Floor Statements

Mr. President, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003. This bi- partisan

bill proposes to reauthorize important legislation that provides meaningful assistance to 18 million Americans seeking to fight their way out of poverty. The bill includes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Program.

Statistics show us that poverty touches a large proportion of Americans over their lifetimes. Sometimes poverty is a chronic condition that persists over several generations. But more often, poverty happens as a consequence of life's unexpected tragedies-- illness, job loss, divorce, or disability. These can seriously undermine a family's ability to support itself. What's needed is a safety net in such times of need. Our Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act can provide that help and can make the difference in a family's efforts to fight their way out of poverty become self-sufficient again.

The services of the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act are provided primarily through Community Action Agencies, created 40 years ago. The heart of these programs are those provided through the Community Services Block Grant, created in 1981. The block grant allows for maximum flexibility to tailor programs to meet local needs with minimal administrative cost. Today the programs touch the lives of almost 25 percent of those living in poverty. These programs fund a state- administered community services network of more than 1000 local agencies that work to alleviate poverty and empower low-income families in communities across the United States. The agencies are very effective in leveraging their funds to mobilize additional resources from local businesses and foundations, as well as other public sources, to make an effective impact in fighting poverty in their communities.

A number of social services are provided that are designed to help low-income individuals and their families achieve a better quality of life. They help people find and keep a good job, get an adequate education, obtain a decent place to live, pay their utility bills, and even learn how to manage a household income.

The Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act has five major themes for its services: to assist families in poverty address their immediate, most basic needs and work toward self-sufficiency; to serve the non- traditional poor who are facing poverty due to unexpected events such as a plant closing or a major illness or injury; to assist special populations, including those dealing with chronic poverty and for whom conventional solutions have failed; to work for systemic change in low- income communities to promote economic development and community revitalization; and to provide direct assistance to help low-income individuals pay their utility bills.

These programs are the true ``safety net'' for millions of low-income and at-risk families and individuals and serve as the centerpiece of most local social service programs in 96 percent of the counties across the country. Last year the programs in the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act served over 19 million people, primarily through CSBG, serving 13 million, and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, providing assistance to over 5 million.

In Tennessee, over 100,000 individuals were served by CSBG last year, almost 25 percent of whom were disabled. Over 60,000 families were served, 90 percent were living below the federal poverty level, and 40 percent were elderly or disabled families living on a fixed income. And those who are helped in turn help others by volunteering in the programs and giving back to their community. For example, in my home State of Tennessee, long known as the Volunteer State, those who benefitted from these programs gave back to others by working over 190,000 volunteer hours.

And there is good accountability for how those funds are spent in the community. Each agency is governed by a board of directors, a third of which consists of representatives who live in the low-income community, a third are locally elected officials, and the remaining third are community leaders from business, labor, religion, and education.

These programs are not only important to those who receive services; they also make good use of the Federal dollar. Last year in addition to the Federal monies appropriated for these three programs, the community agencies identified other state and local monies and private contributions. In total, local agencies administered over $9 billion on behalf of low-income families and individuals in communities across the country.

In addition to good fiscal accountability and effective use of Federal dollars to leverage additional resources, the programs are a model when it comes to tracking and reporting the outcomes they are helping people achieve. In Tennessee, for example, we know that 43 percent of individuals who were seeking employment were able to find a job, and two-thirds of those jobs included health care coverage. Over 75 percent of those seeking housing assistance were able to move from sub-standard to good, stable housing, and 524 families were moved out of homelessness. Over 85 percent of elderly households assisted were able to continue living independently.

Through LIHEAP in Tennessee, over 72,000 received assistance in paying their utility bills, thereby avoiding having their heating and cooling cut off, which is of very real importance for health and safety as well as quality of life. The high cost of energy is a growing problem for those families trying to get by on a lower income and for our elderly living on fixed incomes.

By helping these people in meaningful ways, the programs administered under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act have not only made a difference in thousands of lives but have also saved my state money in significant ways--by avoiding the higher costs of homelessness, reducing the number of people in poverty, reducing the need for nursing homes and institutional care, and providing an important ``bridge'' to help people moving off of welfare achieve permanent self-sufficiency,

While these programs have had many very real successes in the past, as we approached this reauthorization we also looked for ways we could improve the programs and provide even better access to and delivery of these important services. In drafting the reauthorization we gave particular attention to clarifying and strengthening the purpose of these important programs, which, in summary, is to fight and reduce poverty, working in partnerships with community and state leadership.

In this reauthorization we believed it was important to give states greater flexibility in determining who should receive services. We wanted to expand services to the extent possible to assist more of the working poor and their families achieve economic stability and self- sufficiency. While giving more flexibility, we also provided incentives to encourage States to focus on those most in need and to help those transitions from welfare to self-sufficiency. And we strengthened the accountability and monitoring of funds at both the state and local level. We explicitly asked States to hold the line on excessive administrative salaries and expenses, again at both the state and agency level.

In this reauthorization we also wanted to highlight best practices and encourage creativity and innovation in fighting poverty. We called for identifying exemplary local agencies as Centers of Innovation to promote the sharing of best practices among all community agencies.

Focusing on outcomes, we directed local agencies to have established clear goals for reducing poverty in their community and to show that substantial progress is being made in meeting those goals before receiving continuing block grant funds. These goals include leveraging community resources and fostering coordination across Federal, State, local, and private programs and services.

In the area of heating and cooling assistance, we are recommending a significant increase in the funds authorized for this important program, and we have added provisions and specific triggers that allow for better, more effective release of emergency funds for LIHEAP assistance under extraordinary circumstances.

The programs included under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003 are important to millions of Americans who deserve our consideration and need our support. The services touch almost every community in

the country and are often the only source of assistance available to the people the programs are designed to serve. Quite simply, what these services do is help restore dignity to those we serve. Every day one of these programs makes a difference in the lives of our neediest citizens. What this bill can accomplish will make possible a better quality of life for individuals and for neighborhoods and communities across this great land. I join my colleague Senator Dodd in urging the passage of this important reauthorization legislation.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, in our political speeches, Senators, especially we Republicans, have a lot to say in defense of the Tenth Amendment, that all powers not expressly given to the central government are reserved to the States. We are big talkers about local control, about State responsibilities, and about State rights.

Somehow, when we get to Washington and away from home, a lot of that goes up in smoke. We start thinking of grand ideas and sending State and local governments the bill to pay for our grand ideas. Special education for children with disabilities, but we say to the State and local governments, you pay the bill. New construction to stop storm water runoff, but we

say to the cities, you pay the bill. Higher standards for roads, we say to the States, you pay the bill. New standards for highly qualified teachers, you pay the bill. We call these unfunded mandates.

What I want to talk about today is the worst kind of unfunded mandate. Not only do we have grand ideas and are telling State and local governments that they have to pay for them, we now want to tell them how to pay for them. The latest such example is to tell State and local governments that a tax on Internet access or telephones is somehow a worse tax, a bad tax they should not be allowed to pursue, than a tax on medicine, food, or an income tax.

I supported a moratorium for 7 years on State and local access to the Internet so the Internet could get up and get going, but now it is up and going. It ought to be absolutely on its own with other commercial activity. Yet our friends in the House of Representatives and some in the Senate would not only extend the moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access, they would broaden it.

This is none of the Congress's business. It is a State and local responsibility to decide how to pay the bill to fund State parks, local schools, roads, prisons, colleges, and universities. That is what Governors do. That is what legislators do. That is what mayors do. That is what county commissioners and city council men and women do.

The inevitable result of such unfunded mandates from Washington, DC, telling States what taxes they can and cannot use, is to transfer more government to Washington, DC, because here we can print money to pay for it. It sounds awfully good to say we are banning a tax, but what we are actually doing is favoring one tax over another tax with the decision made in Washington, DC.

For example, if Tennessee's ability to have a broad-based sales tax is limited, then the chances that Tennessee will have an income tax are higher, or a higher tax on medicine or food, or higher college tuition for families to pay. The same goes for Florida, Texas, Washington State, or any other State.

Some say this interference in State prerogatives and local prerogatives is justified by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and that the Internet is too important to carry its fair share of the taxes. I ask: Is access to the Internet more important than food? If not, then why not limit the State sales tax on food, medicine, electricity, natural gas, water, corporations generally, car tags, telephones, cable TV? They are all in interstate commerce. Let us limit the tax on all of them from Washington, DC.

Unless we want to get rid of State and local governments and transfer all responsibilities for local schools, colleges, prisons, State parks, and roads to Washington, DC, and claim all wisdom resides here, then we have no business telling State and local governments how they pay the bill for legitimate services.

We should read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and get back to our basic job of funding war, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and debt. And leave decisions about what services to provide and what taxes to impose to State and local governments and to State and locally elected officials.

Under the rules of the Senate, because this bill imposes costs on States without paying for them, it is an unfunded mandate and subject to a point of order to pass this bill that would extend the moratorium on State and local ability to tax access to the Internet.

In its cost estimate of September 9, 2003, the Congressional Budget Office determined that S. 150, as reported by the Commerce Committee, would impose direct costs on State and local governments of lost revenues of $80 million to $120 million per year beginning in 2007. Because the estimate exceeds the threshold of $64 million for 2007, this is an intergovernmental mandate, subject to a point of order. According to the Multi-state Tax Commission, the bill has the potential to exempt telephone and cable companies from a broad array of State and local taxes that could amount to an unfunded mandate on State and local governments of up to $9 billion a year. Every Senator who votes to overturn the point of order to this bill would be voting for an unfunded mandate, which most of us have promised not to do. Let the moratorium on access to the Internet die a well-deserved and natural death when it expires on November 1 and let us remember the Republican Congress 10 years ago promised to end unfunded mandates.

I ask unanimous consent that certain information from the Congressional Budget Act describing unfunded mandates and the point of order that is possible to be raised in opposition to such mandates be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, President Harry Truman once said that ``the only thing new is what we have forgotten about history.'' I am reminded of our history when I think about this debate on giving a loan. I am thinking of the choices we made when dealing with Germany after World War I, and then after World War II. After World War I, we made a choice that was a grave mistake. We defeated Germany, left them in ruins, sent them a bill, and we went home. What was the result? Adolf Hitler.

As early as 1922, Hitler was railing against the Treaty of Versailles, talking about the payments Germany was forced to make. Eleven years later, in

1933, he became Chancellor of Germany. He was democratically elected. He, again, blamed the Treaty of Versailles and the payment of those debts for Germany's woes.

Under such a debt with a failed reconstruction policy, we can see the same thing happening in Iraq. Our post-World War I policy with Germany was an utter failure. It gave us World War II. After World War II, we almost made the same mistake. We began by making loans. This is a summary of the Marshall plan by the Marshall Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

The Marshall Foundation said:

The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had

already been tried [right after World War II] (nearly $20

billion--mainly long-term low-interest loans--since the war's

end) and had failed to make significant headway against

Europe's social and economic problems.

But there was a better idea, a different choice that someone learned from history. It was George C. Marshall. The Marshall plan was a 4-year plan, $13.3 billion, helping to rebuild the economies of 16 countries. Nearly $12 billion was grants, about $1 billion was loan, and what was the result? A continent that had been fighting itself for a thousand years became democratic, stopped fighting among themselves, and became our allies.

That is why we need a ``Marshall plan'' for Iraq. We need a 4- or 5- year plan for building a democracy. The Marshall plan was used for a variety of purposes. It paid for the building of railroads, water systems, medicines, modernizing factories, restoring ports to allow foreign trade, and much, much more.

We should do the same in Iraq. It cost $13 billion from 1948 to 1952--more than $100 billion in today's dollars. We can learn a valuable lesson from our experiences with Germany after World War I, a terrible failure, and after World War II, a remarkable success. After World War I, we made Germany pay its debts and we left them in ruins. We sent them a bill. We went home. We got Adolf Hitler. After World War II, we pursued the Marshall plan. It cost us some money. We gave them the money but as a result we got peace, new democratic economies, and our greatest allies.

President Kennedy said it best in 1961. In his inaugural address, he said:

We shall pay any price, we shall bear any burden . . . to

assure the survival and success of liberty.

The people of Iraq need our support. We paid for German reconstruction under the Marshall plan because it was in our interest. We should do the same in Iraq and support the President's request. We cannot afford, in our own interest, to do anything less.

Mr. President, the challenge described by the Senator from North Carolina is immense: Restructuring the economy and government of a country that has borne decades of neglect by a tyrannical regime. If we fail, the consequences could be a disaster. A fractured, failed Iraq could become a safe haven for terrorists, a caldron for fomenting extremism, and a destabilizing force to its neighbors, throwing the entire Middle East into chaos. If we succeed, the results could be extraordinary. A democratic and economically vibrant Iraq would be a shining example to her neighbors that Islam and democracy can coexist. More important, such an Iraq would be a friend to the United States.

I have often come to this floor to talk about the importance of teaching our children American history and civics so they grow up learning what it means to be an American.

Former President Harry Truman put it this way. He said:

The only thing new is the history you've forgotten.

Let me look at history. I am reminded most about the choices we made when dealing with postwar Germany, after World War I and World War II. At the end of World War I, we made a grave mistake. We punished Germany for its actions. The Treaty of Versailles, which formally declared the end of the war, ordered Germany to repay its debt to other European countries and denied any aid for reconstructing war-torn Germany. Even though a new democratic government sprang up in Germany at that time, the Weimar Republic, we chose not to provide help but to tell the Germans to ``pay up.'' In other words, we defeated them, left them in ruins, sent them a bill, and went home.

Sometimes we forget that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. What was the result? As early as 1922, a young Hitler was already railing against the Treaty of Versailles and the payments Germany was forced to make. Eleven years later, in 1933, Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany--elected. Again, he blamed the Treaty of Versailles for Germany's woes. He said:

We want to liberate Germany from the fetters of an

impossible parliamentary democracy.

Under such a heavy burden of debt, with a failed reconstruction policy, Hitler convinced the German people that democracy was too much of a burden. We all know what happened next--another world war that was more devastating than the first.

Our post-World War I policy with Germany was a complete failure.

One can imagine a similar scenario playing out in Iraq today if we make the wrong choice. Let's say the United States, after getting a new Iraqi government in place, decides to go home and orders Iraq to pay its bills, as some on the other side of the aisle would have us do. It is not hard to imagine a new Iraqi leader emerging who blames Iraq's economic woes on the United States, who decries the debt we are making Iraq repay, who says we only waged the war in order to encumber its oil; a new leader coming to power on the wave of anti-American sentiment who proceeds to destroy the fledgling democratic system the United States helped to establish in Iraq; and suddenly, a few years down the road, we have a new evil tyrant running Iraq, who is a clear enemy of the United States and could start pursuing policies similar to those of Saddam Hussein, or even worse.

Fortunately, there is another choice. After World War II, we took a very different approach to postwar Germany. In 1948, after a failed policy of loaning money to war-torn countries in Europe, the United States adopted the Marshall plan, named for Secretary of State George C. Marshall. The Marshall plan was a 4-year initiative to rebuild the economies of 16 countries in Europe, including Germany. The Marshall plan cost $13.3 billion and a lot of effort. Ninety percent of the money spent on the Marshall plan--nearly $12 billion--was grant money, not loan money.

What was the result? At first, the results were uncertain. Germany's economy looked shaky. But over time, our continued investment paid dividends. A continent that had been fighting for a thousand years became a democracy and became our ally.

In Japan--in another part of the world--our help took a country that had invaded us and made it an ally. The results could not have been better after World War II. Our policy was a complete success.

That is why I believe we need a Marshall plan for Iraq. We need a 4- or 5-year plan for reconstructing Iraq, and we need to face up to the cost of the plan. We need to understand it is more for us, the United States, than it is for them. President Bush has laid out the first stages of such a plan.

The Marshall plan was used for a variety of purposes to reconstruct war-torn Europe, including Germany. It paid for the building of railroads and water systems, for needed medicines, modernizing factories, for restoring ports to allow foreign trade, and much more. President Bush's request for funding will pay for many of the same things: restoring Iraq's ports on the Persian Gulf, building roads, restoring power and water systems, needed medicines, reopening schools, and much more.

Some say funding Iraq's reconstruction would be too costly. But the cost of the President's request for rebuilding Iraq--$20.3 billion--is actually far less than what we spent on the Marshall plan. That was $13 billion then, between 1948 and 1952, and that would be at least $102 billion in today's dollars.

Another way to compare the cost is percentage of gross domestic product. The Marshall plan cost 1.1 percent of our GDP during the 4 years it was in place. President Bush's proposal would be only one- fifth of 1 percent. Again, the Marshall plan was five times the cost of President Bush's Iraq plan.

Or we can compare the cost as a percentage of the Federal budget. The Marshall plan cost 7 percent of the Federal budget during the years it was enacted. The President's requested funds, when added to those already spent on reconstruction, were only 1 percent of the Federal budget.

So this idea that we are spending more on Iraq than we did after World War II is totally false.

We can learn a valuable lesson from history. After World War I, we made Germany pay its debts. We left them in ruin. We went home. As a result, we got Adolf Hitler. After World War II, we pursued the Marshall plan, and it did cost some money. But as a result, we won democratic allies in more parts of the world.

President Kennedy said it best in his 1961 inaugural address. This is what he said:

We will pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the

survival and success of liberty.

The people of Iraq, like the people of Germany 60 years ago, lived under an evil tyrant who wreaked havoc on his neighbors and his own people. In both cases, the evil tyrant was overthrown by the United States and its allies. America and its allies temporarily took over the administration of Germany and Iraq. We paid for the German reconstruction under the Marshall plan. We should do the same in Iraq and support the President's request. We cannot afford, in our own interests, to do anything less.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Hampshire for his remarks and for his leadership on education, especially for his leadership on this issue where he has shown his characteristic persistence over the years, and I hope he succeeds.

Listening to him talk about the children today creates a whole new way of thinking about this. I have noticed in education meetings I have attended--and I have been going to them now for a good while--people like the Senator from New Hampshire and I get up and make a speech, but if we sit down and invite a child to stand up and say something, it changes the whole nature of the meeting because it puts in perspective what we are talking about.

I am glad the Senator talked about the children who are waiting in line for this opportunity to go to a better school because that is what we are talking about.

All we are talking about is giving 7,500 of Federal dollars, new dollars--not taken from any other school but new dollars--to about 2,000 poor families, disadvantaged families in the Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital, families whose child is in an underperforming school, and giving them a chance to go to another school. That is what we are talking about.

Especially since September 11, we have talked a lot about the American character. The American character has many aspects, but one aspect of our country is that we dream great dreams, and we are not ashamed of doing that. We say things like all men are created equal. We say things like President Kennedy said one time, that we will pay any price and bear any burden to defend freedom anywhere in this world. We say things like leave no child behind. We say things like anything is possible because that is our goal. Europeans and others think we are a little goofy when we say things like that because they will say obviously we are going to leave some child behind, obviously we are not going to defend freedom everywhere in the world, obviously not every man is created equal. The answer is we know that, but our goal is the greater goal. We really want to help every child succeed. We really want to defend freedom wherever we can. We really want every American to be equal, and we are a work in progress toward those goals.

That is what makes this such a remarkable country. One of the greatest of our challenges is to meet the goal of anything is possible--and I was thinking about those children--one of the surest tickets towards success in America, in fact the surest ticket, is a good education.

We cannot legislate a good family. Families are varied. But if a child has a great education, that child has a much better chance, to not be left behind but to succeed. So one would think we would be bending over backwards, falling all over ourselves, to identify the children in America who are disadvantaged, who are not as likely to have a good education, and giving them a chance too. That is what one would think we would all be doing.

Is that not what we are talking about today? Are we not talking about identifying a couple of thousand kids who are disadvantaged, going to schools that are not working, and giving them a chance to go to a good school? What is wrong with that?

I would think it would be embarrassing for our friends on the other side of the aisle. They have spent a lot of time talking about helping disadvantaged Americans. How can they say it is good for us Senators, our families, but we do not want to give these children that chance?

In the next few minutes, I will take three or four issues that have come up in the debate, as I have listened to it, and discuss them. The first one was--When I listened to the distinguished Senator from Illinois the other day, one of the better debaters in the Senate, as described by Senator DeWine. The Senator from Illinois said this, and I wrote it down: This is a calamity. This will be the first diversion of Federal funds to private schools in our history, the first diversion of Federal funds to private schools.

I wanted to ask the Senator then, and I will ask today, if I may, I wonder if he has ever heard of the University of Loyola or DePaul or Northwestern or Saint Xavier or Wheaton College or Illinois Wesley? Those are all private schools, private colleges, in the State of Illinois, and at least half the students at all of those schools and colleges attend those colleges with a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college.

In the case of the Pell grant, the Federal grant, which may follow them to Loyola, DePaul, Northwestern, or Saint Xavier, that is a Federal voucher that follows them to the college of their choice.

Now, that is not just true in Illinois. It would be true at Fisk University in Nashville. It would be true at Brigham Young out West. It would be true at Yeshiva. As long as the college is accredited, whether it is private or parochial. This has been true from the beginning of the GI bill for veterans, over the last 60 years, our country has allowed Federal dollars to follow students to a school of their choice.

Someone might say I am mixing things up; I am mixing up a college with a high school. I do not think that is a real difference. At the University of Tennessee, we have a school of law, as well as a school of architecture. Those are schools. They are educational institutions. For 60 years Federal dollars have followed students to the school of their choice.

What has been our experience with that program? Most people who look at the Federal Government think the GI bill for veterans and the Federal scholarships and loans programs have been the most successful social legislation in the history of our country. Maybe Social Security stands up there with it. But it is hard to think of legislation that has created more opportunity than the GI bill for veterans and the Federal Pell grants and the Stafford loans that help people go to college. No one says you have to go to the University of Tennessee or Vanderbilt or the University of Rhode Island or any particular school. You choose.

I remember when I was president of the University of Tennessee, I was sitting there during the last week of August when we would have about 30,000 students, coming to our school. No one made them go there, they had to choose to go there, and the money followed them to the school. It never occurred to me to come to Washington and argue to the Senate, Please don't allow any of these students to go to Vanderbilt or to Fisk University because it might take money away from our school. We saw the value of giving Americans choices of colleges and universities. We saw what it had done for them.

We saw what it did for the colleges and universities of this country, what it specifically did for the public colleges and universities, such as the University of Tennessee. Let's just look at the record. In 1945, maybe 8 or 10 percent of Americans had a college degree. Mr. President, 80 percent of the higher education students in America at the end of World War II were in private colleges and universities. In fact, when the GI bill for veterans came along, President Hutchins of the University of Chicago was appalled by the idea. He said hoboes would be coming to his distinguished university, the University of Chicago.

At that time, at the end of World War II, 20 percent of students attended public university. What is it today? Today it is just reversed: 80 percent of students who attend higher education in America go to public colleges and universities, 20 percent go to private. So the effect of the GI bill for veterans, this Federal voucher that followed students to the school of their choice in higher education, which has been the law of our land since right after World War II, has not only created great opportunity, the effect of it has been to create the greatest system of colleges and universities in America. The Federal Government helped to fund that.

We don't have just some of the best colleges and universities, we have almost all of them. And the Federal voucher for higher education has been a major source of that. So that was a really good idea.

It is rarely our experience in education to have such a close analogy, to have a 60-year experiment with a Federal voucher for colleges that has helped create the best colleges in the world. The question might be; If it did that over 60 years, why wouldn't we at least try it to see if it created the best schools in the world?

We have tried it also before the first grade. We have a child care voucher, which has been the law since 1990. It follows little children to the child care program of their parents' choice. So we would trust a single mom with the responsibility. She might be poor, she

might not be very well educated herself, some might even say she's not capable of making a good judgment for her children, but we trust her to choose the daycare program for her child, and the Federal voucher follows the child to the daycare program. It could be public, private, or religious. We permit her to enroll in a community college or university in order to advance herself, and a Federal voucher follows her to a community college. But we say somehow there is something wrong with allowing her to make a decision about where her child goes to school from the 1st grade to the 12th grade.

Of course, we don't have that problem with those who are better off-- Senators, for example. We assume we are really super parents and we know a lot about schools and we are trusted to make choices. We are allowed to move to another part of town so our child will go to this school instead of that school, and every real estate agent in America will tell you that parents make moves in housing based upon where their child will go to school. That is No. 1 for them. They have the money to do it. They are free to do it. But the disadvantaged family is not free to do it.

I wonder what would happen if we were to pass a law that would be consistent with our friends on the other side of the aisle--most of them; there are some who agree with us--and just say there should be no choice to anybody; let's be fair to the rich as well as the poor. It sounds like rhetoric that might be coming from over there. Let's say no choice for school, the Government will tell you, no matter how much money you have, exactly where your child goes to school, and you may not take that child anywhere else. The Government will decide. Since your taking your child and your money to a Catholic school or private school which might hurt a public school, therefore you are not allowed to go to a Catholic school or you are not allowed to go to a private school.

In effect, that is what we are telling poor families in America. We are telling them: Because you are poor, you have no choice. Let's say it to the rich folks, too. Let's make it equal. Nobody has any choice. That will help the public schools.

That wouldn't help the public schools. That is the way the Soviet Union used to operate, one car for everybody, and by the time they got through, the car would barely run. Choice is an essential part of the American system.

So, for the Senator from Illinois to stand up and say this is the first diversion of Federal funds to schools is just flat wrong. In fact, he is ignoring the most successful piece of Federal social legislation we have ever had, which for 60 years has helped create the best colleges in the world.

My question would be, Why not try it with at least 2,000 children who are poor, going to underperforming schools in Washington, DC, and let's see what happens? Maybe it creates a better school.

There is another little historical fact that maybe the Senator from Illinois missed as well. Right after World War II, a lot of the returning GIs didn't have a high school degree. Only maybe 5 percent of them even had a college degree at the time. So what did they do with the GI bill? They took it to high schools. There were thousands of returning GIs after World War II who took their GI bill to the Catholic high schools of America. The sky didn't fall. A lot of them ended up being among the most successful leaders in our country.

A second comment I would like to make is sometimes I hear that this is a Republican idea, or a conservative idea. It really doesn't sound like a Republican idea. Republicans are characterized sometimes by not being as interested in the disadvantaged, by not being willing to spend more money, by not wanting to talk about education. I am glad that we are, in this case. But this ought to be a bipartisan idea. I am so glad to see the Senator from California has made this discussion a bipartisan idea because it deserves to be.

Let me go back in a little history and suggest how this idea has not always been a Republican or conservative idea. Not long ago, someone gave me an article from the 1968 August issue of Psychology Today. The article was entitled ``A Proposal for a Poor Children's Bill of Rights.'' The proposal was this: To give a Federal coupon to perhaps up to 50 percent of American children, through their parents, to be spent at any school. Half the American children would get a Federal coupon, they called it--voucher, scholarship--to be spent at any school-- public, private, religious.

By doing so, the authors of this proposal wrote, we might both create significant competition among the schools serving the poor--thus improving the school--and meet, in an equitable way, the extra cost of teaching the children of the poor.

The idea here was to provide money on top of what is already being spent, because educating poor children costs more. The authors were not the chairman of the Republic National Committee but a young man named Theodore Sizer, along with Phillip Whitten. Ted Sizer, of course, is today one of America's most respected and pioneering educators. He was dean of the College of Education at Brown University and a leader of the Coalition of Essential Schools. He has been given about every major award American educators can give anyone, and 1968 was a long time ago. Lyndon Johnson was President. ``Power of the people'' was the battle cry. Sizer and Whitten went back much earlier than that.

They said this:

The idea of such tuition grants is not new. For almost two

centuries various proposals for the idea have come from such

figures as Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, John Stewart Mill, and

more recently Milton Friedman. Its appeal bridges ideological

differences. Yet it had never been tried. Quite possibly

because the need for it has never been so demonstrably

critical as now.

This was in 1968.

The authors quoted Mario Santini of the Ford Foundation--hardly a right-wing organization--who spoke of:

. . . a parent's lobby with unprecedented motivation with a

tangible grasp on the destiny of their children. The ability

to control their own destinies definitely will instill in

poor people a necessary pride and dignity of which they have

been cheated.

Maybe those are the 7,000 parents in the District who are lined up waiting for the other side of the aisle to quit filibustering and release $7,500 for each of those children so they can go to a good school.

What about the argument that this poor children's bill of rights might destroy the public schools? Here is what Mr. Sizer and Mr. Whitten said in 1969:

Those who would argue that our proposal would destroy the

public schools raise a false issue. A system of public

schools which destroys rather than develops positive human

potential now exists. It is not in the public interest, and a

system which blames its society while it quietly acquiesces

in and inadvertently perpetuates the various injustices it

blames for its inefficiency is not in the public interest. If

the system cannot fulfill its responsibilities, it doesn't

deserve to survive.

That is their word.

But if the public schools serve, they will prosper.

Just as our public colleges and universities have with students who bring a voucher to those schools. Those are my words.

Since 1987, we have watched in amazement how rapidly the rest of the world is seeking to emulate the American way of life. Everywhere in the world, freedom and choice and opportunity have become the principles upon which are built the answers to the most basic human questions. Around the world, nothing is in as much disfavor as government monopoly of important services. Yet that is what the other side is defending today.

I think it is important, as we go through this debate, always to remember exactly what we are talking about. Those in opposition have such poor reasons for opposition that they invent all sorts of complications and make it sound exceedingly impossible. We are talking about this: Spending $40 million for students in the District of Columbia. The bill the Senate is debating today appropriates $13 million for scholarships for low-income children in underperforming public schools to go to any accredited school. $13 million for DC public charter schools and $13 million new dollars for the DC public schools.

The Senator from New Hampshire went into great detail on this. Let me summarize a couple of points. In addition to the fact that the District of Columbia is different--and there would be

State money, if it were Rhode Island, or West Virginia, or Tennessee, that we would be spending--but here we are spending $11,000 per student, which is among the highest in the country in the public schools. Class size is among the lowest, yet reading scores continue to be at or near the bottom of every national assessment. Sixty-nine percent of fourth graders are reading below basic level. That means 7 out of 10 fourth graders can't read. That means all educators and parents know that by the third grade, if they can't read, they are off on a track that goes anywhere but along with the American dream that anything is possible.

DC students ranked last in the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores last year. Forty-two percent drop out of school. Those are some of the statistics here in the District.

Finally, I would like to call attention to an article by William Raspberry that appeared on Monday, September 29--yesterday--in the Washington Post. Mr. Raspberry concludes his article with this question:

If federally funded vouchers help a few hundred more local

students to find such an environment, how bad is that?

He was writing about the debate here in the District to create an academic high school 20 years ago. Some people said: Well, that will help some children and not others. Mr. Raspberry thinks it will help some children, and that will be good, and maybe that will help us find a way to help others. That is the basic essence of his article today. It is a good thing to use to conclude a discussion about the District of Columbia because it shows we all know that the children of the District of Columbia can succeed, the schools can succeed.

This is the way he describes Washington's academic high school:

By the way, Washington's academic high school--Benjamin

Banneker--is not merely an established fact these days, it is

an important source of pride for both the school system and

the city. It was a Banneker student who a few years back

scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs. It was a Banneker team

that scored a record-setting total on the TV program ``It's

Academic.'' Banneker's students are smart, but not

necessarily that much smarter than students elsewhere in the

city. What they have is an atmosphere where academic striving

is the norm, where no one calls them ``nerds'' or

``brainiacs'' or accuses them of acting ``white.''

The recent result of Leave No Child Behind shows us something we already know--that we have a lot of good schools in America. But even in many of our better schools, there are some children--almost all disadvantaged and many of them minority kids--who are not learning what they need to know, all over America, and it starts right here in the Nation's Capital. We have tried about everything. We tried charter schools. We tried more money. We tried smaller classes. There are a lot of wonderful people working hard.

What this debate is about is: Should we not take the idea which helped create the best colleges and universities in the world and try it here in the District? Should we not help those 7,000 families standing in line out there hoping anything is possible for their child? Why not give 2,000 of them $7,500 a year and let them go to a better school and have a brighter future? If we learn something about that which teaches us something about what to do about American education that will improve and help these disadvantaged children, so much the better.

How embarrassing it must be to stand up and argue against giving $7,500 to 2,000 children in the Nation's Capital who deserve that brighter future.

I hope this becomes an increasingly bipartisan discussion. The Senator from California has offered an amendment which improves the legislation. Not every Republican supports this. Not every Democratic Senator opposes it. I hope over time we will see that choice as an essential part of the American system. We have had it for 60 years in our colleges. We have had it for 12 years in the Child Care Program. Every family with money has it. Why not offer it to the disadvantaged, the poor families of America, starting with 2,000 families in the District of Columbia in this bill?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just recently the Senate approved the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. During the same time period we paused to remember the tragic events of September 11. So it is a good moment to bring to the attention of my Senate colleagues and of the Department of Education the nonpartisan, nonprofit Freedom's Answer project which is a direct result of the 9/11 experience--and which seeks to engage high school students across America in the elections process even before they are old enough to vote.

At a time when Senator Kennedy and I, along with many other Members of the Senate, are convinced that restoring civics education to schools should get a high priority, Freedom's Answer is one effort that is doing just that. It should have the highest priority for funding by the Department of Education within the discretionary funds of the Fund for Innovation in Education, the Character Education Program, the Civics Education program, or the Fund for Improvement in Post-Secondary Education.

Freedom's Answer is a totally nonpartisan program, begun by long-time political professionals Mike McCurry and Doug Bailey. Its National Advisory Council is co-chaired by the Republican Leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, and the Democratic Leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi. The chairs of the Republican and Democratic National Committees both sit on its National Advisory Council.

Started after the 9/11 tragedy, Freedom's Answer urged high school students in over 2,500 high schools throughout the country to seek 10 voting pledges each in the 2002 election, not for any particular party or candidate, but rather to honor the servicemen and women serving our country and risking their lives daily for our freedom.

These students didn't just help set a mid-term voter turnout record-- nationally and in 27 different states--they learned first hand the power of political involvement. Even before they could vote, they learned the power not just of each and every vote, but also of collective involvement in the political process. It may well have been as good a civics lesson as they could ever receive--one certain to make them voters in the years ahead.

Our young people owe it to us to be part of America's democracy. And we owe it to our young people, regardless of party, philosophy, religion, income, race or State to enable them both to know how the system works and how to be part of it. Freedom's Answer is a powerful way we can meet that commitment, and I join my colleagues in encouraging the Department of Education to consider using discretionary funds in the 2004 budget we will pass to help make this wonderful civics lesson come alive in every high school in the land.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio giving me the opportunity to speak at a time while the Senator from California is still in the Chamber and the Mayor of the District of Columbia is still here.

I greatly respect the leadership shown by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and by the Senator from California, who are willing to take a fresh look at children who need help. This leadership is based upon their own experiences and common sense, and wisdom to try something different.

I listened very carefully to the Senator from California. I was thinking the Senate is a good place for someone with a lot of experiences on the street and in the Mayor's office, in political campaigns, and in legislative bodies. She is someone who has enough experience to come to her own conclusions.

This is a terribly important decision. It would not even be before us if the Mayor and other local officials in the District of Columbia had not asked for it because too many of the changes that have been suggested in education are often suggested in the tone of: This is good for you. But, it rarely ever happens unless somebody says: I want this for my child, or my school district.

I remember in Milwaukee 15 years ago, there was a strange confluence of circumstances that led Milwaukee to try to give the poorest families in the city more choices of school for their children. It only happened because Polly Williams, who was the State representative and was the leader of Jesse Jackson's campaign in Wisconsin, and the Democratic mayor of Milwaukee, and the Republican Governor, Governor--now Secretary--Thompson, all happened to come to the same conclusion. They all thought outside the box. They all did things that were different.

But the person that really made the most difference, with great respect to the mayor and with great respect to the Governor at that time, was Polly Williams, who represented parents who said: I want this for my child.

What we are hearing today in the Senate, and what the Senator from California has so beautifully stated, and the Mayor has brought to our attention, is that we have several thousand families in the District of Columbia who are saying to us: We want this for our child. We see the results. We see the figures the Senator from California cited: In eighth grade only a few children are reading at the eighth grade level, so few children are able to do math, this lack of academic success is almost a guarantee of a lack of success in life.

I was glad I had the assignment of being the Presiding Officer at the time when the Senator from California made her speech. I wanted to add to that in a couple of ways.

I think she beautifully distinguished between this proposal and a broad voucher program. We have argued those up and down the street for years. But here is what the Senator from California reminded us is different about this proposal:

No. 1, the Mayor wants it. If we were in a State, if we were in the State of California, or Tennessee, or Ohio, the money we are talking about would really be the State's money; in effect, it would be money the State was spending the way the State wanted to spend it. We just happen to be in the District of Columbia where the money is collected a little differently. This is money that local people really ought to be able to decide how to spend, and they want to spend it this way. That is one big difference.

The Senator from California said this is a pilot program. One might argue that there is not such a thing in Federal Government; that every program lasts forever. But it doesn't have to last forever. This is a chance to try to give 2,000 poor children from failing schools one option to see if they can succeed in their educational life.

We don't have many pilot programs with this idea. We have one in Milwaukee where it worked well, I thought. I have been to those schools. We learned a lot. We have some programs in Ohio, which the Presiding Officer helped to implement.

In the Nation's Capital, it might be good to have a look and see whether this idea works or not. The Senator from California suggested in her amendment some provisions which will help make sure that it gets a fair test--requiring scholarship students to take tests similar to other students in the District, requiring the Secretary of Education and the Mayor to select an independent entity for evaluation, and to say that the teachers of these children who are on scholarships should be as well qualified as possible. Those are very sensible additions.

The Mayor wants it. It is a pilot program. And it helps 2,000 of the poorest children in failing schools by giving them $7,500 a year of new money. This comes from no other educational program. If it is not spent for this, it goes right back into the Federal budgets. It is new money to give them that choice.

Pilot programs and studies sometimes help us learn things. For example, Vanderbilt University did a very interesting report that was published in September of 2001.

The Senator from California and the Mayor of the District of Columbia might be interested in this, too. They took a group of schools, all of which have the characteristics of potential failing schools. In this group of schools, 35 percent of the students changed school every year, and 50 percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunches.

The parents of the children in those schools had a modest education themselves. It is a recipe for failure when compared to most of our schools. Yet in these schools--instead of having only 1 of 10 or 1 of 20 8th graders who score proficient in math or reading, these schools are first in the country and second in the country among African- American students, according to the National Assessment for Educational Progress in Math and Reading.

What schools are these? These are the schools on the military bases across the country. All of us can speculate as to why that is true. There might be more discipline in a military school or military environment. Another one might be that the school reports to the commanding officer of the base.

The Senator from California has just increased the accountability of the schools in these scholarship programs by saying the Mayor is directly responsible. The Mayor of the District of Columbia is going to be paying attention to these schools and these scholarship kids.

There is another thing we might learn from this study of the military. There is one other provision which I found very interesting. At the military post schools where the military children who live on the base go to school, parents must go to the parent-teacher conference. They don't have a choice. They can be court-marshaled if they don't go. They are ordered to go. I guess that might be the single most important thing.

If this education has all of these aspects--and everyone is an expert. Everybody has 1,000 ideas. There are two

things we know for absolute sure. The thing that makes the most difference in a child's education is the parent and the second thing is the teacher. Everything else all added up into a lump counts for relatively little compared to those first two.

It might be that if there are 2,000 families who go to the trouble of helping their kids move from a failing school into another school that these parents will have increased parental involvement. This might be what makes the difference in terms of their child's success. But we don't know that unless we try to find out, which we can do over the next 5 years if we support the Senator's amendment and then we support the bill that is reported.

There are a couple of other things I would like to say. The Senator from California said that she has lived long enough to do what she thought was right and that she was puzzled by the opposition to this program. I have to admit that I am puzzled, too. On my side of the aisle, I am not always in lockstep with all of the Republican ideas that come along because I have lived long enough to make up my own mind about things.

But on the idea of saying that poor children shouldn't have the same choices of schools that middle-income and rich kids have, I have never really understood the opposition. It has always puzzled me.

Let me give an example of why. This is not some idea from the Moon. The idea of giving families choices in educational institutions has been the single most successful social program we have ever had in our country's history. Most people would say that the GI bill after World War II has been our most successful social program. What happened after World War II?

At a time when only 5 or 10 percent of Americans were going to college, the Government said to the veterans: When you come home, to pay you back, we are going to give you a scholarship to go wherever you want to go to school. They said: You may go to Berkeley. You may take this money to Fisk University. You might go to Hastings in California. You can to Vanderbilt, you can go to the University of Tennessee, you can go to Ohio State, or to Notre Dame, or Kenyon. You can go to Yeshiva. You can go to a Brigham Young University. Wherever you want to go you can go to an accredited university.

A great many of the veterans returning from World War II used their GI bills to go to high schools. Many of them went to Catholic high schools. At that time, we began to allow Government scholarships to follow students to the educational institutions of their choice.

At that time, about 20 percent of our higher educational institutions were public. About 80 percent of the students went to private schools.

It sounds strange today because now we have big public universities. In Ohio you had all of those wonderful institutions--Miami, Kenyon, Oberlin--all the colleges in Ohio. And Ohio State wasn't all that big at the end of World War II. A lot of the colleges that are universities today were just small teachers colleges.

What has been the effect of allowing Federal dollars to follow students to the educational institution of their choice since World War II? What happened is that it has created more opportunities for Americans more than any other program we have ever passed. It has created not just some of the best universities in the world but almost all of the best universities in the world. It continues today in the form of the Federal Pell grant and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. One-half or more of students who go to colleges or universities in California or in Ohio or in Tennessee go to college with a Federal grant or with a loan following them to the college or university of their choice.

When I was president of the University of Tennessee, it never occurred to me to come to the Senate and say: Senator DeWine, I hope you will pass a law that keeps Federal dollars from following a Tennessee student to Vanderbilt or to Fisk or to Maryville College or Carson-Newman College or Howard University or Brigham Young or Yeshiva because they are private, public, or parochial. It never occurred to me. I wanted the students to have all of those choices. It helped them and it helped our university.

If we have the tradition of choice in America, and if we have 60 years of funding educational institutions by allowing the money to follow the student to the school of their choice, it has always puzzled me as to why we exempt grade schools and high schools. We even allow Federal scholarships to let money follow preschoolers to Head Start or the child care program of their choice. Many States allow juniors and seniors in high school to let money follow them to the college of their choice.

We have gotten in this rut, and it is not clear how we got there but some people are determined to keep it forever. The ones paying the price are the poor kids of America.

We just finished what has turned out to be a very unpopular set of tests in Tennessee and America, the leave no child behind test. In our State, some of the superintendents and teachers were up in arms. They said: We are not a failing school.

I said: I would not get too proud or too embarrassed about the scores in Tennessee or California because all the leave no child behind tests are demonstrating is what we already know, which is that in most of our schools in America, even some of our finest schools, there are some children who are not learning to read. They are not learning to compute. Almost all of those children are disadvantaged.

We can ignore that and adopt a new slogan that says leave no more than 35 percent of our children behind and go right on to decide to try some other things.

As the Senator from California said, one thing we could try is to allow the District of Columbia to spend its money helping 2,000 of those children who are poor and in failing schools, help them go to a school of their parents' choice and see whether that helps.

Some people say the school choice plan is a think-tank plan, maybe a conservative plan, maybe even a Republican plan. It is none of that. Let me give an example. One of the most distinguished educators in America is a man named Ted Sizer, at Harvard University, a graduate student during the Lyndon Johnson days. He was a ``power to the people,'' Johnson liberal Democrat. As his graduate degree thesis in the late 1960s, Ted Sizer published a proposal called ``The Poor Kids Bill of Rights.'' The idea was that part of the war on poverty, under the LBJ programs, the Federal Government should give $5,000, in 1969 dollars, to every poor kid--he defined poor as middle income or below; which meant half the kids--give $5,000 to half the children in America and let it follow them to the school of their choice.

That proposal came out of the 1960s from Ted Sizer, out of Harvard, out of Lyndon Johnson's philosophy. It is as true to that philosophy as it is to Milton Friedman's philosophy.

I like better what the Senator from California said. She was not so interested in a philosophy. She was interested in parents and kids on the street. That is who we should be listening to. If the Mayor and the chairman of the city school board say: We have tried everything. We are spending $11,000 per kid; we are putting more money into charter schools; we are improving our schools, but we have all these children who are not learning to read, could we not try to give them a chance to go to some of the same schools that they could go to if their parents had some money? That is all they are saying.

I am very glad to have been here today to hear the Senator from California address the Senate. I am glad she is here to make a difference. I am glad the District of Columbia Mayor is here to make a difference too.

Everyone, after being here for a while, looks to the end of their careers and wonders what it will look like when looking back. My guess is when the Senator from California and the Mayor of the District of Columbia look back--these decisions, which are courageous in a political sense, are decisions they will take great pride in years to come.

Mr. President, I rise to commend President Bush for nominating Gov. Mike Leavitt to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Governor Leavitt's hearing was this morning and, from all accounts, he performed admirably, as I would expect. He is a distinguished public servant who has worked diligently to address the environmental problems in Utah and the Western States.

I believe the President has found the right person for the job of leading the EPA. The EPA Administrator must establish realistic regulations that often require compromise and balance. In my experience, almost all of the issues that deal with our environment require a good sense of balance because there are so many competing interests. Governor Leavitt has demonstrated his ability to work with all groups affected by environmental regulation. He pulled together, for example, Governors, tribal leaders, industrial leaders, and environmental activists to get behind a comprehensive plan to clear the haze obscuring the scenic views in the West, including the Grand Canyon.

For nearly 11 years, Governor Leavitt managed to bring together a diverse group of State and tribal officials, industrial leaders, and environmental activists who focused on developing a plan which led to action that is clearing the air in the West.

I hope that a similar plan can be developed to clear the haze in the great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is about 2 miles from where I live. It is the Nation's most visited national park, and it also has earned the unwelcome distinction of becoming the most polluted national park in America.

We welcome the help of Governor Leavitt as head of the EPA in coming up and working with our Governor and Federal delegation and our communities in Tennessee, who are very concerned about this, to help get on a long-term path that would clear the haze in the Smokies and restore its natural beauty.

This will require cooperation among local, State, and Federal Governments and industry and environmental activists. I believe Governor Leavitt is the right person to help lead that effort. He has demonstrated he can do this by getting collaboration among groups instead of polarization.

As Governor, Mike Leavitt has encouraged results-oriented environmental action. I strongly support his views that policy should encourage outside-the-box thinking in solving problems rather than just complying with Federal programs.

Our environmental problems are complex. They require examination of many strategies to achieve our Nation's goals. The EPA Administrator plays a crucial role in balancing our desire to protect the environment and our desire for jobs and prosperity.

I believe we can have good jobs and strong industry and clean air and clean energy. The solutions are not easy, and in most cases--many cases--require new technology. However, with Governor Leavitt's leadership, I believe we will be able to develop the solutions and partnership to meet realistic environmental goals.

The job of protecting the environment is a difficult one, one in which I take a great personal interest. The President of the United States--this President--has distinguished himself by making a number of superb appointments. He has made another such nomination, and I look forward to the

chance to vote for Mike Leavitt as EPA Administrator.

May I add just a personal note, Mr. President? I was elected Governor first in 1978 in Tennessee. Since then, I have known more than 200 Governors, probably served with 80 or 100. Only a handful of those Governors, some on each side of the aisle--Democratic and Republican-- have really understood the job, have used that office to set a clear agenda to develop a strategy to meet the agenda, and then persuade at least half the people they are right. All three of those elements are being part of being a good Governor. Those Governors have transformed their States.

Mike Leavitt is one of those Governors. Because of that, he was elected to be the chair of the National Governors' Association. He would not have been elected, and he would not have succeeded in the job if he had not been able to work with both Democratic and Republican Governors. He has earned and shares the respect of all who have known and worked with him. He is one of the outstanding State leaders of the last quarter of a century. He has a great sense of balance. He has an imaginative sense of what is possible, and he has an excellent ability to persuade half that he is right, which is a very important part of doing that job.

I am very pleased to see him coming to Washington, and I am delighted with President Bush's appointment. I wanted to be among the first to welcome him here. I thank the Chair.

If the distinguished manager of the bill does not object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:30 this evening, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 356, to be followed immediately by a vote on the confirmation of No. 361, provided that immediately following those votes the President be notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes.

Mr. President, I am informed that the manager is working hard to try to establish a time in the morning for those votes.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the report of the International Trade Commission on steel tariffs, which was made over the weekend. Late last Friday night, the International Trade Commission released its report on the impact of the steel tariff. The steel tariff is a tax. It is a tax that the administration imposed in March of 2002 on at least 10 different kinds of imported steel, including the kind of steel that is used to make automobiles and trucks in this country. The effect of the tariff was to increase the price of that steel up to 30 percent. It had a noble purpose. The President hoped to save some steel jobs in this country.

The International Trade Commission (ITC) over the last several months has taken a lot of testimony and done a good deal of study to see what was the impact of that decision made in March of 2002 on both the steel industry, the steel producing part of our country, and on the automobile industry and on the other steel consuming parts of our economy. The report's finding on the overall economic impact of the steel tariff was not very surprising. According to the report, the steel tariff has saved a few steel jobs by raising the price of steel. But it has cost U.S. manufacturers, the auto parts suppliers, for example, over $680 million. The report also claims that somehow to make up for this, the tariff revenue to the U.S. Government, collected on the steel that came in from outside the country, was about $650 million. So the ITC estimates that there was not too much damage to the economy, only a $30 million loss in GDP.

But what that overlooks is who paid the tax? It was, in part, the struggling auto parts suppliers who are manufacturing parts in this country in competition with auto parts suppliers all over the world. They paid the tariff to the federal government directly when they shipped in foreign steel themselves and in part indirectly when they paid higher prices to their distributors

who brought in steel from abroad for them. They paid the tax.

What has happened over the last year and a half, when all of us have been making speeches about how our greatest economic challenge may be how to keep our manufacturing jobs from moving overseas, is that we have imposed upon our manufacturers a tax, a tariff that has increased their costs by up to 30 percent and made them less competitive.

As a result, they have done what manufacturers have to do. Rather than lose money, they have laid off a few employees or they have begun in a few cases--I know this in my own State of Tennessee; we are a big manufacturing State and one-third of the manufacturing jobs are automotive jobs--they have begun to move their parts suppliers to Mexico or Japan or Korea or other parts of the world where parts can be made, paying the global steel price.

So, yes, we may have brought in $650 million to the U.S. Treasury in the tariff, but it has been paid on the backs of the steel-producing auto parts suppliers and other steel consumers of this country, and it has had the effect of driving jobs overseas.

The report also illustrated something we knew to be true; that the steel tariff is hurting steel-consuming firms all across the United States, from auto parts suppliers to home appliance manufacturers, to tool and die shops to metal stamping facilities. All of these steel- consuming firms have been affected by the burden of the steel tariff in some shape or form.

Here are a few things the report said: One-half of the steel- consuming firms surveyed reported they had difficulty in obtaining steel in the qualities and quantities they needed. That is an added cost.

Second, almost a third of these firms relocated or shifted production to foreign plants, facilities, after the implementation of the tariff.

That is exactly what we do not want in this country is any kind of new cost added by the Federal Government which causes a parts supplier in New Hampshire or Tennessee to move a plant overseas.

Third, one-quarter of these steel-consuming firms reported that their customers shifted to purchasing finished parts or assemblies overseas as a result of the steel tariff.

Let's say you are making a sunroof in Gordonsville, TN, and the cost of steel goes up 15 or 20 percent and that is the major raw material you are using. The Nissan Smyrna plant in Tennessee can buy that roof from just down the road in Gordonsville, everything else being equal, but the sunroof can also be made to a high standard of quality in many other countries in the world--in Japan, in Korea, in Mexico, in Canada. If costs are too high, too much out of whack, then the American automobile plant, in order to keep its costs down so it can be competitive, will buy that finished part from overseas. That is not subject to any tariff.

Fourth, almost one-third of these firms reported the contracts they had in place to purchase steel were broken or modified after the tariff was imposed and reported a loss in profits due to these problems of approximately $190 million.

Finally, one-third of these firms reported longer lead and delivery times.

This also is very important. There is such a thing as just-in-time delivery in the automobile business. That is why in Tennessee we have gone from having two dozen auto parts suppliers 12 or 14 years ago to more than 950 today. The Toyota plant and the Nissan plant and the Saturn plant and the Mercedes plant--all of them located in the South, some still located in the Midwest--they like to have their parts suppliers nearby. If those firms have longer lead and delivery times, it makes that just-in-time delivery advantage less reliable.

In addition, the report further highlighted the impact the steel tariff had specifically on auto parts suppliers. There are a lot of automotive people in the country. Historically, they have been in Michigan and in Ohio--the song ``Detroit City'' was written about Tennesseans who went to the Midwest to get good jobs and send the money home, and then they would come back themselves one day. Now, a lot of those auto parts suppliers have followed the auto plants to the rest of the country, to the Southeast and the Deep South.

As I mentioned earlier, Tennessee is home to about 950 of these auto parts suppliers. They make up about one-third of all our State's manufacturing jobs.

Mr. President, 85 percent of the auto parts suppliers surveyed in the ITC report said that their steel prices in the United States were higher than global prices; 31 percent reported that customers had shifted purchases to buying finished parts or assemblies overseas as a result of the tariff; 74 percent reported changes in contract prices for steel; and 55 percent reported the steel tariff was the only important factor in these changes in steel prices. Mr. President, 79 percent reported an inability to pass on steel price increases to customers.

There is a lot of back and forth about just to what extent these steel prices have gone up. The report mentioned a variety of figures. It mentioned a figure of an 8 percent increase in hot bar steel. I wonder if maybe taking a snapshot of 8 percent in March of this year over March of last year ignores some of what goes in between.

But here is what some of the auto parts suppliers said in testimony before the International Trade Commission was the effect of the steel tariff on steel prices.

Arvin Meritor said its price increases were 25 percent to 40 percent on cold rolled and galvanized steel. Delphi said its prices increased 5 percent to 48 percent. DURA saw its prices increase 30 percent. Federal Mogul saw its prices increase 25 percent. Metaldyne saw its prices increase 10 percent. Transpro saw its prices increase 25 percent.

Maybe some were lower and maybe some were higher, but these plants found in a very competitive business that even a few pennies more in cost per part makes a difference in their ability to keep a job in the United States. They found their costs suddenly way up--15 percent, 20 percent, or 25 percent. All of these burdens have meant extra costs to steel-consuming firms--extra costs that have affected steel-consuming jobs all across America. The steel tariff may have saved some steel- producing jobs, but it has already destroyed a lot more steel-consuming jobs. The findings of the ITC report alone should give the President ample reason to end the steel tariffs.

I spoke on this subject on July 16 in this Chamber. I tried to point out at that time how both steel-consuming and steel-producing jobs are important to our country. But if that is all you are considering, there are a whole lot more steel-consuming jobs than there are steel- producing jobs. For example, in Tennessee, there are about 328,000 steel-consuming jobs. There are only about 3,000 steel-producing jobs. There are 100 times more steel-consuming jobs than steel-producing jobs.

The United States has 12.8 million steel-consuming jobs--2.1 million of which are in the auto business. The United States has 226,000 steel- producing jobs.

Everybody's job is important. Just to come along and say we want to save steel jobs cannot be used as a rationale for a steel tariff when the effect is that it destroys a lot more steel-consuming jobs. Even in States such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania, there are a lot more steel-consuming jobs than there are steel-producing jobs. There are more auto jobs in Pennsylvania than there are steel-producing jobs. That is no reason for the steel tariff.

The economy is beginning to recover. Manufacturing is up. Manufacturing jobs are not up. We are more productive. So there are fewer jobs. But manufacturing for the last 3 months, according to the Wall Street Journal, is up.

I strongly believe this recovery is a direct result of the President's job and economic growth plan. The last thing we need now is to continue any new costs such as the steel tariff on a major manufacturing sector that slows down our economic growth. I fear that if the steel tariff remains, we will see more plant costs during 2004 in Tennessee and across America.

I believe the President has made an honest, good-faith effort to save steel jobs. But it has backfired by destroying auto and other steel- consuming jobs. I hope he takes into account the information that was revealed in this report this weekend. The President is a very good listener. He has given this decision almost 2 years to operate. I hope

he will decide based on the fact that the tariff is destroying auto jobs that the best decision he could make for the American worker is to end the steel tariff, and to end the steel tariff now.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, today is Citizenship Day. On this day in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed. In 1952, Congress passed a law designating Citizenship Day on this day with the intent of recognizing those who had become American citizens during the preceding year.

In the ceremony where an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen of this country, where he or she becomes a new American, he or she swears an oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Last week, on September 11, I noted that the oath of allegiance is currently a matter of mere Federal regulation and not a matter of law. I said that Congress ought to enshrine the oath in law.

Today, on behalf of Mr. Burns, Mr. Sessions, and 30 Members of the Senate, I rise to introduce legislation to do precisely that--to make the current oath of allegiance the law of the land. Doing so will give the oath of allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being an American--the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, and our national motto. All these symbols and statements have been specifically approved by Congress and are now a matter of law. The oath of allegiance ought to be treated with the same dignity.

The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--or BCIS--an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, was recently planning to change the oath of allegiance that immigrants take to become a citizen of this Nation. While those changes seem now to be on hold, it seems inappropriate to me that the BCIS, or any other Government agency, no matter how well intentioned, should have the power to alter the oath without congressional approval.

In the first 5 months of this fiscal year, 166,968 immigrants took the oath and were naturalized as new citizens of this country.

The oath assumed its present form in the 1950s and was first adopted in Federal regulations in 1929. But some of the language dates all the way back to 1790.

Yesterday, I attended a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. They were proud to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. They were proud to become Americans. This is the oath they took to become U.S. citizens--the oath which will become law if the bill I will introduce today should pass and be signed by the President.

I quote:

I--and the citizen states his or her name--hereby declare,

on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure

all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,

state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been

a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the

Constitution and laws of the United States of America against

all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true

faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on

behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I

will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the

United States when required by the law; that I will perform

work of national importance under civilian direction when

required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help

me God.

That is the oath of allegiance. That is quite an oath. It has strength. It has clarity. It sounds as if it might have been written by some rowdy patriots in Philadelphia or Williamsburg.

Yet, surprisingly, Congress has never voted on the content of this oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. It is time to protect it.

This is a straightforward bill that simply codifies the oath of allegiance as it presently stands. The bill I introduce today has, as I mentioned, already attracted 30 cosponsors, including the distinguished Senator from North Carolina who is presiding today.

I hope more Senators will join us in protecting this key statement on what it means to become an American.

Mr. President, today is Citizenship Day. On this day in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed. In 1952, Congress passed a law designating Citizenship Day on this day with the intent of recognizing those who had become American citizens during the preceding year.

In the ceremony where an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen of this country, where he or she becomes a new American, he or she swears an oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Last week, on September 11, I noted that the oath of allegiance is currently a matter of mere Federal regulation and not a matter of law. I said that Congress ought to enshrine the oath in law.

Today, on behalf of Mr. Burns, Mr. Sessions, and 30 Members of the Senate, I rise to introduce legislation to do precisely that--to make the current oath of allegiance the law of the land. Doing so will give the oath of allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being an American--the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, and our national motto. All these symbols and statements have been specifically approved by Congress and are now a matter of law. The oath of allegiance ought to be treated with the same dignity.

The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--or BCIS--an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, was recently planning to change the oath of allegiance that immigrants take to become a citizen of this Nation. While those changes seem now to be on hold, it seems inappropriate to me that the BCIS, or any other Government agency, no matter how well intentioned, should have the power to alter the oath without congressional approval.

In the first 5 months of this fiscal year, 166,968 immigrants took the oath and were naturalized as new citizens of this country.

The oath assumed its present form in the 1950s and was first adopted in Federal regulations in 1929. But some of the language dates all the way back to 1790.

Yesterday, I attended a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. They were proud to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. They were proud to become Americans. This is the oath they took to become U.S. citizens--the oath which will become law if the bill I will introduce today should pass and be signed by the President.

I quote:

I--and the citizen states his or her name--hereby declare,

on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure

all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,

state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been

a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the

Constitution and laws of the United States of America against

all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true

faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on

behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I

will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the

United States when required by the law; that I will perform

work of national importance under civilian direction when

required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help

me God.

That is the oath of allegiance. That is quite an oath. It has strength. It has clarity. It sounds as if it might have been written by some rowdy patriots in Philadelphia or Williamsburg.

Yet, surprisingly, Congress has never voted on the content of this oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. It is time to protect it.

This is a straightforward bill that simply codifies the oath of allegiance as it presently stands. The bill I introduce today has, as I mentioned, already attracted 30 cosponsors, including the distinguished Senator from North Carolina who is presiding today.

I hope more Senators will join us in protecting this key statement on what it means to become an American.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 68 are located in today's Record

under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a concurrent resolution honoring Johnny Cash.

Johnny Cash died on Friday in Nashville. The man whose singing voice sounded like a big freight train coming, is gone. The concurrent resolution I introduce today is on behalf of my colleague, the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senators from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln and Mr. Pryor, and the distinguished Senator Roberts, who probably knows the words to ``I Walk the Line,'' as do most of us all over the world.

Johnny Cash lived a little bit outside of Nashville. I was in his home one time and I asked him: Johnny, how many nights do you perform on the road?

He looked at me with some surprise. He said: Oh, about 300 a year.

Why do you do that, I asked him in amazement?

He looked back at me equally amazed. He said: That is what I do.

All weekend the radio stations have been playing the songs of the man who performed 300 times a year for all of us, the ``man in black.'' Stores all over Nashville and all over the world were stocking up on Johnny Cash memorabilia this weekend.

So much has been said in newspapers and on TV that one wonders what else we Senators might say about Johnny Cash. I mean, what could I say better, for example, than what Steven Greenhouse wrote on Johnny on page 1 of the New York Times on Saturday:

Beginning in the mid-1950s, when he made his first record

for the Sun label, Mr. Cash forged a lean, hard-bitten

country-folk music that at its most powerful seemed to erase

the lines between singing, storytelling and grueling life

experience. Born in poverty in Arkansas at the height of the

Depression, he was country music's foremost poet of the

working poor. His stripped-down songs described the lives of

coal miners and sharecroppers, convicts and cowboys, railroad

workers and laborers.

``Foremost poet of the working poor.'' Mr. Greenhouse was not the only one who wrote beautifully about the foremost poet of the working poor. So did Louie Estrada and David Segal in the Washington Post. So did Craig Havighurst and several other writers in the Tennessean in Nashville, as well as John Sparks in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

I have no doubt that in Wichita, Topeka, and important cities all over the country and world there were writers who were writing as best they could about the music and the sound of Johnny Cash.

Why do we wait until Johnny Cash dies to write of his poetry? John R. Cash is not the only such poet who ever lived in Nashville, TN. Bob Dylan, Johnny's friend, once said that Hank Williams was America's greatest poet. At last count, there are several thousand songwriters living in Nashville struggling to write poetry, some of which will be known and remembered everywhere in the world one day.

Alice Randall, a Nashville songwriter, a writer of songs and books, once observed that it is odd that there is so little serious literary criticism of the poetry of Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, and other country music songwriters. The outpouring of articles that accompanied Johnny's death this weekend suggest that most of the serious criticism of the poetry found in country music is done by pop music critics in our major newspapers.

But why is there not a department or a chair or at least a conference occasionally dedicated to criticism of the poetry or at least the literature of country music? Literary criticism is a fundamental part of the departments of English in universities all across America. Some of the most famous of these were among the ``Fugitives'' who met during the 1920s at Vanderbilt University. Cleanth Brooks, Robert Penn Warren, Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, and Andrew Lytle were some of those literary critics who began their careers then.

If Vanderbilt University, my alma mater, is such a center of literary criticism, then why has Vanderbilt University not done more about the literature that is country music? Or why does Belmont University in Nashville or the University of Tennessee or the University of Memphis not do it?

These Nashville and Memphis songwriters are certainly among the most famous poets in the world. But why do we wait for the New York Times and Bob Dylan to tell us that Johnny Cash and Hank Williams are also among the best poets when Vanderbilt University, among others, lives right there among them?

There are hundreds of good English professors in dozens of northeastern universities writing thousands of pages of criticism about average poets, while our Tennessee universities are doing almost nothing to write about poets who others say are among the best in the world. We have had a habit in Tennessee of not being willing to look right in front of our own noses to celebrate what is special about us. We sometimes worry about producing only average Chopin when right down the block lives the best harmonica player in the world.

I am all for Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. I have played their music on the piano with symphonies all across Tennessee, but I have also performed with those symphonies some of the most beautiful of the unique American music we call country music.

The death of our friend Johnny Cash, the poet of the working poor, is a good time for our Tennessee universities to consider whether they might want to celebrate our excellence by encouraging literary criticism of some of the best known poets in the world: Our songwriters. Our universities might discover what others have suggested, that some of our songwriters are also among the best in the world.