as we might think. On January 29, Judge William Haynes, U.S. District Judge, declared he must approve any of those changes. So we have a Federal court judge, not the Governor and legislature, making those decisions.

The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act contains three main provisions that address many of these concerns. First, it lays out a series of guidelines that will guide Federal courts in approving future consent decrees. Basically, these guidelines follow suggestions which the U.S. Supreme Court made in the year 2004 in a decision in which it expressed concern about the fact that old consent decrees were limiting the actions of newly elected officials and interfering with democracy.

The bottom line of these guidelines is to narrow the consent decrees and encourage the courts to get the decision-making back in the hands of the elected officials as soon as possible.

Second, our legislation creates term limits for consent decrees. Fundamentally, it says any new Governor may go into the court and ask the judge to vacate or modify that consent decree; or a Governor or mayor may do that 4 years after the original date of the consent decree.

Seventy-five of the 100 Senators in this body have served in State or local government before. I am sure they can understand the frustration of being elected to fix the schools, or improve the roads, or repair the prisons, or restrain growth of Medicaid, or improve colleges, and discover they don't have the authority to do it because the Governor or mayor 15 years ago entered into a consent decree and the court approved it, and the newly elected official can't change it.

Finally, the bill shifts the burden of proof from the State and local governments to the plaintiffs in the case.

Under current law, State and local governments must prove that a decree is no longer necessary to protect the plaintiffs' rights. In other words, they must prove a negative. Now the plaintiff will have to prove that the court interference with the decisions of elected officials is still needed.

The court still retains full control of the case. The court still retains the ability to protect the rights of Americans. But the court would have instructions to say that if the parties come to you and say, ``Mr. Court, Ms. Court, we can't solve this problem, will you approve this consent decree?'' The court will say, ``I will temporarily get involved in what is your responsibility, but I will do it under a narrowly defined set of terms and very shortly I will make sure that it gets back in the hands of elected officials.''

I have in my remarks, which I will submit in complete form for the Record, some of the comments of the Supreme Court in Frew v. Hawkins in 2004. The Court took an extraordinary step in inviting the Congress to pass legislation such as this and in suggesting to the Federal courts that they might narrow their consent decrees and as soon as possible get these decisions back in the hands of elected officials.

In other words, the principle here is democracy and whether unelected people or elected people will make the decisions.

This is an especially important piece of legislation at a time when we are considering Medicaid. We are asking States to restrain the growth of Medicaid. We are still spending a lot of money. Over the next 10 years, we propose to spend $1.2 trillion--new dollars. We are not restraining spending much. But if the caseload is growing by 40 percent, and if the cost of health care is rising faster than the normal cost of living, and if we still require Georgia, or Connecticut, or Alabama, or Tennessee, to pay for 43 percent of Medicaid, and we haven't changed the eligibility requirements, and we don't give the States much flexibility, and the Federal court tells the Governors they can't do it, we are giving the States an impossible assignment. The only result will be the gradual destruction of our system of higher education, which is principally funded by State governments.

I strongly urge my colleagues to seriously consider this legislation. I am glad to see 17 Senators of both parties have already signed on. I am glad a leading Democrat in the House, Congressman Jim Cooper, will be sponsoring a version of this bill as well.

I will have printed in the Record a series of comments about a book, ``Democracy By Decree,'' which is the scholarship on which this legislation is based. This book is by Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod, professors at the New York Law School. The book is published by Yale University Press. It has been widely praised by columnists as evenhanded. Among those who praise the scholarship are former Senator Bill Bradley, Ed Koch, Diane Ravitch, John Sexton, president of the New York University and Dean of the NYU Law School, and Chris DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Policy Institute for Public Policy Research. Not many pieces of scholarship have support from such a broad spectrum.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed after my remarks the complete comments of those individuals I just mentioned, as well as a column by George F. Will in Newsweek on November 28th, saying that ``Democracy By Decree'' is one of the most important books on governing in the last 10 years. I ask unanimous consent also to have printed an article from the Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2002, by Thomas J. Main, assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs of Baruch College. I ask unanimous consent that a review of the book by Ross Weiner in the Legal Times also be printed.

Of course.

The Senator is absolutely right. Perhaps Congressman Cooper had the best phrase. He said the purpose of this legislation is to keep democracy fresh.

The people are entitled to two things. One is to have their constitutional and Federal rights enforced in the Federal courts. This will continue under this legislation. But they are also entitled to have democratically elected leaders that can make the policy decisions and do the governing, which is what we say to the rest of the world.

We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, sacrificing lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to promote the idea that people have a right to elect their own officials, yet we have drifted into the situation somewhere, as in the Tennessee case, where we have four prior consent decrees that will leave in the Federal courts these decisions and the Governor cannot change them. Even though a previous Governor entered into them, the standards are such he cannot change them.

He has a right to go in there and say, Judge, I hope you will review it. The plaintiff, not the Governor, has to persuade the judge that it needs to be continued. And if it does, the court may continue the consent decree if he considers it to be useful.

I thank the Senator from Alabama.

When the word ``judges'' is mentioned in this Chamber, we automatically divide, especially during this season. That is why I am so glad Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Congressman Cooper have joined in this. Former Senator Bill Bradley has praised the ideas found in ``Democracy by Decree.''

This is not a Democratic or Republican idea. Democracy is everyone's idea in this country. One reason it has such broad support is that it is not just the court's fault that this is happening; sometimes Governors and mayors do not want to deal with the prison problem. They do not want to deal with the Medicaid problem, so they unload it on the courts. That hurts the people who should be helped. It deprives the voters of their right to choose elected officials.

The bill has broad bipartisan support. I hope it continues to have. I am grateful to the Senator from Connecticut for giving me an opportunity to make my remarks today before he made his remarks.

Exhibit A

Praise for Democracy by Decree

(By Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod)

``The first book that shows how courts can do their proper

job of protecting rights without allowing elected officials

off the hook for their proper job of making policy.''--Former

Senator Bill Bradley

``A fascinating book for someone like me who regretted

agreeing to a court-approved consent decree limiting the

city's authority in programs involving prisons, welfare,

education, homeless shelters, etc.''--Ed Koch, former mayor,

New York City

``A brilliant, well-written, and brave account of how

federal courts have distorted our political system by taking

control of complex institutions like schools and prisons--

sometimes for decades--instead of enforcing rights, which is

their proper domain.''--Diane Ravitch, New York University

``With fascinating blow-by-blow accounts, Sandler and

Schoenbrod expose how advocates for one interest group

inevitably undermine the interests of others and thwart the

ability of those in responsibility to balance interests for

the common good.''--Philip K. Howard, author of The Death of

Common Sense

``Democracy by Decree is an impressive and thoughtful

analysis of the current court-centered rights culture in

which it is too easy for elected officials to `pass the buck'

to courts while taking actions that are blatantly

unconstitutional.''--Nadine Strossen, president, American

Civil Liberties Union, and professor, New York Law School

``Democracy by Decree shows how courts can protect rights

and still let mayors and governors do their job.''--John

Sexton, president of New York University and dean of New York

University School of Law

``Sandler and Schoenbrod's account--really a discovery--of

the existence of a second government in our midst is

meticulous, nuanced, and alarming. By showing how unilateral

judicial government undermines both democracy and individual

rights, they have done a significant service to both.''

Christopher DeMuth, president, American Enterprise Institute

for Public Policy Research

Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, have joined Senator Pryor and me in introducing this bill. Congressman Jim Cooper from Tennessee will be introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

This is bipartisan legislation that will help slow down the practice of democracy by decree--Federal courts running State and local governments.

Consent decrees--judicial orders based on the consent of parties engaged in a civil court action--can be an effective judicial tool when drawn narrowly and with respect for State and local policy choices. Congress passes laws and sets conditions on grants that must be followed by State and local governments, and when they are not followed it is important for citizens to be able to turn to the courts to see that the rule of law is upheld. That is at the heart of the idea of federalism.

Unfortunately, in many cases, rather than preserve the separation of powers between the Federal Government and State governments, consent decrees have done just the opposite. What we are seeing in State after State is government policy controlled by courts and judges instead of by Governors, mayors, and legislatures.

In Maine, in 2003, the Governor had to propose deep cuts to mental health services for children because consent decrees made it almost impossible to cut other parts of the budget.

In New York City, Latino parents are outraged because schools are forcing their children into bilingual education programs when the parents want them in all-English classes. Why? Because for the last 30 years, bilingual education in New York has been mandated by a consent decree that the schools have no choice but to obey.

In Los Angeles, a consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to send $110 million per year on improving city buses. That is 47 percent of its budget just on buses, leaving the remaining 53 percent pay for street and freeway improvements, rail systems, transportation planning programs, and the reduction of its debt. Meanwhile, ridership on MTA buses increased only marginally in the first 6 years of judicial management and residents of Los Angeles complain that other MTA services are suffering.

The State of Tennessee has also become a victim of democracy by decree.

In Tennessee, like in every State, governments do not have the luxury we have up here of being able to deficit spend. State governments need to balance the budget, and I can speak from experience when I say that is a process that involves making excruciating choices. In Tennessee, however, Governor Bredesen has had fewer choices to make because the Federal court has refused to let him do what he needs to do to balance the budget.

Late last year, it became apparent that the rising cost of providing Medicaid--and in the case of Tennessee, we have a program called TennCare on a waiver from CMS would result in an additional $650 million in costs to the State of Tennessee in the upcoming 2006 budget. Now, Governor Bredesen has a plan that he says would result in costs only rising $75 million in the next year, but he can not implement it because he is constrained by a series of consent decrees. These consent decrees prescribe policies on medical screenings for children, require the State to provide patients with high-cost, brand-name prescription drugs, and affects the ability of the State to verify the eligibility of the patients it serves.

On the face of it, it sounds like these are all good things. Of course we want children to get screenings that will help prevent serious illness and of course we want to make sure patients have prescription drugs. The problem is that whereas the Federal Medicaid laws say one thing, Federal judges are turning that into a whole series of requirements that States are then bound by for as long as a Federal judge decides it is necessary.

For example, regarding medical screenings for children: Medicaid law--section 1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act requires that children receive ``such other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment and other measures . . . to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses under the State plan.'' Now, from that one line of Federal code, the court entered a consent decree that established a deadline for Tennessee to improve its performance to ensure that 80 percent of eligible beneficiaries were receiving this screening.

Nonetheless, even in the face of enormous budget pressures, the Federal courts are going to force Tennessee to maintain the programs that will keep it on track to meet that 80 percent goal. So Governor Bredesen had to make a painful decision; he had to cut 323,000 adults from TennCare and limit benefits for the remaining 396,000 adults. Let's be clear here--these beneficiaries are people that the State of Tennessee has decided to provide health care services to even though the Federal Medicaid laws do not require the State to do so. These are optional populations and services, and Governor Bredesen was exercising his option not to provide these services.

But hang on a minute. Maybe they are not as optional as we all thought. On January 29, 2005, Judge William J. Haynes, Jr., a U.S. District Court Judge, declared that he must approve any changes to TennCare. So now, the Tennessee State Legislature is waiting for Judge Haynes to make a decision and give the State legislature permission to change the State health insurance program and balance the budget.

In all of these cases, and in many more; we see courts and lawyers making decisions like this. Not just protecting rights, but running the government. Courts are making policy choices that are supposed to be made by elected Governors, mayors, legislators, city councilmen and women, school board members, and any number of other officials.

When courts run the government, that is no democracy. Federal courts are not accountable. They do not have to answer to an electorate for the choices they make. This is not good government.

The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act contains three main provisions that address many of these concerns.

First, this bill lays out a series of findings that will guide Federal courts in approving future consent decrees. The findings give congressional endorsement to the Supreme Court's call

for limiting decrees to make sure they are not unreasonably broad. The findings also advocate the entry of consent decrees that take into account the interests of State and local governments and give due deference to their policy choices. Finally, the findings also make it clear that consent decrees should contain explicit and realistic strategies for ending court supervision.

Second, the bill creates ``term limits'' for consent decrees. It provides State and local governments with an opportunity to revisit the consent decree after either 4 years or 6 months after the end of the term of the State or local official who consents to the agreement. Four years is a reasonable amount of time to evaluate the success of judicial management and to determine whether or not it is still warranted. Alternatively, a provision allowing a decree to be revisited following the election of new State and local officials will give these officials the opportunity to bring fresh ideas to the table. I am sure that many of my colleagues who served as State and local officials can attest to the frustration of coming into office and having your hands tied by an agreement that the last mayor, attorney general, or Governor made.

Finally, this bill shifts the burden of proof from the State and local governments to the plaintiffs in the case. Under the current law, State and local governments must prove that a decree is no longer necessary to protect plaintiffs' rights; that is, they must prove a negative. They must also show that they have complied substantially with all the terms of the existing decree. However, as I have already mentioned, the terms of these decrees often go far beyond simply upholding the plaintiffs' rights. By shifting the burden of proof, this bill requires the plaintiffs to show that judicial management is still necessary. It allows parents like those concerned about the New York bilingual education programs to make the point that they do not think they still need judicial management of this program.

Passage of my bill will not immediately end the consent decree problem. We have separation of powers in our government, and there is only so much Congress can do. However, what Congress can do, and what I hope to do with this legislation, is level the playing field so that State and local governments can have a fair shot at getting back the authority that is rightfully theirs.

Judicial management has become a national concern. Federal courts are running police departments, school districts, foster care programs, State health insurance programs, and numerous other programs that are rightfully left to the responsibility of State and local elected officials.

No less an authority than the Supreme Court has recognized the overreaching of the Federal courts. In 2004, the court handed down a decision in the Frew v. Hawkins case. Although the court upheld the consent decree in this case, its opinion recognized the dangers of consent decrees and contained some guidance as to how to address these concerns.

I think the Supreme Court's own words say it most effectively:

The state officials warn that enforcement of consent

decrees can undermine the sovereign interests and

accountability of state governments. . . . The concerns they

express are legitimate ones. If not limited to reasonable and

necessary implementations of federal law, remedies outlined

in consent decrees involving state officeholders may

improperly deprive future officials of their designated

legislative and executive powers. They may also lead to

federal court oversight of state programs for long periods of

time even absent an ongoing violation of federal law.

Referencing a previous Supreme Court decision involving consent decrees, the Court went on to say:

`principles of federalism and simple common sense require the

[district] court to give significant weight' to the views of

government officials. . . . principles of federalism require

that state officials with front line responsibility for

administering the program be given latitude and substantial

discretion.

The federal court must exercise its equitable powers to

ensure that when the objects of the decree have been

attained, responsibility for discharging the State's

obligations is returned promptly to the State and its

officials. As public servants, the officials of the State

must be presumed to have a high degree of competence in

deciding how best to discharge their governmental

responsibilities. A State, in the ordinary course, depends

upon successor officials, both appointed and elected, to

bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating

revenues and resources. The basic obligations of federal law

may remain the same, but the precise manner of their

discharge may not.

The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act comes at a time when President Bush has called on Congress to offer more flexibility to State governments to manage Medicaid. That flexibility has to in part address the Federal courts' assumption of judicial control of these programs. This bill is one way of doing that. In a broader sense too, this bill is one small piece of the effort to promote federalism in the United States.

In recent years, it has become the trend to treat States as the wayward little brother of the Federal Government. That was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. State governments provide the basic necessities of life that citizens demand. They are the laboratories that can serve as models of good government that the rest of the country can follow. They are our partners, not our wards. It is time we begin to treat them that way.

This bill is the first of what I hope will be many steps toward restoring the relationship between the Federal Government and the State and local governments that do so much.

Mr. President, today I am here with Senator Dodd and on behalf of Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy to introduce the Caring for Children Act of 2005 which reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, program. This program provides funding to States for child care vouchers.

Across the United States last year low-income parents of 2.3 million children were able to use these certificates or ``vouchers'' to help pay the cost of child care while the parents worked or continued their education so they could get a better job.

Last year, my home State of Tennessee spent $251,760,528 for child care, much of which came through the CCDBG program. This important program legislates how States are to administer child care. States provide certificates to parents to choose the type of care that best fits their children's needs.

In Tennessee, 1 percent of children receive care in their own home, 19 percent have chosen to place their children in family home care, 5 percent are in group care while the vast majority, 75 percent, are in child care centers. About 24,500 Tennessee families with children are enrolled in some form of subsidized child care, and as of January of this year, 46,591 children were receiving subsidized child care in my home State.

A family of four, which is a typical size for eligible families in Tennessee, is eligible for child care support when their median income is no more than 60 percent of the State's median income. That means that families making $33,000 or less are eligible for some assistance, though they may also have to make a co-payment. For example, a family of four making $32,000 would be required to pay $56 per week for the first child and $42 per week for the second child.

This year we are making the CCDBG program even better with four key improvements.

First, the act increases the quality set-aside from 4 percent, current law, to 6 percent. Eighty percent of parents report that their child care is poor to mediocre, so we need to take steps to improve overall quality of care. The quality set-aside is used to offer training and professional development to child care workers. States can also use quality funds to provide technical assistance to child care facilities to help them enhance learning opportunities for pre-school or school-aged children while in care. Of course, States could choose to do even more, and I am happy to report that my own State of Tennessee spends at least 12 percent on quality improvements.

Second, the act requires States to use at least 70 percent of funds for direct services. This will ensure that more of the money gets into the hands of parents rather than State bureaucracies. Under current law, States vary greatly in what percentage they use for direct services since current language simply specifies that a ``significant'' portion be used for services.

Third, the legislation emphasizes the importance of school preparedness by adding a new goal: development of pre-reading, prenumeracy, math and language skills for children in care. Research has proven that a child's brain doubles in size between birth and age 3. These are formative years for both physical and cognitive development.

Fourth, the bill establishes a temporary small business competitive grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. Senator Roberts developed this innovative $30 million grant program, and I am glad it could be included in the bill.

The CCDBG program is important for supporting parents raising children across the country. One such parent is Tameka Payton. Tameka was nineth grade when she had her first child, Javonta. When she became pregnant, Tameka was a ward of the State. She had grown up with an abusive mother who was addicted to drugs. After being removed from the care of her mother, she was placed in the care of her aunt who also proved abusive. Tameka ran away, and was placed in the foster care system until she was 18. She then had two more children, Jayla and Michael, before finding a family resource center at the Salvation Army that connected her and her children to Tennessee's Family First program.

The Family First program and the child care certificates she receives through this program enabled Tameka to find work and become a better mother. She is currently working 40 hours a week while working on her GED. She is about to take the test. Everyday she brings her children 4, 2, and 1 to the McNeilly Center. Tameka feels confident that not only are her children receiving quality care but also she is learning how to be a better mother. Her children's teachers are receptive and answer all of her questions. She has learned to spend time reading to her children so she can contribute to their education, too.

The Federal CCDBG program funds the child care certificates Tameka receives. Without them, Tameka, and her children, would be in a very different place today.

Tameka's dream is to get her GED and attend Tennessee State University. The support she receives has given her the chance to realize that dream, and make a better life for herself and her children. I expect her hard work to payoff.

Another Tennessee parent who has benefited from the program is Renee Prigmore. Renee is currently a toddler teacher at the McNeilly Center in Nashville. But she first found McNeilly as a parent, not as a teacher. As a single parent of three, she used her child care certificates at McNeilly to leave her kids in quality care while she attended community college.

Renee has attained her degree as a Child Development Associate, CDA. Her children are now 10, 6, and 4 and she is exiting out of the child care program because she is able to provide for her three kids. The child care certificates she received enabled her to take the time to receive that degree and provide for her family.

People like Tameka Payton and Renee Prigmore have used the CCDBG program to build a new and better life for their families. With the introduction of the Caring for Children Act, we can make that program even stronger, so that parents raising children are able to build a better future for their families. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this important endeavor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am here with Senator Dodd and on behalf of Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy to introduce the Caring for Children Act of 2005 which reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, program. This program provides funding to States for child care vouchers.

Across the United States last year low-income parents of 2.3 million children were able to use these certificates or ``vouchers'' to help pay the cost of child care while the parents worked or continued their education so they could get a better job.

Last year, my home State of Tennessee spent $251,760,528 for child care, much of which came through the CCDBG program. This important program legislates how States are to administer child care. States provide certificates to parents to choose the type of care that best fits their children's needs.

In Tennessee, 1 percent of children receive care in their own home, 19 percent have chosen to place their children in family home care, 5 percent are in group care while the vast majority, 75 percent, are in child care centers. About 24,500 Tennessee families with children are enrolled in some form of subsidized child care, and as of January of this year, 46,591 children were receiving subsidized child care in my home State.

A family of four, which is a typical size for eligible families in Tennessee, is eligible for child care support when their median income is no more than 60 percent of the State's median income. That means that families making $33,000 or less are eligible for some assistance, though they may also have to make a co-payment. For example, a family of four making $32,000 would be required to pay $56 per week for the first child and $42 per week for the second child.

This year we are making the CCDBG program even better with four key improvements.

First, the act increases the quality set-aside from 4 percent, current law, to 6 percent. Eighty percent of parents report that their child care is poor to mediocre, so we need to take steps to improve overall quality of care. The quality set-aside is used to offer training and professional development to child care workers. States can also use quality funds to provide technical assistance to child care facilities to help them enhance learning opportunities for pre-school or school-aged children while in care. Of course, States could choose to do even more, and I am happy to report that my own State of Tennessee spends at least 12 percent on quality improvements.

Second, the act requires States to use at least 70 percent of funds for direct services. This will ensure that more of the money gets into the hands of parents rather than State bureaucracies. Under current law, States vary greatly in what percentage they use for direct services since current language simply specifies that a ``significant'' portion be used for services.

Third, the legislation emphasizes the importance of school preparedness by adding a new goal: development of pre-reading, prenumeracy, math and language skills for children in care. Research has proven that a child's brain doubles in size between birth and age 3. These are formative years for both physical and cognitive development.

Fourth, the bill establishes a temporary small business competitive grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. Senator Roberts developed this innovative $30 million grant program, and I am glad it could be included in the bill.

The CCDBG program is important for supporting parents raising children across the country. One such parent is Tameka Payton. Tameka was nineth grade when she had her first child, Javonta. When she became pregnant, Tameka was a ward of the State. She had grown up with an abusive mother who was addicted to drugs. After being removed from the care of her mother, she was placed in the care of her aunt who also proved abusive. Tameka ran away, and was placed in the foster care system until she was 18. She then had two more children, Jayla and Michael, before finding a family resource center at the Salvation Army that connected her and her children to Tennessee's Family First program.

The Family First program and the child care certificates she receives through this program enabled Tameka to find work and become a better mother. She is currently working 40 hours a week while working on her GED. She is about to take the test. Everyday she brings her children 4, 2, and 1 to the McNeilly Center. Tameka feels confident that not only are her children receiving quality care but also she is learning how to be a better mother. Her children's teachers are receptive and answer all of her questions. She has learned to spend time reading to her children so she can contribute to their education, too.

The Federal CCDBG program funds the child care certificates Tameka receives. Without them, Tameka, and her children, would be in a very different place today.

Tameka's dream is to get her GED and attend Tennessee State University. The support she receives has given her the chance to realize that dream, and make a better life for herself and her children. I expect her hard work to payoff.

Another Tennessee parent who has benefited from the program is Renee Prigmore. Renee is currently a toddler teacher at the McNeilly Center in Nashville. But she first found McNeilly as a parent, not as a teacher. As a single parent of three, she used her child care certificates at McNeilly to leave her kids in quality care while she attended community college.

Renee has attained her degree as a Child Development Associate, CDA. Her children are now 10, 6, and 4 and she is exiting out of the child care program because she is able to provide for her three kids. The child care certificates she received enabled her to take the time to receive that degree and provide for her family.

People like Tameka Payton and Renee Prigmore have used the CCDBG program to build a new and better life for their families. With the introduction of the Caring for Children Act, we can make that program even stronger, so that parents raising children are able to build a better future for their families. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this important endeavor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for giving me this opportunity. I am glad to join with the President pro tempore and the majority leader in cosponsoring this resolution. I would like to add a few words about Howard Baker.

When Howard Baker left for Japan, there was an enormous ceremony hosted by the President of the United States in the East Room. It was a signal of the importance of our country's relationship with Japan. It was a demonstration of the long list of distinguished United States Ambassadors to the country of Japan. It was a reminder of the importance of the job Ambassador Baker would have at this listening post and action post in Asia.

Howard Baker's coming home deserves a little bit of fanfare, too. The relationship between Japan and the United States has never been better. A good bit of that credit goes to President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi for their close relationship, but Howard Baker had a lot to do with it, too. His homecoming helps to bring to a close, as Senator Stevens and Senator Frist have said, another chapter in one of the most distinguished public careers in our country.

Howard Baker was a very successful Senator. There would not have been a

Reagan Presidency, as we know it, without Howard Baker. I remember Howard Baker told me that when the tax cuts passed in the early 1980s, after the Republican majority was elected, he, Senator Baker, the majority leader, took the tax cuts and walked them over to the House of Representatives and handed them to Tip O'Neill. Then, of course, Senator Baker put his own Presidential aspirations aside a few years later and served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. I was living in Australia at the time, and I remember the relief the Australians had in 1987 hearing on the radio that Howard Baker was going to the White House to help straighten out some problems.

I saw him up close, and I have seen him up close for a long time. I came here to this body in 1967, as his legislative assistant, 1 year before the President pro tempore became a Member of this Senate. Howard Baker was not a shy first-termer. We sat around in staff seats in the back of the Chamber and waited until he and Ted Kennedy, then another young Senator, took on Everett Dirksen and Sam Ervin on ``one man, one vote.'' The youngsters beat the oldsters on that vote.

He ran for leader twice, I think, in the first 6 years. In 1977, he changed the name ``Minority Leader'' to ``Republican Leader'' on the wall out here. He began to talk about the second-best view in Washington being in the leader's office. And we knew he was thinking about trying for the first-best view in Washington, which is from the White House.

When he accepted this post in Japan, at President Bush's request, some people said to me: Why in the world would Howard Baker do that, with all he has already done in his life? I was not one bit surprised that he did. Howard Baker has always had the bit in his teeth. He has done everything he has ever done with consummate skill.

He is the reason I am in public service today. We once said there was a whole generation of us--former Senator Thompson, the late Howard Liebengood--a number of us who were a generation of people inspired by Howard Baker. Now there is a second generation, including our majority leader.

There really would not be a two-party system in Tennessee without Howard Baker.

We used to say the best thing about Howard was that when people saw him on TV, he always made Tennesseans look good. We can now say that about the country. When people see Howard Baker around the world, he makes us Americans look even better. He represents the best of us.

We welcome him home just in time for his 80th birthday on November 15, and just in time, I am quite confident, to prepare for another sparkling chapter in one of our country's most distinguished public careers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 17, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006 and future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Daniel R. Levinson, to be Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC; Harold Damelin, to be Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC; and Raymond Wagner, Jr., to be a Member of the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Russia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

I. Legislation: S. 256, A bill to Amend Title 11 of the United States Code, and for Other Purposes Act of 2005, [Grassley, Hatch, Sessions]

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 entitled, ``The President's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request for the SBA'' on Thursday, February 17, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 17, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, at 2:30 p.m. to review the National Park Service's implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorized in Public Law 108-447.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Programs in Peril: An Overview of the GAO High-Risk List.''

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding me time.

I am in support of the President's nominee, Judge Michael Chertoff. He seems to have worked for almost every part of the Federal Government, including this body. I heard the Senator from Maine say that she had never seen a better witness before her committee.

As Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge Chertoff will play a very important and visible role in our everyday lives, protecting us from terrorism, but my purpose today is to highlight another job he has. He is also the chief immigration officer. As Secretary, he will oversee the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the successor to the INS, which manages immigration in this country. This job of Judge Chertoff is not primarily about keeping people out of the United States; it is also about welcoming new Americans into the United States.

The numbers are down some since 2001, but as many as 1 million immigrants become new American citizens each year.

I have attended a number of the ceremonies which are held in Federal courthouses all over America every month to welcome and naturalize these new citizens. I was in Nashville in December when 50 or 60 people from all backgrounds were administered the oath of allegiance by Judge Echols. The oath requires each new American to renounce any old allegiance and swear a new one to the United States of America.

Each one of these new citizens has waited at least 5 years. They have learned English. They have learned something about U.S. history. They have proved they are of good character. Many new citizens have tears in their eyes as they recite that oath. It is an inspiring scene. Each of these new citizens brings a new background and cultural tradition to the rich fabric of American life. That increases our magnificent diversity, but diversity is not our most important characteristic.

Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. A lot of the world is diverse. What is unique about the United States of America is that we take all of that diversity and make ourselves into one country. We are able to say we are all Americans. We do that because we unify it with principles and values in which we all believe: liberty, equality, rule of law. It also helps that we speak a common language. It is hard to be one people if we cannot talk with one another. Many of these new citizens and many others living in this country lack a solid grasp of our common language or a clear understanding of our history and civic culture. Without proficiency in English, our common language, and an understanding of our history and values, immigrants will find it difficult to integrate themselves into our American society.

So my hope today is that Judge Chertoff does a magnificent job in his role at preventing terrorism. My hope also is that he does a good job in keeping out of this country people who are not legally supposed to be here. But equally important is Secretary Chertoff's role in welcoming new citizens to this country, helping them learn our history, our common language--helping all of us remember those principles that unite us as one country. That is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. It is of increasing interest to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff in this new role and I support his confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I salute Senator Hagel for his leadership and his contribution on this issue. I am glad to be here with my colleague, Senator Craig, who is one of the Senate's real authorities on energy.

We have had some trouble passing an energy bill in the Senate. We are having some trouble passing a clean air bill in the Senate. If we are being logical--which is hard for a Senate to be--we would set clean air objectives and pass a clean energy bill to help reach that objective, do it at once, and give ourselves a low cost, reliable supply of energy, less dependent on the rest of the world, and do it in a way that is environmentally sound.

That is our objective. We have different approaches on this, but Senator Hagel has put his emphasis today exactly where it needs to be. The United States of America is a country that has about a third of all the GDP in the world. We have 5 to 6 percent of the people and a third of all the money is one way to put it.

How did we get that money? How did we get our position? The National Academy of Sciences says that since World War II, half our new jobs have come from advances in science and technology. There are other countries in the world--a growing number of countries--that have great capacity for science and technology. Some of the greatest scientists and engineers who have worked in this country have come from other countries in the world. But if any country in the world ought to be putting a focus on science and technology as a way of helping not just their country but the rest of the world deal with the issue of greenhouse gases, it ought to be the United States of America. Senator Hagel is exactly right to put the spotlight there. He does it in a three-part bill. In the first part, he talks about international cooperation. That also makes a lot of sense.

Three weeks ago, I was visiting with the chairman of one of the largest energy companies in Germany. If there is a country in the world that has a more irrational energy policy than we do, it would be Germany. They have just decided to close 19 nuclear powerplants at the same time, across the Rhine river, France is 85 percent nuclear power. Of course, Germany will never do that because they will not be able to meet the Kyoto carbon standards if they close the plants. But the point that my friend from Germany was making is that we are headed, in his words, toward an energy catastrophe.

It is a catastrophe of two kinds. One is energy supply, and one is clean air. Now, why is that? It is because other countries in the world are growing. In China, the average Chinese person uses about one-sixth the amount of energy that the average person in the European Union uses, in the 15 original countries. Now, in China, when the average Chinese person, with all the people there, gets up to three-sixths or four-sixths or five-sixths or six-sixths, as they will, there will be an unbelievable demand for energy in this country. We are already seeing it in the prices for natural gas, in the prices for oil.

The figures we heard in our Energy Committee were that over the next 25 years--and my numbers are approximate--China might build 650 new coal plants to begin to supply its energy, and India might build 800. That does not count the rest of Southeast Asia or what Brazil might do. So we cannot just look at this issue in terms of what is happening in the United States.

If there is not a supply of energy, and the other countries are demanding so much, our prices will be so high that our million chemical jobs in the country will move overseas looking for cheap natural gas. And it will not make much difference how we clean the air in the United States of America if China and India and Brazil build so many old coal plants and throw stuff up in the air because it will blow around the world and come over here.

So we have, on two counts, a major, major challenge: energy supply and clean air. It would make enormous sense for the scientists and engineers in the United States to work with the scientists and engineers in Germany who have exactly the same challenge and the scientists and engineers in China who have even more of a challenge. They have just stopped 26 of their coal plants because of environmental concerns, but they will not be able to stop them for long because of their need for an energy supply.

What the Senator from Nebraska has done is to say to us, hey, we are talking about mandates and rules and regulations, but what we ought to be trying to do is to create a solution to the problem using the thing that we in the United States do better than anybody, or historically have, and that is our science and technology. This is the country with the 50 great research universities. This is the country with the 20 National Laboratories. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in my home State, is already doing important work on how we recapture carbon.

One of the things we can do in the Senate, without arguing about Kyoto, without arguing about mandates, is to say, let's see if we can-- through technology, working with people in other parts of the world, and encouraging our own businesses and laboratories--find better ways to deal with greenhouse gases. I salute the Senator for that. I am glad to have a chance to be associated with this bill.

Now, the second thing I would like to say is that is not all there is to do. We have different opinions in this body about so-called global warming. I believe, of course, there is global warming. Our grandparents can tell us that. The question, as Senator Craig said, is, What is causing it? And do we know enough about it to take steps? We have different opinions about that issue. That does not mean we are all unconcerned about it; we just have different

degrees of understanding of it and different opinions about the evidence we see.

I have a little different opinion than the Senator from Idaho. I support legislation that Senator Carper and Senator Chafee and Senator Gregg and I supported in the last session of Congress that put modest caps on the utilities section for the production of carbon. I was not willing to go further than that because of the science I read and I'm not sure we know exactly how to solve this problem. My reading of it did not persuade me, one, that we know all that we need to know about global warming; and, two, maybe more importantly, I was not sure we knew what we were doing by just saying, OK, we will do this, and without having the solution.

Again, Senator Hagel has suggested, well, let's come up with some technology. Let's come up with some science. And then we can make a better assessment about what we would be able to do if we were to put a cap on it.

I would suggest that in addition to Senator Hagel's technology that he encourages in his legislation--that is one way to do it--a second way to do it is with some kind of caps, and there are a variety of proposals in this body to do that. That also encourages, in my opinion, technology. But then there is also a third point to make, and that takes us out of the debate as to whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to put on mandatory caps.

If China is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants and India is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants because that is the only technology available to them and the only source of fuel they have readily available, then we had better get busy trying to figure out a way to recapture carbon--not to comply with the Kyoto Treaty, but because we are going to have to have it in this world. Any realistic look at the sources of energy in the world says that for the next 20 or 25 years, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, and coal will be almost all of it.

There is a lot of support for renewable energy. Some people want to put up wind turbines taller than football fields covering square miles. I do not. I think that destroys the American landscape, and it does not produce much energy.

But one of the most thoughtful presentations I have heard on the solution to our common issues of clean energy and clean air has come from the National Resources Defense Council, one of the leading environmental organizations in this country. They are in favor of a coal solution--I hope I am attributing this correctly to them--of a coal solution for our clean air, clean energy policy. A big part of their reasoning is, they see what is happening in the rest of the world. If the United States, they reason, can figure out a way to gasify coal and then recapture the carbon, that gets rid of most of the noxious pollutants--sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. It recaptures the carbon, which we have not really figured out how to do yet, but it does not just do that for the United States, it shows the rest of the world how to do it. And then China, instead of building 800 new coal plants with the old technology, will build 800 coal gasification plants and recapture the carbon. India will do the same, and maybe Germany will do the same. There will be more energy, and we will all be able to breathe. And that is quite irrespective of mandatory caps.

One of the things I like about Senator Hagel's proposal is there is not any way to study the technology of how we deal with greenhouse gases without getting into questions of coal gasification and the recapturing of carbon. There is not any way to do that. He is leading us to the tantalizing possibility that in the United States we might one day be able to say: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 500 years' worth of it. We can turn it into gas. We can recapture the carbon. We can use that to create the hydrogen for the hydrogen economy that we think might one day be down the road, and that, plus our supplies of natural gas and nuclear power, will give us clean energy and will give us clean air and will show the world how to do the same.

The Senator from Nebraska has put the spotlight where the spotlight ought to be. The United States of America, of all countries, should start with technology and science and say: Greenhouse gases is a problem. We are still researching how much of a problem it is. But we should, working with other countries, use our science and technology to deal with it and, in the process, see if it can lead us toward that brilliant intersection of clean energy and clean air that will one day give us a steady supply of energy and clean air that we can breathe.

I salute the Senator for his leadership and am glad to be a cosponsor. I look forward to working with him. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on energy, we have some jurisdiction over global warming as well as energy technology commercialization. Senator Domenici, chairman of our full committee, had a full roundtable the other day on natural gas. We have one coming up on coal and coal gasification. I can assure my colleagues that the Hagel legislation will be an important part of that roundtable. I will do my best to make it an important part of energy hearings.

Mr. President, I salute Senator Hagel for his leadership and his contribution on this issue. I am glad to be here with my colleague, Senator Craig, who is one of the Senate's real authorities on energy.

We have had some trouble passing an energy bill in the Senate. We are having some trouble passing a clean air bill in the Senate. If we are being logical--which is hard for a Senate to be--we would set clean air objectives and pass a clean energy bill to help reach that objective, do it at once, and give ourselves a low cost, reliable supply of energy, less dependent on the rest of the world, and do it in a way that is environmentally sound.

That is our objective. We have different approaches on this, but Senator Hagel has put his emphasis today exactly where it needs to be. The United States of America is a country that has about a third of all the GDP in the world. We have 5 to 6 percent of the people and a third of all the money is one way to put it.

How did we get that money? How did we get our position? The National Academy of Sciences says that since World War II, half our new jobs have come from advances in science and technology. There are other countries in the world--a growing number of countries--that have great capacity for science and technology. Some of the greatest scientists and engineers who have worked in this country have come from other countries in the world. But if any country in the world ought to be putting a focus on science and technology as a way of helping not just their country but the rest of the world deal with the issue of greenhouse gases, it ought to be the United States of America. Senator Hagel is exactly right to put the spotlight there. He does it in a three-part bill. In the first part, he talks about international cooperation. That also makes a lot of sense.

Three weeks ago, I was visiting with the chairman of one of the largest energy companies in Germany. If there is a country in the world that has a more irrational energy policy than we do, it would be Germany. They have just decided to close 19 nuclear powerplants at the same time, across the Rhine river, France is 85 percent nuclear power. Of course, Germany will never do that because they will not be able to meet the Kyoto carbon standards if they close the plants. But the point that my friend from Germany was making is that we are headed, in his words, toward an energy catastrophe.

It is a catastrophe of two kinds. One is energy supply, and one is clean air. Now, why is that? It is because other countries in the world are growing. In China, the average Chinese person uses about one-sixth the amount of energy that the average person in the European Union uses, in the 15 original countries. Now, in China, when the average Chinese person, with all the people there, gets up to three-sixths or four-sixths or five-sixths or six-sixths, as they will, there will be an unbelievable demand for energy in this country. We are already seeing it in the prices for natural gas, in the prices for oil.

The figures we heard in our Energy Committee were that over the next 25 years--and my numbers are approximate--China might build 650 new coal plants to begin to supply its energy, and India might build 800. That does not count the rest of Southeast Asia or what Brazil might do. So we cannot just look at this issue in terms of what is happening in the United States.

If there is not a supply of energy, and the other countries are demanding so much, our prices will be so high that our million chemical jobs in the country will move overseas looking for cheap natural gas. And it will not make much difference how we clean the air in the United States of America if China and India and Brazil build so many old coal plants and throw stuff up in the air because it will blow around the world and come over here.

So we have, on two counts, a major, major challenge: energy supply and clean air. It would make enormous sense for the scientists and engineers in the United States to work with the scientists and engineers in Germany who have exactly the same challenge and the scientists and engineers in China who have even more of a challenge. They have just stopped 26 of their coal plants because of environmental concerns, but they will not be able to stop them for long because of their need for an energy supply.

What the Senator from Nebraska has done is to say to us, hey, we are talking about mandates and rules and regulations, but what we ought to be trying to do is to create a solution to the problem using the thing that we in the United States do better than anybody, or historically have, and that is our science and technology. This is the country with the 50 great research universities. This is the country with the 20 National Laboratories. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in my home State, is already doing important work on how we recapture carbon.

One of the things we can do in the Senate, without arguing about Kyoto, without arguing about mandates, is to say, let's see if we can-- through technology, working with people in other parts of the world, and encouraging our own businesses and laboratories--find better ways to deal with greenhouse gases. I salute the Senator for that. I am glad to have a chance to be associated with this bill.

Now, the second thing I would like to say is that is not all there is to do. We have different opinions in this body about so-called global warming. I believe, of course, there is global warming. Our grandparents can tell us that. The question, as Senator Craig said, is, What is causing it? And do we know enough about it to take steps? We have different opinions about that issue. That does not mean we are all unconcerned about it; we just have different

degrees of understanding of it and different opinions about the evidence we see.

I have a little different opinion than the Senator from Idaho. I support legislation that Senator Carper and Senator Chafee and Senator Gregg and I supported in the last session of Congress that put modest caps on the utilities section for the production of carbon. I was not willing to go further than that because of the science I read and I'm not sure we know exactly how to solve this problem. My reading of it did not persuade me, one, that we know all that we need to know about global warming; and, two, maybe more importantly, I was not sure we knew what we were doing by just saying, OK, we will do this, and without having the solution.

Again, Senator Hagel has suggested, well, let's come up with some technology. Let's come up with some science. And then we can make a better assessment about what we would be able to do if we were to put a cap on it.

I would suggest that in addition to Senator Hagel's technology that he encourages in his legislation--that is one way to do it--a second way to do it is with some kind of caps, and there are a variety of proposals in this body to do that. That also encourages, in my opinion, technology. But then there is also a third point to make, and that takes us out of the debate as to whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to put on mandatory caps.

If China is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants and India is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants because that is the only technology available to them and the only source of fuel they have readily available, then we had better get busy trying to figure out a way to recapture carbon--not to comply with the Kyoto Treaty, but because we are going to have to have it in this world. Any realistic look at the sources of energy in the world says that for the next 20 or 25 years, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, and coal will be almost all of it.

There is a lot of support for renewable energy. Some people want to put up wind turbines taller than football fields covering square miles. I do not. I think that destroys the American landscape, and it does not produce much energy.

But one of the most thoughtful presentations I have heard on the solution to our common issues of clean energy and clean air has come from the National Resources Defense Council, one of the leading environmental organizations in this country. They are in favor of a coal solution--I hope I am attributing this correctly to them--of a coal solution for our clean air, clean energy policy. A big part of their reasoning is, they see what is happening in the rest of the world. If the United States, they reason, can figure out a way to gasify coal and then recapture the carbon, that gets rid of most of the noxious pollutants--sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. It recaptures the carbon, which we have not really figured out how to do yet, but it does not just do that for the United States, it shows the rest of the world how to do it. And then China, instead of building 800 new coal plants with the old technology, will build 800 coal gasification plants and recapture the carbon. India will do the same, and maybe Germany will do the same. There will be more energy, and we will all be able to breathe. And that is quite irrespective of mandatory caps.

One of the things I like about Senator Hagel's proposal is there is not any way to study the technology of how we deal with greenhouse gases without getting into questions of coal gasification and the recapturing of carbon. There is not any way to do that. He is leading us to the tantalizing possibility that in the United States we might one day be able to say: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 500 years' worth of it. We can turn it into gas. We can recapture the carbon. We can use that to create the hydrogen for the hydrogen economy that we think might one day be down the road, and that, plus our supplies of natural gas and nuclear power, will give us clean energy and will give us clean air and will show the world how to do the same.

The Senator from Nebraska has put the spotlight where the spotlight ought to be. The United States of America, of all countries, should start with technology and science and say: Greenhouse gases is a problem. We are still researching how much of a problem it is. But we should, working with other countries, use our science and technology to deal with it and, in the process, see if it can lead us toward that brilliant intersection of clean energy and clean air that will one day give us a steady supply of energy and clean air that we can breathe.

I salute the Senator for his leadership and am glad to be a cosponsor. I look forward to working with him. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on energy, we have some jurisdiction over global warming as well as energy technology commercialization. Senator Domenici, chairman of our full committee, had a full roundtable the other day on natural gas. We have one coming up on coal and coal gasification. I can assure my colleagues that the Hagel legislation will be an important part of that roundtable. I will do my best to make it an important part of energy hearings.