Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senators Kennedy and Enzi have recently said that early in 2008 the Senate will consider whether to authorize No Child Left Behind.

That law, which was enacted in 2001 as a part of the regular 5-year reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, required every State to set standards for math and reading and to test each child once a year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, in order to measure their progress toward meeting these State standards. In addition, the law requires States to report the results in a disaggregated way, meaning according to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, disability, and limited English proficiency, report the status of the children so it would be clearer whether groups of children are being left behind in their academic progress.

So my purpose today is, first, to announce my support for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but ask that we find a better way to do the job of reporting results. We should be trying to catch schools doing things right rather than seeming to penalize them for doing things wrong.

Second, to introduce legislation providing for greater flexibility in administering the law for up to a dozen States, if those States agree to maintain a high level or increase the rigor of the program, their standard-setting process, and reporting requirements.

Third, to express my concerns about early drafts and proposals of reauthorizing legislation that seem to require more Federal control and less State responsibility for results--the reverse of what we should be seeking to achieve.

Finally, I wish to call attention to several parts of the legislation that need to be strengthened and expanded: Support for teaching American history; the Teacher Incentive Fund; charter schools, which I know the Presiding Officer has been very interested in for a long time; and State collection of data to aid States in measuring student progress.

First, support for reauthorization. I have decided to cosponsor the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, which has been authored by Senators Burr and Gregg, because I believe it represents a sound foundation for eventual reauthorization of the legislation. This legislative draft leaves in place the framework of the 2001 law: high goals, State standards, and disaggregated reporting of results, and it addresses some obvious deficiencies in the existing legislation, including more flexibility in helping children learn English, in measuring the progress of children with disabilities, and in how to report the progress of children who make great progress but still fall behind their goals. This bill--the Burr-Gregg bill--does not retreat from the bold goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math according to each State's standards by the 2013-2014 school year. Some have argued that sets schools up for failure. I would argue it is the American way to set high goals and then to

attempt to reach them. Our Declaration of Independence does not say ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for 80 percent of us. Our national character is not that some things are possible. Rightly or wrongly, we Americans uniquely believe that anything is possible for all of us, and much of our politics and debates in this body are about dealing with the disappointment of not reaching high goals that we set for ourselves, and then, of course, we set out and try again to achieve them.

I do think we would be wise to find a different way to talk about the progress of schools in reaching those high goals. Most schools, at least today, are succeeding in reaching their State's No Child Left Behind standards. There are more than 100,000 schools in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 20 percent of those--21,000--did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those 21,000 schools, about one-fourth missed their goals by one subgroup of students.

The same is true in Tennessee. According to our Department of Education, there are 1,710 public schools. There were 245--or 15 percent--which did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those, 127 didn't do it because of one subgroup.

Therefore, I suggest we find a different way to talk about progress. Schools that reach their goals might be called ``high-achieving schools.'' Schools that do so for more than 1 year in a row might be called the ``highest achieving schools.'' Schools that, on the other hand, miss their goal by only one subgroup might be called ``achieving schools,'' and those that do not do as well might be called priority schools.

Second: A new State contract for flexibility. I am introducing today the State Student Achievement Contract which I will work to make a part of No Child Left Behind. The idea is simple: Now that we have 5 years of experience with No Child Left Behind, we should toss the ball back to at least some States and see whether those States can implement the law with at least as much rigor in reporting, more flexibility, and more innovation.

I know if the Presiding Officer and I were still Governors of our respective States, we would want to try that over the next 5 years.

This proposal would allow up to 12 States to negotiate with the U.S. Secretary of Education to enter into a State student achievement contract, which would permit States to improve their own systems of accountability, and in exchange, receive the necessary flexibility to innovate on finding ways to close the achievement gap.

In other words, instead of saying: ``Do it exactly this way'' to the States, the Federal Government would be saying: ``Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.''

In determining which States would be eligible for this new contract, the Secretary would expect States to increase their standards, assessments, and expectations of students.

Washington, DC, itself is not going to make schools better in Wilmington, Maryville, Kansas City, and Sacramento. This can only happen locally, when parents, teachers, communities, and State officials take charge. In fact, No Child Left Behind is simply an extension of the State standards movement that began in the 1980s in most States. While it requires the setting of standards and requires public reporting, the solution to the problem of low-achieving students is left in the hands of communities, where it must be left. In fact, only 8 percent of funding of public schools comes from the Federal Government.

So this proposal seeks to recognize that solutions are local, to encourage those States that are trying the boldest programs, and to permit the flexibility needed to achieve those results.

Third, creeping Federal control. One reason I have introduced the State contract proposal is I don't want the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to become a vehicle for increased Federal control of local schools. In fact, now that the first 5 years of confusion and learning the new law are completed, there ought to be fewer Federal requirements, not more. After all, the law is essentially a requirement for State standards and reporting disaggregated results.

But, unfortunately, Washington doesn't work that way. Our motto seems to be: Once we have stuck our noses into something, we will meddle with it forever. In some of the early drafts of No Child Left Behind, I have seen examples of increased Federal regulation that in my view offer the prospect of more Federal control and less local accountability. It ought to be the other way around.

Finally, there are three special provisions of No Child Left Behind that, based upon the first 5 years' experience, need to be expanded.

One, teaching American history. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said the rationale for a public school is to teach immigrant children the three Rs and what it means to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Yet the lowest test scores for American high school seniors is not math or reading or science, it is U.S. history. Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and I have worked to create some new provisions for this reauthorization which would encourage putting the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. These provisions include: The teaching traditional American history provision. That was put in 5 years ago. It is a program of grants to school districts to encourage professional development and teaching of American history. It has been very successful. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have had a major part in this law.

Next, Presidential and congressional academies. The pilot programs for these summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history have been low cost and very successful. It is my hope that in a partnership with States and the private sector, these can be expanded to a total of 100 each summer. They are very much similar to the Governors' schools many States have for students and for teachers. David McCullough has suggested perhaps we can match up the 10-year centennial program for national parks with these summer programs for students and teachers of U.S. history. Imagine what it would be like for a group of U.S. history teachers to spend a week with David McCullough at the Adams House in Quincy, MA.

Finally, a 10-State pilot program in U.S. history NAEP. Currently, the National Assessment of Education Progress--the Nation's report card--only measures student achievement in history every 4 years. We don't get State-level data; only a national sample of student achievement. Senator Kennedy and I have offered legislation to create a 10-State pilot program so there can be State-level data for 10 States, which will reflect the importance of this subject to our Nation and call attention to student progress or lack thereof in American history.

A second area of special emphasis that ought to be considered when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind is the Teacher Incentive Fund. After parents, nothing is more important to a child's success than the classroom teacher. In every hearing we have in the Senate, a witness emphasizes the need to attract specially equipped teachers for math, for science, for children with disabilities, for inner-city schools, for gifted students, and other special needs. Yet we struggle in this country with an across-the-board pay mentality that will not allow schools to lift themselves up when it comes to attracting and keeping outstanding classroom teachers.

Finding fair ways to pay teachers more for teaching well is not easy. I have tried it. But during the last 5 years, the Teacher Incentive Fund has helped at least three dozen cities, usually working with local teachers' unions, to find new ways to train and reward outstanding teachers and principals. We need to do as much of this as we possibly can. I wish to thank and acknowledge Senator Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, for working with me to make certain that appropriations for this program continue.

Then, charter schools. I mentioned earlier the Presiding Officer was a national leader on charter schools when he was Governor of Delaware. Last year, I visited a charter school in Memphis. It was the Easter holiday, except those ninth graders weren't on vacation, they were in class. To be specific, they were in a ninth grade advanced

placement biology class. What was special was these children had come from so-called low-performing schools. To be blunt, they were labeled the least likely to succeed, except they were succeeding. This was because they were getting extra help during holidays, longer school days, Saturdays, and from special teachers.

The idea of a public charter school is simply to give teachers the freedom to use their common sense and their skills to help the children who are presented to them--freedom from Federal, State, and union rules so they can do it. It is nonsensical to me that we don't encourage, rather than discourage, such public charter schools.

Most of our children are learning, but for the 15 percent or so who are having genuinely special challenges in learning, it will take different kinds of schools, even better teachers and different methods. In this reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we must do all of these things to cause that to happen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter addressed to Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word about tax fairness. Last week, I joined Senator Hutchison, who has been the leader on this issue, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Corker from my home State of Tennessee in introducing S. 2233. Our goal with that legislation is to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent.

As a former Governor, I know States and cities have many different ways to raise revenues to support the services they provide. States usually provide about half the funding for elementary and secondary education. They are the principal funder of community colleges and universities. They pay for a good part of the roads and all the prisons. So most States have pretty big bills to pay, and they have a variety of taxes to raise the money to pay for those bills. Some States levy an income tax. Some use a sales tax. Some use a combination of the two. Some use some other taxes.

In Tennessee, we have had a pretty good debate about this issue, and we have decided we don't want an income tax. I looked at the options myself when I was Governor in the mid-1980s and considered an income tax for Tennessee but decided it would be the

wrong thing to do, to put a tax on work. We have done pretty well with low taxes and without an income tax.

Americans who pay State and local income taxes are able to claim a deduction for those amounts on their Federal income tax, and before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to claim a deduction on their State and local sales taxes. But this deduction for State and local sales taxes was repealed in 1986.

Congress temporarily reinstated that State and local sales tax deduction for 2004 and 2005 and then extended it again for 2006 and 2007. I was a part of the effort in this Chamber to do that. It was a bipartisan effort. So taxpayers today who itemize on their Federal income tax returns can deduct either State and local sales taxes or State income taxes. Yet, unless Congress takes further action, this sales tax deduction will expire at the end of December of this year.

This is not about cutting taxes; this is about tax fairness. It is not fair for States without income taxes to subsidize tax deductions for States with income taxes. Why is it our business in Washington, DC, to prefer an income tax in the various States?

Nine States, including Tennessee, do not impose a State income tax. They are Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming--States from across the country, some big States, some middle-size States, some of our smallest States. These States shouldn't be treated differently. If Congress doesn't act, they will be by the end of December 2007.

I am here today to urge this body to make permanent the deduction for State and local sales tax. At the very least, we need to temporarily extend the deduction, as we have done in the last two Congresses, before it expires on December 31 so that taxpayers in those nine States are not forced to pay an unfair share of taxes.

We are talking about large amounts of money. Nearly 600,000 Tennesseans itemized their taxes and claimed the State and local sales tax deduction last year. This benefit put an average of $400 in the pockets of hard-working Tennesseans. Therefore, losing this deduction would cost Tennesseans nearly a quarter of a billion dollars right out of their pockets each year.

Extending the State and local sales tax deduction is the fair thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hutchison, Senator Cornyn, Senator Corker, and me in enacting S. 2233 before the end of the year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. He has provided extraordinary leadership as a former chairman of the National Governors Association on the legislation that was passed. Let me be specific about what has been done.

Last Thursday, the Senate worked out a compromise and passed legislation to extend for 7 more years the moratorium on the taxation of access to the Internet. That was called the Sununu-Carper amendment, the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Delaware. It was an amendment to the 4-year extension that the House of Representatives passed on October 16 by a vote of 405 to 2. I was glad to be a cosponsor of the Sununu-Carper amendment. Hopefully, the House will vote on that legislation today, if it has not already, so the President can sign it into law before the moratorium expires on November 1, which is this Thursday.

At the invitation of the Senator from Delaware, let me try to put this accomplishment into a little larger perspective. Above the Senator from Colorado, who is the Presiding Officer, is a few words that have been our country's national motto, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' one from many.

How do we make this country one from many? Not by race or not by descent but because we agree on a few principles. We have a common language, and we have a common history.

A very wise professor, Samuel P. Huntington, at Harvard, who was a former President of the American Political Science Association, said:

Much of our politics is about conflicts between principles

with which all of us agree.

For example, if we were debating immigration, we might say ``equal opportunity'' on the one hand, ``rule of law'' on the other. We all agree with both principles, but they conflict so we have an argument. That is what happened with the question of whether the Federal Government should pass a law to extend a moratorium that says States, cities, and counties cannot tax access to the Internet.

On the one hand, if you have been a Governor, as Senator Carper and I have been, nothing makes you madder than for Members of Congress to stand up with a big idea and say let's put this into law; let's take credit for it and send the bill to the Governors, to the States and cities and the counties--because usually we find that Senator or Congressman back home in our States making a big speech about local control at the next Lincoln Day or Jackson or Jefferson Day dinner.

That is the principle of federalism on the one side: No more unfunded Federal mandates, is what we Republicans like to say. In fact, a whole bunch of Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, stood up on the U.S. Capitol steps in 1994 and said: No more unfunded mandates. If we break our promise, throw us out. The New Republican Congress passed a law in 1995, S. 1 it was called, no more unfunded mandates, that is the law of the land. If Congress wants to order States and local governments to do it, Congress should pay for it.

That was the principle of federalism. But on the other hand, we had the principle of--let's say laissez faire, for lack of a better word. If you have been in business or helped to start a business, as I also have, you want as little taxation as possible and as much certainty as possible. As the Internet grows and develops, from the very beginning, it was thought it ought to be as free as possible from multiple regulations and taxes from State and local governments. So that produced the kind of debate that often comes to the floor of the Senate, those saying on the one hand: Wait a minute, let's leave the Internet alone. Let's let it grow. Let's keep the State and local governments from taxing it, or at least from taxing access to it. And on the other hand, the States, the Governors and the mayors and the city councilmen--many of us have been in those positions before-- saying: Wait a minute, it is not the job of Congress to say to Colorado or Delaware or Tennessee: You must have this service or you can't tax food or you can't tax income or you can't put a sales tax on Internet access.

In 2003 and 2004, we had a huge debate about the last extension of the Internet access tax moratorium and came to a conclusion. At that time, Senator Carper and I asked the industry, the companies, to sit down with the National Governors Association, the National Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties and take these principles--federalism on the one side, laissez faire on the other--and suggest to us some ways we could craft legislation that recognized we all agree with both principles. We need to find a way to put the principles together. That is what this compromise did.

I will let the Senator from Delaware explain a little more about the details of it, but if he doesn't mind, I will go ahead a few more minutes and give a couple of examples of why the compromise is a good idea. Fundamentally,

it is a good idea because it achieves these three objectives:

No. 1, it updates the definition of what we mean by access to the Internet. It updates that definition.

No. 2, it avoids most unfunded Federal mandates. In other words, States that are now collecting--in effect, a sales tax on access to the Internet or, in some States, a gross receipts tax--in general may continue to do that during the next 7 years. It is a limited number of States, but it is still important to those States.

No. 3, it provides, after a reasonable period of time, that we come back and take a look at the whole issue. We finally decided on 7 years in the Senate so we can make sure the definition of Internet access has not changed so the law doesn't apply correctly. If anything is likely to change, it probably is the Internet.

At the time the Telecommunications Act was last written, in the middle of the 1990s, I doubt, with all respect, that most Members of the Senate even knew what the Internet did, much less used it. In 1998, when the first moratorium and the definition of Internet access tax was written, all we knew about was a telephone dial-up Internet. Yet, by 2004, we had to refashion a definition of access to the Internet to take into account that suddenly telephone calls were being made over the Internet, and States and local governments currently collect billions of dollars in local taxes from telephone services.

If the Federal Government banned that, then States would either have to raise tuition or raise some other taxes or cut services. So we decided, in 2004, that we didn't mean to keep States from making the decisions about services and taxation that they had already made, except for the connection of access to the Internet. That didn't just favor States and local governments, for us to figure that out and be accurate in our definition. It also was of great benefit to the industry because, for example, some States were taxing what is called the backbone of the Internet, which was not intended to be left out of the moratorium.

This compromise, which Senator Carper, Senator Sununu and many others have worked out, I think, in the spirit of our country, takes two very important principles--laissez faire and federalism--and notices that they conflict in this question but comes to a reasonable compromise end result. So what we have is an updating of the definition of what we mean by access to the Internet. What we have is avoiding, for the most part, unfunded Federal mandates. And what we have is a reasonable period of time in which we can come back and revisit the issue, to make sure that what was happening in 2007 is still what we mean by the Internet in 2014.

I am glad to have been a part of this discussion. It went much better this year than it did in 2004, when we couldn't come to an agreement for about a year. The reason was because those affected by it--the entrepreneurs of America and the mayors, the cities, the Governors and county officials--helped us a lot by getting together, resolving their differences, and understanding each side has a legitimate point.

I am glad to be a part of it. I am glad to engage in this colloquy with Senator Carper and I salute him for his consistent leadership and for, once again, demonstrating his ability to work well with people from many different walks of life and for being willing to work across the aisle, when that was necessary, to produce a result.

I thank the Senator and the Presiding Officer.

Maybe the next thing we can do as a Senate is take up the Senator from Colorado's legislation that I cosponsored, and a number of others have, on an honorable conclusion to the war in Iraq, and pass that. And then the American people might notice that with public transportation, with the Internet, and with the war in Iraq, the Congress was actually working together on issues that make a difference to them and is acting like grownups and achieving results.

This has been a good several months' work. I thank you for the privilege of working with you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Mississippi for allowing me to proceed.

(The remarks of Mr. Alexander are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I thank the bill managers, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the House voted recently 405 to 2 to extend the current Internet tax moratorium which expires at the end of this month. They voted to extend it for 4 more years. I believe the Senate should do the same thing and do it before the end of the month rather than enact a permanent moratorium, as some want to do, because permanent action is likely to invoke a far higher law--the law of unintended consequences.

We can't imagine the future impact of the World Wide Web, and a permanent moratorium could produce at least two unintended consequences: No. 1, a big unintended tax increase, or No. 2, a big unintended, unfunded Federal mandate.

Here is an example of how a permanent moratorium could produce an unintended new tax. At the time the original moratorium was enacted in 1998, Internet access meant dial-up. Today, Internet access also includes broadband. Fortunately, Congress updated the moratorium definition in 2004 so that access to broadband is exempt from taxation.

Or, here is an example of how an outdated moratorium could produce an unintended, unfunded Federal mandate on States, cities, and counties. States and local governments collect billions of dollars in sales tax on telephone services to pay for schools, roads, police, and hospital workers. Under the old definition of Internet access, telephone calls made over the Internet might have escaped such taxation. That might sound good to conservatives like me who favor lower taxes, but most members of my Republican Party were elected promising to end the practice of unfunded Federal mandates--that is, those of us in Washington telling Governors, mayors, and county commissioners what services to provide and how to pay for them. In fact, Republican candidates for Congress stood with Newt Gingrich on the Capitol steps in 1994 and said, as part of a Contract With America, ``No more unfunded mandates. If we break our promise, throw us out.'' In 1995, the new Republican Congress enacted a new Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, banning unfunded mandates.

Make no mistake, Mr. President, the permanent extension that is proposed would be an unfunded Federal mandate because it would not allow the grandfathered States--and there are currently nine of them collecting this tax--the ability to continue to make their own decisions about what revenues to collect. It would freeze into place forever an Internet access definition that might not be wise for industry and that might not be wise for State and local governments.

That is why so many people support the idea of a 4-year moratorium on taxation of Internet access. It has the support of the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Multistate Tax Commission, and the AFL-CIO.

In addition to that, even though many in the industry would like to have a longer moratorium, the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition has written a letter to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, saying that they prefer the permanent extension but that they believe the House-passed bill is a step forward and one they can support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter from the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition and also a copy of the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate from September 9, 2003, which makes absolutely clear that such a law would be an unfunded Federal mandate under the terms of the 1995 Unfunded Federal Mandate Act.

I join the Senior Senator from Louisiana in asking Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter to provide as much funding as possible for public charter schools.

One of my last official acts as U.S. Secretary of Education in 1992 was to write a letter to every school superintendent in America urging them to create charter schools. I saw these charter schools as ways to remove burdensome rules, regulations, and overhead so that teachers could have more opportunities to use their good judgment to help children and so parents could have more choices of schools.

Today, there are over 4,000 charter schools serving more than 1.15 million students in 40 States and the District of Columbia. Over half of these schools report having waiting lists, averaging 166 students.

I am pleased that 12 charter schools have opened in Tennessee since passage of the State's charter school law in 2002. Ten of these charter schools are located in Memphis, where they enjoy critical support from local school officials, dedicated private partners, and philanthropic organizations.

Charter schools play a unique role in public education by offering students a variety of options to meet their different learning needs and styles. They vary in specific mission and focus but not in their commitment to excellence and preparing students to succeed. In return for autonomy and freedom from burdensome regulations and policies, they accept strict accountability for academic and fiscal success. If charter schools fail to educate their students well and meet the goals of their charters, they are closed.

I expect that we will see charter schools continue to expand across the Nation as word of their success spreads. Five years ago, the President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which contains several programs that support charter school development and provides school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools into charter schools.

It is my hope that the leadership of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations subcommittee can look at every possible option, in consultation with the House, to support as much funding as possible for this worthy program.

Madam President, the question before the Senate is whether we think the union members of the United States are first-class citizens or second-class citizens. The Sessions amendment says we recognize union members as first-class citizens by increasing the amount of money available to the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which collects the information to give them a chance to know what is going on within their union.

We treat stockholders as first-class citizens. We passed the Sarbanes-Oxley law with a number of disclosure requirements for businesses. Some of the requirements may be burdensome, as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, but we thought it was important for the stockholders of this country to know what their public corporations were doing.

We have disclosure requirements which we in the Senate are required to give every year. They are fairly burdensome, but we do that because the voters need to know what our incomes are, what our assets are. They know quite a bit about us because we are required to file these reports, and these reports are investigated by various officials and ethics committees.

There are a number of people running for President of the United States today, including a number in this body. They have to spend a lot of time filing information about where they get their contributions, because this is an era of instant information and almost universal access to information and transparency. We hear that all the time. So, we want the voters to know where the candidates for President are getting their money to see whether that influences what they do.

In this age of transparency and universal access to information, we treat stockholders as first-class citizens, we treat voters as first- class citizens, we treat taxpayers as first-class citizens, but we will be treating union members as second-class citizens if we are going to cut the funds the Department of Labor needs to provide union members with information they deserve.

For example, this year the Senate, I am told, provides a $12.8 million increase in funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the oversight agency for publicly-traded companies. So we are recognizing the importance of treating stockholders as first-class citizens, but at the same time we are cutting the funding for the Office of Labor Management Standards, which means we are treating union members as second-class citizens.

That is the issue. A vote for the Sessions amendment says we believe union members are as important as stockholders, are as important as voters, are as important as taxpayers, and that they are all entitled to be treated as first-class citizens.

This is not, as has already been mentioned, a Republican cause, I would hope. I have been around long enough to remember the Kefauver committee,

the McClellan committee, Senator John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy in the 1950s. It was the early days of television, and people who wanted to know about the Senate watched those Senators--one of whom later became President, one of whom later became Attorney General--as they ferreted out corruption and organized crime in various parts of American society, including unions.

This Federal statute we are talking about was championed by Senator John F. Kennedy. It was enacted as an outcome of the McClellan committee hearing. Senator Kennedy knew then, as we know today, that rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions are spending their money, how they are investing their members' money, that their union books are clean, and that elections for union officers are fair and free of intimidation or scandal. They have a right to know that information.

The question is, Do unions still need a Federal watchdog? Apparently so. The Secretary of Labor thinks so. She has said so. She has plenty to do over there. She could do more. She could use the money, according to her testimony.

Over the last 7 years, the Office of Labor Management Standards has performed more than 3,000 audits, resulting in 827 indictments and 790 convictions. There apparently is a lot to do in this area. What is our response? Let's cut the funding so we cannot have the investigations, so we cannot have the audits, so we cannot have the indictments, so we cannot give these union members the rights that Senator Kennedy--later, President Kennedy--thought they ought to have.

I hope we can correct what I hope is an oversight in the development of this big, complex piece of legislation. Senator Sessions' amendment would treat union members as first-class citizens, just as we do stockholders, just as we do taxpayers, just as we do voters. We live in an era of instant information, universal access to information, and union members, just as stockholders, voters, and taxpayers, have a right to know what is going on in their union.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senators from Connecticut and Virginia for their leadership. Their presence in front of this bill makes a huge difference in this Chamber. I congratulate Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, Senator Dole, and the other cosponsors.

The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate change, or when to act on climate change, but how to act on climate change. How shall we, in this Congress, begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the most certainty, least complexity, and the lowest cost? The Lieberman-Warner legislation prefers an economy-wide cap-and- trade approach. I prefer a sector-by-sector approach, that is, devising the lowest cost, least complex approach tailored to each of the three largest sectors of the economy that produce the most greenhouse gases.

Since my first year in the Senate in 2003, first with Senator Carper and then with Senator Lieberman, I have introduced legislation to put a cap on carbon emissions from the first of these three large sectors, electricity powerplants. These plants produce 40 percent of the carbon dioxide and 33 percent of the greenhouse gases in the United States. I will now broaden my legislation to include two other major sectors of the economy, one, a low carbon fuel standard for the fuels used in transportation--transportation produces another one-third of America's greenhouse gases--and, third, an aggressive approach to building energy efficiency. I am grateful to the sponsors for including energy efficiency in their legislation.

Tailoring our approach to only these three sectors--powerplants, transportation, and buildings--would cover about two-thirds of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I believe I heard Senator Lieberman say the Lieberman-Warner bill would approach 75 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions.

As we implement laws reducing emissions from these three large sectors, we could learn more and move on to the other sectors in the future. A sector-by-sector approach minimizes guesswork. For example, the United States has 16 years experience with a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce acid rain pollution from powerplants. The program costs less than expected. Utilities have experience with how it works, and we have in place right now the mechanisms we need to measure and regulate carbon from utility smokestacks. Cap and trade, which the Lieberman-Warner bill employs, and which my legislation employs for the utility sector, is a Republican idea, advanced by the first Bush administration in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. With cap and trade, the Government sets the limits and the deadlines, and the market sets the price. With a carbon tax, on the other hand, the congressional tax committees and the Internal Revenue Service set the price.

Cap and trade creates a more certain environment than a tax. Congress would have to revisit the carbon question to determine whether the tax is high enough to achieve the environmental goal, which could result in constantly changing limits and taxes. With a carbon tax there is more possibility that the cost of the tax will simply be passed along to the consumer.

A sector-by-sector approach of the kind I advocate allows us to build on steps already taken. For example, in the transportation sector, Congress has already begun to mandate renewable fuels to reduce greenhouse gasses.

This year the Senate enlarged that mandate and adopted fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. I believe we should add to those steps a low-carbon fuel standard; that is, requiring transportation fuels to decrease gradually the amount of carbon in the gasoline they contain, which is a logical and manageable next step.

In addition, both in the Energy bill of 2005 and the Energy bill the Senate passed earlier this year, Congress began to encourage more efficient buildings. Making those steps more aggressive holds the promise for enormous carbon savings at the least cost.

I believe a sector-by-sector approach will do the least harm. It avoids imposing new regulations directly on the manufacturing sector, who nevertheless may have higher costs for fuel and electricity, and therefore avoids adding to the pressure to ship jobs overseas.

By minimizing guesswork, my approach avoids grand plans that sound good but may turn out to invoke the high law of unintended consequences. I also believe a sector-by-sector approach is the easiest approach.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I believe it is the easiest approach for Members of Congress to understand and explain to our constituents these very complicated issues. As the recent debate on comprehensive immigration should have taught us, this is not an insignificant concern.

The Lieberman-Warner economy-wide climate change legislation is an important contribution. I will not be a cosponsor as this point because I prefer sector by sector, but I will be a full participant in the committee and the Senate to produce a sensible piece of legislation in this Congress.

The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate change or when to act, it is how to act. And we should act in this session.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senators from Connecticut and Virginia for their leadership. Their presence in front of this bill makes a huge difference in this Chamber. I congratulate Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, Senator Dole, and the other cosponsors.

The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate change, or when to act on climate change, but how to act on climate change. How shall we, in this Congress, begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the most certainty, least complexity, and the lowest cost? The Lieberman-Warner legislation prefers an economy-wide cap-and- trade approach. I prefer a sector-by-sector approach, that is, devising the lowest cost, least complex approach tailored to each of the three largest sectors of the economy that produce the most greenhouse gases.

Since my first year in the Senate in 2003, first with Senator Carper and then with Senator Lieberman, I have introduced legislation to put a cap on carbon emissions from the first of these three large sectors, electricity powerplants. These plants produce 40 percent of the carbon dioxide and 33 percent of the greenhouse gases in the United States. I will now broaden my legislation to include two other major sectors of the economy, one, a low carbon fuel standard for the fuels used in transportation--transportation produces another one-third of America's greenhouse gases--and, third, an aggressive approach to building energy efficiency. I am grateful to the sponsors for including energy efficiency in their legislation.

Tailoring our approach to only these three sectors--powerplants, transportation, and buildings--would cover about two-thirds of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I believe I heard Senator Lieberman say the Lieberman-Warner bill would approach 75 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions.

As we implement laws reducing emissions from these three large sectors, we could learn more and move on to the other sectors in the future. A sector-by-sector approach minimizes guesswork. For example, the United States has 16 years experience with a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce acid rain pollution from powerplants. The program costs less than expected. Utilities have experience with how it works, and we have in place right now the mechanisms we need to measure and regulate carbon from utility smokestacks. Cap and trade, which the Lieberman-Warner bill employs, and which my legislation employs for the utility sector, is a Republican idea, advanced by the first Bush administration in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. With cap and trade, the Government sets the limits and the deadlines, and the market sets the price. With a carbon tax, on the other hand, the congressional tax committees and the Internal Revenue Service set the price.

Cap and trade creates a more certain environment than a tax. Congress would have to revisit the carbon question to determine whether the tax is high enough to achieve the environmental goal, which could result in constantly changing limits and taxes. With a carbon tax there is more possibility that the cost of the tax will simply be passed along to the consumer.

A sector-by-sector approach of the kind I advocate allows us to build on steps already taken. For example, in the transportation sector, Congress has already begun to mandate renewable fuels to reduce greenhouse gasses.

This year the Senate enlarged that mandate and adopted fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. I believe we should add to those steps a low-carbon fuel standard; that is, requiring transportation fuels to decrease gradually the amount of carbon in the gasoline they contain, which is a logical and manageable next step.

In addition, both in the Energy bill of 2005 and the Energy bill the Senate passed earlier this year, Congress began to encourage more efficient buildings. Making those steps more aggressive holds the promise for enormous carbon savings at the least cost.

I believe a sector-by-sector approach will do the least harm. It avoids imposing new regulations directly on the manufacturing sector, who nevertheless may have higher costs for fuel and electricity, and therefore avoids adding to the pressure to ship jobs overseas.

By minimizing guesswork, my approach avoids grand plans that sound good but may turn out to invoke the high law of unintended consequences. I also believe a sector-by-sector approach is the easiest approach.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I believe it is the easiest approach for Members of Congress to understand and explain to our constituents these very complicated issues. As the recent debate on comprehensive immigration should have taught us, this is not an insignificant concern.

The Lieberman-Warner economy-wide climate change legislation is an important contribution. I will not be a cosponsor as this point because I prefer sector by sector, but I will be a full participant in the committee and the Senate to produce a sensible piece of legislation in this Congress.

The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate change or when to act, it is how to act. And we should act in this session.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 4 minutes, if I may, on the manager's time on the legislation.

That is correct. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, over the last several days, the Nation has watched Ken Burns' film on World War II. As I mentioned on the floor earlier, it is likely to take its place along with the series on ``Roots,'' along with Ken Burns' own film on the Civil War, along with Super Bowls, as a part of our collective memory.

I saw a preview of Mr. Burns' film about 2 months ago at the Library of Congress. My wife and I went there with some others. He showed it. We got a sense of how remarkable it was.

He said that it represented the time in our history when our country pulled together more than at any other time. Of course, all of us have seen how that ability to pull together, to be one as a Nation, prepared us for so many great accomplishments over the past half century--great universities, great military power, producing nearly a third of all the wealth in the world for 5 percent of the world's people.

It also produced an era that is instructive to us on how well we as a country do when we work together. I think it is fitting this bill is on the floor at the time Ken Burns' film is on television. It is fitting because this war has been one that has divided us. We have not been able to unite on it, although I strongly believe we should speak with a single voice on it, and have said so by sponsoring--along with Senator Salazar and 15 other Senators--legislation that would give us a chance to do that by implementing the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

But I am not here today to argue the importance of what I believe the Baker-Hamilton recommendations offer us. I simply want to note it is appropriate that the pending bill is being managed by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye is pictured numerous times during his service with the 442nd Division, which fought bravely in Europe during World War II. His heroism in that war won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was a Japanese American. Japanese Americans were, as the film reminds us, quarantined, reviled, discriminated against, but there he was, risking his life and limb to win the Congressional Medal of Honor.

He was in the same hospital in Italy that our former Majority Leader Bob Dole was in. They were wounded about the same time, and they served here together in the Senate for many years.

Then, on the other side of the aisle, the bill manager on the Republican side, is Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. He was also in that war. He flew the first plane to land in Beijing after World War II ended. Senator Stevens was a member of the Flying Tigers, who are prominently mentioned in the film.

A group of us Senators were in China last year, in a delegation led by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. They were received with enormous respect because the Chinese remember Senator Stevens' contribution to their country, and they know, of course, of Senator Inouye's heroism and leadership.

I think it is appropriate, at a time when we are debating Defense appropriations, when we are considering the motto ``E Pluribus Unum,'' how we take this magnificent diversity in this country and make it one Nation, that we have the debate on this bill led on this floor by two men of that greatest generation, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. It is appropriate that they be managing this bill.

I thought it important for us to acknowledge that.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week the Senate passed H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, and sent it on to the President for his signature. This is the biggest drug safety reform in a decade, and I was proud to support it. Among other things, this legislation will help the FDA do a better job approving and monitoring prescription drugs and medical devices, encourage the research and development of medical treatments for children, and provide needed resources to the FDA.

I am very pleased that the incentive which encourages more studies of medicines in children was preserved in the final version of this bill. Over the last 10 years, this program has helped provide worried parents and concerned physicians with information they need to make better decisions in prescribing treatment for young children. By extending drug patents in exchange for additional research on how these drugs affect children, this program has prompted studies on 144 products and led to 122 label changes on some of the most frequently prescribed medicines for children. Clearly the system works and should be continued, especially since to date only a third of drugs prescribed to children have been studied and labeled for children.

I also am pleased that this legislation reinforces FDA's broad authority over prescription drug labels. Under current law, States are preempted from substituting their judgment for the FDA's scientific decisions based on exhaustive reviews of clinical data. If this weren't the case, medicine labels would become so overwhelmed with warnings designed to avert lawsuits that most Americans will simply stop paying attention to them.

Additionally, Congress has decided to give FDA the authority to make expedited labeling changes, so that when prescription drug safety problems are identified the FDA and drug manufacturers can work together to quickly update product labels to ensure that the American people have the latest safety information. If a drug manufacturer comes to the FDA in good faith to discuss the possible need for an expedited labeling change--and if the FDA does not respond in a timely manner or decides that the science does not require a labeling change--then that drug manufacturer should not be subject to frivolous lawsuits.

I am pleased that Congress came together in a bipartisan manner to approve this legislation. It can serve as a model for how the parties can come together to pass other meaningful bills during the remainder of the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the legislation offered by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I compliment them for their leadership on this important issue.

I ask unanimous consent that the debate time for the energy and resources conference report be preserved.

Mr. President, a lot is being said about whether Ken Burns included enough Latinos in his new television series on World War II. This is one more reminder that ``pluribus'' comes easy, but ``unum'' is hard.

It would be a lot easier if ``e pluribus unum,'' the national motto displayed above the Presiding Officer's desk in the Chamber, were reversed and became ``many from one'' instead of ``one from many.''

Ken Burns's epic series on ``The War'' began last night on public television. It promises to stick in our collective memory as only a few television events have--for example, the Roots series, Burns' own Civil War series, and Super Bowls.

In fact, our country is so splintered these days and so enthralled with our diversity that not very much becomes collective memory, as did, for example, McGuffey's Reader in the 19th century, or the three network newscasts in the mid-20th century.

This diminution of our common core of beliefs and experiences is America's fundamental challenge because forging unity from our magnificent diversity is America's greatest achievement and has created our capacity for other achievements.

At the Library of Congress some weeks ago, reflecting on his 6 years of work on this television series, Ken Burns said Americans were more united during World War II and its aftermath than at any other time. It was no coincidence that during this era the ``greatest generation'' also accomplished the most: Welcoming new citizens based upon beliefs instead of race, building overwhelming military power and the best universities, and producing nearly one-third of the world's wealth for 5 percent of the world's people.

Quoting the late Arthur Schlesinger's book, ``The Disuniting of America,'' Ken Burns said America today could use ``a little less pluribus and a little more unum.''

Following World War II, liberals such as Schlesinger, Albert Shanker, and Hubert Humphrey were vigorous apostles of America's common purpose. Their Fourth of July speeches were as effusive as anybody's.

But today, the left disdains, and the right seems to have forgotten the importance of unum, which means we are abandoning our greatest achievement.

We see this in our work in the Senate. There is no constituency for consensus, only for division, and many of those who work hardest for consensus are retiring or near the end of their careers here.

A good example is the debate on Iraq, a war that, unlike World War II, divides us instead of unites us. The President is conducting the war the way he wants to conduct the war, not recognizing that persuading at least half the people he is right is the only way he can sustain a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq.

The Democratic majority, on the other hand, is working hard for a perceived political advantage, not recognizing that most voters would prefer we work together when Americans are fighting and dying.

Both sides deserve an ``incomplete'' on their report cards.

A unified country would speak with one voice on where we go from here in Iraq because our troops deserve to hear it; because the enemy needs to hear it; because one political party does not go to war, our country does; and, finally, because the Senate looks downright ridiculous lecturing Baghdad about being in a political stalemate when we cannot get out of one ourselves.

We still have an opportunity to speak with one voice on Iraq. Seventy-eight of us in the House of Representatives and the Senate--35 Democrats and 43 Republicans--have cosponsored legislation making the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations the policy of our Government. It is a consensus most Members, I believe, agree with. It is sitting there staring us in the face, waiting for us to adopt it and the President to sign it.

At West Point a few weeks ago, 30 cadets told Ken Burns, after they had seen some of his World War II series, that they had watched his Civil War series with their parents and had decided then to attend West Point. We can only hope that Burns' new series can have as much impact and remind us of that time--World War II and its aftermath--when Americans pulled together, and remind us that today we could use a little less pluribus and a little more unum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the 78 cosponsors of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, on S. 1545 in the Senate and H.R. 2574 in the House. In the Senate, there are nine Democrats and eight Republicans among the cosponsors.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, especially Senators Kennedy and Enzi, as well as their staff, in working together during discussions on the College Cost Reduction and Access Act to recognize the work of nonprofit loan providers and the services they provide to students and States.

I would like to clarify with my colleagues the committee's intent regarding one of the provisions that relates to these nonprofit loan providers. It is my understanding that nonprofit entities that use eligible lender trustees to provide Federal loans to students--such as the one in my State, EdSouth--will benefit from the special allowance payment for not-for-profit holders in this bill. The language in this bill allows an eligible lender trustee acting on behalf of a nonprofit entity to be eligible to receive this payment on behalf of the nonprofit entity, as long as such nonprofit entity was acting as the beneficial owner of Federal student loans on the date of enactment. I ask Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi whether my understanding of the provision is, in fact, what was intended by the bill.

Our staff has all worked carefully on the language to ensure that the legitimate efforts of nonprofits can continue, without opening up loopholes that would allow for-profit entities to benefit from the special allowance payment differential.

I thank my friends for their time today and again appreciate their efforts.

Mr. President, I would not want all the accolades to Senator Kennedy to come from that side of the aisle. Forty years ago, in 1967, I came to this body as a very young legislative aide to Senator Howard Baker, and Ted Kennedy was a very young Senator but already in his second term. All the talk for the first few months--and I imagine Senator Byrd can remember this--was about how long would it take for Senator Baker, a new Republican Senator, to

break on some important issue with father-in-law, the Republican leader, Senator Everett Dirksen and after a few months we knew because Senator Baker walked across the aisle and joined with Senator Ted Kennedy and they fought against Senator Dirksen, Baker's father-in-law, and Sam Ervin, the most respected constitutional lawyer in the Senate, on the issue of one man one vote.

I remember working with Jim Fluge, Senator Kennedy's friend who came back to work in the Senate 3 or 4 years ago. The upstarts won that debate; Baker and Kennedy beat Dirksen and Ervin on the one man one vote issue. That was my first exposure to working with Senator Kennedy.

Several years passed and President Bush the first asked me to be the Education Secretary, and I came to Washington and what did I discover? I have to be confirmed by a committee chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy. That was 1991. That was 16 years ago. I was eventually confirmed and then we worked together for nearly 2 years on educational issues.

Then, 4 years ago I came back and I am in the Senate and today I am serving on the committee that once confirmed me, and who is the chairman 40 years later? Senator Ted Kennedy. So I have had a very special privilege of working with Senator Kennedy and admiring him, both as a legislative aide and a Cabinet member and now as a colleague in the Senate.

I can say as a practicing Republican what every Senator in this body already knows: Nothing will bring a Republican audience to its feet faster than a speech against high taxes, against Federal control, and against Ted Kennedy. But those outside the Senate might wonder, then, how could the Republican leader and others here hold him in such affection? I can give you one example. We have a tradition in the Senate still called the maiden speech. We think about what we might say when we first come here and make it a special occasion. My first speech was about what it means to be an American, how could we put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our classrooms so our children could grow up learning what it means to be an American. This is the subject the Senator from West Virginia has worked on, spoken about, and legislated on many times.

But after I made that remark and introduced a piece of legislation, who was the first Senator to come over and volunteer to go around among his Democratic colleagues and round up enough cosponsors so the legislation could pass and eventually funds be appropriated? It was Senator Kennedy. Who is the Senator who at least once a year takes his entire family to some part of American history and helps them all understand that? I remember his coming back and telling me how excited he was when the family went to Richmond and were in the church, I believe it was, where Patrick Henry was down on his knees and gave his speech about American liberty.

That is a part of Ted Kennedy that those of us in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, know. It is a part we respect and a part we appreciate. He cares about what it means to be an American because he and his family are such an important part of American history.

It is a great privilege to serve in this body with Senator Kennedy.

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

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