[Senate Document 108-16]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAIDEN SPEECHES OF SENATORS IN THE 108TH CONGRESS
Maiden Speeches
OF U.S. SENATORS
IN THE 108TH CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES
Maiden Speeches
OF U.S. SENATORS
IN THE 108TH CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#15
Compiled under the direction
of the
Joint Committee on Printing
Trent Lott, Chairman
CONTENTS
Order for Printing....................................
iv
Senate Historical Minute..............................
v
Introduction..........................................
vii
Proceedings in the Senate:
Alexander, Lamar, of Tennessee.....................
3
Chambliss, Saxby, of Georgia.......................
25
Coleman, Norm, of Minnesota........................
29
Cornyn, John, of Texas.............................
31
Dole, Elizabeth, of North Carolina.................
33
Graham, Lindsey O., of South Carolina..............
43
Lautenberg, Frank, of New Jersey...................
61
Murkowski, Lisa, of Alaska.........................
67
Pryor, Mark, of Arkansas...........................
83
Sununu, John E., of New Hampshire..................
91
Talent, James M., of Missouri......................
93
Order for Printing Maiden Speeches
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that all maiden speeches by new Senators from the 108th
Congress be printed as a Senate document, provided further
that Senators have until the close of business tomorrow,
Friday, November 19, to submit such statements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Senate Historical Minute--April 19, 1906
Benjamin Disraeli never forgot his first attempt to
deliver a speech as a brand new member of the British
House of Commons. It was, perhaps, a legislator's worst
nightmare. As he began to speak, other members started
laughing. The more he spoke, the harder they laughed.
Finally, humiliated, he gave up and sat down. As his
parting shot, this future two-time Prime Minister pledged,
``The time will come when you shall hear me.''
From the Senate's earliest days, new members have
observed a ritual of remaining silent during floor debates
for a period of time--depending on the era and the
Senator--that ranged from several months to several years.
Some believed that by waiting a respectful amount of time
before giving their so-called maiden speech, their more
senior colleagues would respect them for their humility.
In 1906, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette was
anything but humble. A 20-year veteran of public office,
with service in the House and as his State's Governor, he
believed he had been elected to present a message that
none of his more seasoned colleagues was inclined to
deliver. La Follette waited just 3 months, an astoundingly
brief period by the standards of that day, before
launching his first major address. He spoke for 8 hours
over 3 days; his remarks in the Congressional Record
consumed 148 pages. As he began to speak, most of the
Senators present in the Chamber pointedly rose from their
desks and departed. La Follette's wife, observing from the
gallery, wrote, ``There was no mistaking that this was a
polite form of hazing.''
A year later, in 1907, Arkansas Senator Jeff Davis
shocked Capitol Hill by waiting only 9 days. The local
press corps, keeping a count of such upstart behavior,
jokingly noted that Davis was the fourth new Senator in
recent years who ``refused to wait until his hair turned
gray before taking up his work actively.''
Today, of course, this ancient Senate tradition survives
only in part--that part being the special attention given
to a Member's first major address.
Although new members of the British House of Commons,
perhaps recalling the Disraeli precedent, may still
withhold their oratorical debut, that practice has long
since vanished here. As one seasoned observer of Senate
customs notes, ``the electorate simply wouldn't stand for
it.''
Richard A. Baker
U.S. Senate Historical Office
Introduction
[From the Congressional Record, March 4, 2003]
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the new
Senators who are here. I heard my distinguished colleague
from Nevada talk a little bit about what we are about to
embark upon. It is a rich tradition of this body. In the
last few years, we have gotten away from having what we
call a ``maiden speech.'' It is not the first time we have
heard from our freshmen Senators on both sides of the
aisle, but it does give Members an opportunity to focus,
as we just heard, on issues that are important to
individual Senators, but also are important to the
American people in the broadest sense.
In this body, because we are always on a particular
piece of legislation or in Executive Session, this gives
us an opportunity to pause for a moment and shine that
spotlight and that focus on an initial speech or
discussion.
I am delighted we are reaching to the past--not the
distant past--to something we have gotten away from in the
last several Congresses, and as an initiative by our new
Senators, are embarking upon what I know will be a great
and very meaningful and powerful experience for all of us.
MAIDEN SPEECHES
Lamar Alexander
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Mr. President, I first thank the majority leader (Mr.
Frist) for his comments and his friendship and his
encouragement of the new Senators in these first
addresses. I thank the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) for
his encouragement and his willingness to join me in co-
sponsoring the legislation that I hope to talk about. I
thank my colleagues for taking the time to be here today.
From the Senate's earliest days, new Members have
observed, as we just heard, the ritual of remaining silent
for a period of time, ranging from several weeks to 2
years. By waiting a respectful amount of time before
giving their so-called ``maiden speeches,'' freshmen
Senators hoped their senior colleagues would respect them
for their humility.
This information comes from our Senate historian,
Richard Baker, who told me that in 1906 the former
Governor of Wisconsin--I am sensitive to this as a former
Governor--Robert La Follette, arrived here, in Mr. Baker's
words, ``anything but humble.'' He waited just 3 months, a
brief period by the standards of those days, before
launching his first major address. . . .
From our first day here, as the majority leader said, we
new Members of the 108th Congress have been encouraged to
speak up, and most of us have. But, with the encouragement
of the majority leader and the assistant minority leader,
several of us intend also to try to revive the tradition
of the maiden address by a signature speech on an issue
that is important both to the country and to each of us. I
thank my colleagues who are here, and I assure all of you
that I will not do what the former Governor of Wisconsin
did and speak for 3 days.
Mr. President, I rise today to address the intersection
of two urgent concerns that will determine our country's
future, and these are also the two topics I care about the
most: the education of our children and the principles
that unite us as Americans. It is time we put the teaching
of American history and civics back in its rightful place
in our schools so our children can grow up learning what
it means to be an American. Especially during such serious
times when our values and ways of life are being attacked,
we need to understand just what those values are.
In this, most Americans would agree. For example, in
Thanksgiving remarks in 2001, President Bush praised our
Nation's response to September 11. ``I call it,'' he said,
``the American character.'' At about the same time,
speaking at Harvard, former Vice President Al Gore said,
``We should fight for the values that bind us together as
a country.''
Both men were invoking a creed of ideas and values in
which most Americans believe. ``It has been our fate as a
nation,'' the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote, ``not to
have ideologies but to be one.'' This value-based identity
has inspired both patriotism and division at home as well
as emulation and hatred abroad. For terrorists, as well as
those who admire America, at issue is the United States
itself--not what we do but who we are.
Yet our children do not know what makes America
exceptional. National exams show that three-quarters of
the Nation's 4th, 8th, and 12th graders are not proficient
in civics knowledge and one-third do not even have basic
knowledge, making them ``civic illiterates.''
Children are not learning about American history and
civics because they are not being taught them. American
history has been watered down, and civics is too often
dropped from the curriculum entirely.
Until the 1960s, civics education, which teaches the
duties of citizenship, was a regular part of the high
school curriculum. But today's college graduates probably
have less civic knowledge than high school graduates of 50
years ago. Reforms, so-called, in the 1960s and 1970s,
resulted in widespread elimination of required classes and
curriculum in civics education. Today, more than half the
States have no requirement for students to take a course--
even for one semester--in American Government.
To help put the teaching of American history and civics
in its rightful place, today I introduce legislation on
behalf of myself and co-sponsors Senator Reid of Nevada,
Senator Gregg, Senator Santorum, Senator Inhofe, and
Senator Nickles. We call it the American History and
Civics Education Act. The purpose of the act is to create
Presidential academies for teachers of American history
and civics, and congressional academies for students of
American history and civics. These residential academies
would operate for 2 weeks, in the case of teachers, and 4
weeks in the case of students, during the summertime.
Their purpose would be to inspire better teaching and more
learning of the key events, the key persons, and the key
ideas that shape the institutions and democratic heritage
of the United States.
I had some experience with such residential summer
academies when I was Governor of Tennessee. It was a good
experience. In 1984, we began creating Governor's schools
for students and for teachers. We had a Governor's School
for the Arts. We had a Governor's School for International
Studies at the University of Memphis, a Governor's School
for Teachers of Writing at the University of Tennessee at
Knoxville, which was very successful. Eventually there
were eight Governor's schools in our State, and they
helped thousands of Tennessee teachers improve their
skills and inspired outstanding students in the same way.
When those teachers and students went back to their own
schools during the regular school year, their enthusiasm
for teaching and learning the subject they had been a part
of in the summer infected their peers and improved
education across the board. Dollar for dollar, I believe
the Governor's schools in our State were the most
effective popular education initiatives in our State's
history.
We weren't the only State to try it; many did. The first
State Governor's school I heard about was in North
Carolina, started by Terry Sanford when he was Governor in
1963, and then other States have done the same--Georgia,
South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In
1973, Pennsylvania established the Governor's Schools of
Excellence, with 14 different programs of study.
Mississippi has done the same. Virginia's Governor's
School is a summer residential program for 7,500 of the
Commonwealth's most gifted students. Mississippi and West
Virginia also have similar programs. They are just a few
of the more than 100 Governor's schools in 28 States.
Clearly, the model has proved to be a good one.
The legislation I propose today applies that successful
model to American history and civics by establishing
Presidential and congressional academies for students and
teachers of those subjects.
The legislation would do one more thing. It would
authorize the creation of a national alliance of American
history and civics teachers to be connected by the
Internet. The alliance would facilitate the sharing of the
best practices in the teaching of American history and
civics. It is modeled after an alliance I helped the
National Geographic Society start in the 1980s. Their
purpose was to help put geography back into the school
curriculum.
This legislation creates a pilot program, up to 12
Presidential academies for teachers, 12 congressional
academies for students, sponsored by educational
institutions. The National Endowment for the Humanities
would award 2-year renewable grants to those institutions
after a peer review process. Each grant would be subject
to rigorous review after 3 years to determine whether the
overall program should continue or expand or be stopped.
The legislation authorizes $25 million annually for the 4-
year pilot program.
There is a broad new basis of support for and interest
in American history and civics in our country. As David
Gordon noted in a recent issue of the Harvard Education
Letter:
A 1998 survey by the nonpartisan research organization
Public Agenda showed that 84 percent of parents with
school age children say they believe the United States is
a special country and they want our schools to convey that
belief to our children by teaching about its heroes and
its traditions. Similar numbers identified the American
ideal as including equal opportunity, individual freedom,
and tolerance and respect for others. Those findings were
consistent across racial and ethnic groups.
Our national leadership has responded to this renewed
interest. In 2000, at the initiative of my distinguished
colleague Senator Byrd, Congress created grants for
schools that teach American history as a separate subject
within the school curriculum. We appropriated $100 million
for those grants in the recent omnibus appropriations
bill, and rightfully so. They encourage schools and
teachers to focus on the teaching of traditional American
history and provide important financial support.
Then, last September, with historian David McCullough at
his side, President Bush announced a new initiative to
encourage the teaching of American history and civics. He
established the ``We The People'' program at the National
Endowment for the Humanities, which will develop curricula
and sponsor lectures on American history and civics. He
announced the ``Our Documents'' project, run by the
National Archives. This will take 100 of America's most
prominent and important documents from the National
Archives to classrooms everywhere in the country. This
year, the President will convene a White House forum on
American history, civics, and service. There we can
discuss new policies to improve the teaching and learning
of those subjects.
This proposed legislation takes the next step by
training teachers and encouraging outstanding students. I
am pleased today that one of the leading Members of the
House of Representatives, Roger Wicker of Mississippi,
along with a number of his colleagues, is introducing the
same legislation in the House of Representatives. I thank
Senator Gregg, the chairman of the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, for being here and also
for agreeing that the committee will hold hearings on this
legislation so we can determine how it might supplement
and work with the legislation enacted last year in this
Congress and the President's various initiatives.
In 1988, I was at a meeting of educators in Rochester
when the President of Notre Dame University asked this
question: ``What is the rationale for the public school?''
There was an unexpected silence around the room until Al
Shanker, the president of the American Federation of
Teachers, answered in this way: ``The public school was
created to teach immigrant children the three R's and what
it means to be an American with the hope that they would
then go home and teach their parents.''
From the founding of America, we have always understood
how important it is for citizens to understand the
principles that unite us as a country. Other countries are
united by their ethnicity. If you move to Japan, you can't
become Japanese. Americans, on the other hand, are united
by a few principles in which we believe. To become an
American citizen, you subscribe to those principles. If
there were no agreement on those principles, Samuel
Huntington has noted, we would be the United Nations
instead of the United States of America.
There has therefore been a continuous education process
to remind Americans just what those principles are. In his
retirement at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson would spend
evenings explaining to overnight guests what he had in
mind when he helped create what we call America. By the
mid-19th century it was just assumed that most Americans
knew what it meant to be an American. In his letter from
the Alamo, Col. William Barrett Travis pleaded for help
simply ``in the name of liberty, patriotism and everything
dear to the American character.''
New waves of immigration in the late 19th century
brought to our country a record number of new people from
other lands whose view of what it means to be an American
was indistinct--and Americans responded by teaching them.
In Wisconsin, for example, the Kohler Company housed
German immigrants together so that they might be
Americanized during non-working hours.
But the most important Americanizing institution, as Mr.
Shanker reminded us in Rochester in 1988, was the new
common school. McGuffey's Reader, which was used in many
classrooms, sold more than 120 million copies introducing
a common culture of literature, patriotic speeches and
historical references.
The wars of the 20th century made Americans stop and
think about what we were defending. President Roosevelt
made certain that those who charged the beaches of
Normandy knew they were defending freedoms.
But after World War II, the emphasis on teaching and
defining the principles that unite us waned. Unpleasant
experiences with McCarthyism in the 1950s, discouragement
after the Vietnam war, and history books that left out or
distorted the history of African-Americans made some
skittish about discussing ``Americanism.'' The end of the
cold war removed a preoccupation with who we were not,
making it less important to consider who we are. The
immigration law changes in 1965 brought to our shores many
new Americans and many cultural changes. As a result, the
American way became much more often praised than defined.
Changes in community attitudes, as they always are, were
reflected in our schools. According to historian Diane
Ravitch, the public school virtually abandoned its role as
the chief Americanizing institution. We have gone, she
explains, from one extreme--simplistic patriotism and
incomplete history--to the other--``public schools with an
adversary culture that emphasizes the Nation's warts and
diminishes its genuine accomplishments. There is no
literary canon, no common reading, no agreed-upon lists of
books, poems and stories from which students and parents
might be taught a common culture and be reminded of what
it means to be an American.''
During this time many of our national leaders
contributed to this drift toward agnostic Americanism.
These leaders celebrated multiculturalism and bilingualism
and diversity at a time when there should have been more
emphasis on a common culture and learning English and
unity.
America's variety and diversity is a great strength, but
it is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse. The
Balkans are diverse. America's greatest accomplishment is
not its variety and diversity but that we have found a way
to take all that variety and diversity and unite as one
country. E pluribus unum: out of many, one. That is what
makes America truly exceptional.
Since 9/11 things have been different. The terrorists
focused their cross-hairs on the creed that unites
Americans as one country--forcing us to remind ourselves
of those principles, to examine and define them, and to
celebrate them. The President has been the lead teacher.
President Bush has literally taken us back to school on
what it means to be an American. When he took the country
to church on television after the attacks he reminded us
that no country is more religious than we are. When he
walked across the street to the mosque he reminded the
world that we separate church and state and that there is
freedom here to believe in whatever one wants to believe.
When he attacked and defeated the Taliban, he honored
life. When we put planes back in the air and opened
financial markets and began going to football games again
we honored liberty. The President called on us to make
those magnificent images of courage and charity and
leadership and selflessness after 9/11 more permanent in
our everyday lives. And with his optimism, he warded off
doomsayers who tried to diminish the real gift of
Americans to civilization, our cockeyed optimism that
anything is possible.
Just after 9/11, I proposed an idea I called ``Pledge
Plus Three.'' Why not start each school day with the
Pledge of Allegiance--as we did this morning here in the
Senate--followed by a faculty member or student sharing
for 3 minutes ``what it means to be an American.'' The
Pledge embodies many of the ideals of our National Creed:
``one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.'' It speaks to our unity, to our faith,
to our value of freedom, and to our belief in the fair
treatment of all Americans. If more future Federal judges
took more classes in American history and civics and
learned about those values, we might have fewer mind-
boggling decisions like the one issued by the Ninth
Circuit.
Before I was elected to the Senate, I taught some of our
future judges and legislators a course at Harvard's John
F. Kennedy School of Government entitled ``The American
Character and America's Government.'' The purpose of the
course was to help policymakers, civil servants and
journalists analyze the American creed and character and
apply it in the solving of public policy problems. We
tried to figure out, if you will, what would be ``the
American way'' to solve a given problem, if such a thing
were to exist.
The students and I did not have much trouble deciding
that America is truly exceptional--not always better, but
truly exceptional--or in identifying the major principles
of an American creed or the distinct characteristics of
our country; such principles as: liberty, equal
opportunity, rule of law, laissez faire, individualism, e
pluribus unum, the separation of church and state.
But what we also found was that applying those
principles to today's issues was hard work. This was
because the principles of the creed often conflicted. For
example, when discussing President Bush's faith-based
charity legislation, we knew that ``In God We Trust'' but
we also knew that we didn't trust government with God.
When considering whether the Federal Government should
pay for scholarships which middle- and low-income families
might use at any accredited school--public, private or
religious--we found that the principle of equal
opportunity conflicted with the separation of church and
state.
And we found there are great disappointments when we try
to live up to our greatest dreams. For example, President
Kennedy's pledge that we will ``pay any price or bear any
burden'' to defend freedom, or Thomas Jefferson's
assertion that ``all men are created equal,'' or the
American dream that for anyone who works hard, tomorrow
will always be better than today.
We often are disappointed when we try to live up to
those truths.
We learned that, as Samuel Huntington has written,
balancing these conflicts and disappointments is what most
of American politics and government is about.
If most of our politics and government is about applying
to our most urgent problems the principles and
characteristics that make the United States of America an
exceptional country, then we had better get on with the
teaching and learning of those principles and
characteristics.
The legislation I propose today, with several co-
sponsors, will help our schools do what they were
established to do in the first place. At a time when there
are record numbers of new Americans, at a time when our
values are under attack, at a time when we are considering
going to war to defend those values, there can be no more
urgent task than putting the teaching of American history
and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so
our children can grow up learning what it means to be an
American.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record several items: A syllabus from the course
that I taught, an article from the National Association of
Scholars, and memoranda outlining the various Governors'
schools in our State and other States.
I also highly commend to my colleagues a report from the
Carnegie Corporation and CIRCLE titled ``The Civic Mission
of Schools.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
The American Character and America's Government: Using the
American Creed To Make Decisions
(Professor Lamar Alexander, John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University, Spring 2002)
Objective of the Course
To help future decision-makers use the principles of the
American Creed to solve difficult, contemporary public
policy problems. Students will first explore America's
``exceptionalism'': how an idea-based national ideology
makes the United States different from other countries--
including other Western democracies. Then, each session
will analyze one value of the ``American Creed''--and how
it conflicts with other values and/or creates unrealized
expectations--in the solving of a specific problem.
Students will simulate realistic policy-making situations
and produce professional products as assignments: concise
memos, outlines and briefings.
Rationale for the Course
In Thanksgiving remarks President Bush praised the
nation's response to September 11. ``I call it,'' he said,
``the American Character.'' At KSG Al Gore said, ``We
should [fight] for the values that bind us together as a
country.'' Both men were invoking a creed of ideas and
values in which most Americans believe. ``It has been our
fate as a nation,'' Richard Hofstadter wrote, ``not to
have ideologies but to be one.'' This value-based national
identity has inspired both patriotism and division at
home, both emulation and hatred abroad. For terrorists as
well as for those who admire America, at issue is the
United States itself--not what we do, but who we are.
Yet Americans who unite on principle divide and suffer
disappointment when using their creed to solve policy
problems. This is because the values of the creed conflict
(e.g., liberty vs. equality, individualism vs. community)
and because American dreams are loftier than American
reality (e.g., ``all men are created equal,'' ``tomorrow
will be better than today''). Samuel Huntington has said
that balancing these conflicts and disappointments is what
most of American politics and government is about. That is
also what this course is about.
Audience
The Course is designed for future policy makers, civil
servants, and journalists. A general knowledge of American
politics is helpful but not required. It should be useful
for both U.S. and international students seeking to learn
more about the American system of government and how it
differs from that of other countries.
Instructor
Lamar Alexander, The Roy M. and Barbara Goodman Family
Visiting Professor of Practice in Public Service, has been
Governor of Tennessee, President of the University of
Tennessee, and U.S. Education Secretary. He co-founded
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., now the nation's
largest provider of worksite day care. His seven books
include Six Months Off, the story of his family's trip to
Australia after eight years in the Governor's residence.
In 1996 and 2000 he was a candidate for the Republican
nomination for President of the United States. For more
see www.lamaralexander.com. Office: Littauer 101;
Telephone: (617) 384-7354; E-mail: lamar_
[email protected].
Office Hours
Office hours will generally be on Tuesdays and
Wednesdays. A sign up sheet will be posted outside
Professor Alexander's door. Appointments may also be made
by e-mailing [email protected]
Course Assistant
Matt Sonnesyn will be course assistant for PAL 223 and
may be reached by e-mail at
[email protected].
Expectations
This is a graduate level professional course and will
have the corresponding standards and assignments:
attendance at all scheduled classes, assignments completed
on time, and evaluation according to students' preparation
of professional products--crisp and realistic decision
memos, memo outlines, and policy briefings. All briefings
are conducted in class and all decision memos and weekly
outlines are due at the beginning of the corresponding
class session. There is no final exam, but there will be a
final paper.
Grading
Briefings (2): team exercise 20 percent. Two times
during the course each student will participate in a team
briefing on that week's subject.
Memos (2): team exercise 20 percent. Two other times
during the course each student will participate in a team
preparing a three-page decision memo on that week's
subject. The student may select these from among the class
topics.
Weekly Outlines (6): 20 percent. Six other times during
the course each student will prepare a one-page analysis
of the week's problem. (This will be during those weeks
when the student is not involved in preparing a team
briefing or team memo.) As a result, for ten of the twelve
class sessions, each student will have an assignment
(other than reading) that requires preparation outside of
class--either a team briefing, a team memo, or an
individual weekly memo outline.
Class participation and attendance: 15 percent.
Final Paper: 25 percent.
Final grades will be determined by students' overall
position in the class as measured by performance on each
of the assignments and will conform to the Kennedy School
of Government's recommended range of grading distribution.
Materials
The course relies primarily on course packets to be made
available for sale at the Course Materials Office. There
will be 125-150 pages of reading each week. There are
three required textbooks:
(1) Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,
translated and edited by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba
Winthrop, The University of Chicago Press, 2000.
(2) Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism, W.W.
Norton & Co., 1997 (paperback).
(3) Samuel P. Huntington, ``American Politics: The
Promise of Disharmony,'' The Belknap Press of Harvard
University, 1981.
All three books are available for purchase at the
Harvard Coop. Copies of all three books are on reserve in
the KSG library.
Note: Readings from the three required textbooks or
readings which are readily available online are not
included in the course packet. (Hypertext links to the
online readings may be found within the syllabus that is
posted on the KSG website.)
Enrollment
The course has a limited enrollment. Auditors are
permitted with permission of the instructor.
Course Outline and Required Readings
2/5: My ``ism'' is Americanism--American Exceptionalism.
One hundred and one ways Americans are different. So what?
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, edited by
Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000, pp. 3-15, 90, 585-587, 225-
226.
G.K. Chesterson, What I Saw in America, Dodd, Mead &
Co., 1922, pp. 6-12.
Daniel J. Boorstin, ``Why a Theory Seems Needless,'' The
Genius of American Politics, 1953, The University of
Chicago Press, pp. 8-35.
Samuel P. Huntington, ``The American Creed and National
Identity,'' American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony,
1981, pp. 13-30.
Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples, 1991, The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp.
46-58.
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, Simon
and Schuster, 1996, pp. 40-55, 68-78, 301-308.
Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism, pp. 17-
34.
2/12: `` . . . where at least I know I'm free . . . ''--
Liberty. Should Congress repeal President Bush's executive
order allowing non-citizens suspected of international
terrorism to be detained and tried in special military
tribunals?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 239-242, 246-249, 301,
639-640.
U.S. Constitution and amendments, 1787. http://
memory.loc.gov/const/constquery.html.
John Stuart Mill, ``The Authority of Society and the
Individual,'' On Liberty, 1859, Hackett Publishing Co.
edition, 1978, pp. 73-91.
Carl Brent Swisher, American Constitutional Development,
Greenwood Press, Connecticut, 1954, pp. 276-292, 1017-
1025.
Samuel P. Huntington, ``The American Creed vs. Political
Authority,'' American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony,
1981, pp. 31-60.
Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time,
The Free Press, pp. 232-246, 1988.
An Executive Order of President George W. Bush,
``Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens
in the War against Terrorism,'' November 13, 2001.
Jeffrey Rosen, ``Testing the Resilience of American
Values,'' The New York Times Week in Review, Sunday, Nov.
18, 2001, pp. 1 and 4.
Laurence H. Tribe, Statement before U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee, December 4, 2001.
``American Attitudes Toward Civil Liberties,'' public
opinion survey, by Kaiser Foundation, National Public
Radio and Kennedy School of Government, December 2001.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/civillibertiespoll/
011130.poll.html.
2/19: In God We Trust . . . but we don't trust
government with God--Christianity, pluralism and the
state. Should Congress enact President Bush's faith-based
charity legislation?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 278-288.
John Locke, ``A Letter Concerning Toleration,'' Diane
Ravitch and Abigail Thernstrom, The Democracy Reader, NY:
HarperCollins, 1992., ibid., pp. 31-37.
Thomas Jefferson, ``Notes on the State of Virginia,''
Ravitch and Thernstrom, ibid., pp. 108-109.
James Madison, ``Memorial and Remonstrance against
Religious Assessments,'' 1785, The Writings of James
Madison, NY: Putnam, 1908.
``Separation of Church and State in America Brought
about by the Scotch-Irish of Virginia,'' Charles. A.
Hanna, The Scotch Irish, Vol. II, 1985, Genealogical
Publishing Co., Baltimore, pp. 157-162.
Philip Schaff, America: A Sketch of its Political,
Social and Religious Character, 1961, The Belknap Press of
Harvard University, pp. 72-83.
Engel vs. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Marvin Olasky, ``The Early American Model of
Compassion,'' The Tragedy of American Compassion, Regnery
Publishing, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 6-23.
Lamar Alexander, ``Homeless, not hopeless,'' We Know
What to Do, William Morrow, New York, 1995, pp. 35-51.
Two Executive Orders of President George W. Bush,
``Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives'' and ``Agency Responsibilities with
Respect to Faith-based Community Initiatives.'' January
29, 2001.
2/26: ``Leave no child behind''--Equal Opportunity.
Should the federal government pay for scholarships that
middle- and low-income families may use at any accredited
school--public, private or religious?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 41-42.
Horace Mann, ``Report of the Massachusetts Board of
Education, 1848'' in Daniel J. Boorstin, An American
Primer, Meridian, 1995, pp. 361-375.
Charles Leslie Glenn, Jr. The Myth of the Common School,
The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988, pp. 146-158.
Lamar Alexander, ``The GI Bill for Kids,'' The John
Ashbrook Lecture, presented at Ashland (O.) University, 9/
12/92. http://www.lamaralexander.com/articles.htm.
Thomas J. Kane, ``Lessons from the Largest School
Voucher Program,'' Who Chooses? Who Loses?, edited by
Bruce Fuller and Richard F. Elmore, Teachers College
Press, 1996, pp. 173-183.
Michael W. McConnell, ``Legal and Constitutional Issues
of Vouchers,'' Vouchers and the Provision of Public
Schools, The Brookings Institution, 2000, pp. 368-391.
Eliot M. Mincberg and Judith E. Schaeffer, ``Grades K-
12: The Legal Problems with Public Funding of Religious
Schools,'' Vouchers and the Provision of Public Schools,
pp. 394-403.
Diane Ravitch, ``American Traditions of Education,''
Terry M. Moe, A Primer on America's Schools, Hoover
Institution Press, 2001, pp. 1-14.
Paul Peterson, ``Choice in American Education,'' A
Primer on America's Schools, pp. 249-283.
Diane Ravitch, ``Ex Uno Plures,'' Education Next, Fall
2001, pp. 27-29.
3/5: Equal at the starting line . . . but what about
those with shackles?--Individualism. Should the federal
government pay for race-based college scholarships?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 326-334, 347-348; 482-
488.
The Declaration of Independence, 1776. http://
memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html.
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address (1865). http:/
/www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
Frederick Douglass, ``What to the Slave is the Fourth of
July?'' http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/doug_a10.htm.
Martin Luther King, Jr., address at the Lincoln Memorial
in Washington, D.C., August 28, 1963. http://
douglass.speech.nwu.edu/king_b12.htm
Excerpts from University of California Regents v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978).
Testimony of Lamar Alexander, U.S. Education Secretary,
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, 102nd Congress,
2nd session, Feb. 20, 1992, pp. 39-46, 82-89, 99-102.
Seymour Martin Lipset, ``Two Americas,'' American
Exceptionalism, pp. 113-150.
Abigail Thernstrom and Stephen Thernstrom, America in
Black and White, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1997. pp.
530-545.
Cornel West, ``Malcolm X and Black Rage,'' Race Matters,
Random House, Vintage Books, New York, 2001, pp. 135-151.
3/12: A nation of immigrants . . . but all Americans--E
Pluribus Unum. Should illegal aliens have Illinois
driver's licenses? discounted tuition at state colleges?
free medical care? should their children attend public
schools?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 29-30, 32, 34-37, 268.
J. Hector St. John de Crevecouer, ``What is an
American,'' Letters from an American Farmer, 1782, Penguin
Books edition 1986, pp. 67-90.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America,
W.W. Norton, New York, 1991, pp. 9-43.
Carlos E. Cortes, ``Limits to pluribus, limits to
unum,'' National Forum, Baton Rouge, Winter, 1992. pp. 6-
10.
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, Simon
and Schuster, 1996, pp. 198-206.
J. Harvie Wilkinson, ``The Medley of America,'' One
Nation Indivisible, Addison Wesley, 1997, pp. 3-21.
Griffin Bell, ``The Changing Role of Migrants in the
United States,'' Address to the International Leadership
Issues Conference of State Legislative Leaders Foundation,
Budapest, October 4, 2001.
David Cohen, Chasing the Red, White and Blue, New York,
2001. St. Martin's Press, pp. 218-236, 250-260.
Morris P. Fiorina and Paul E. Peterson, The New American
Democracy, Longman, 2002, pp. 99-108.
3/19: Suspending the constitution in order to save it--
Rule of Law. Should the governor-elect seize office three
days early to prevent the incumbent governor from selling
pardons for cash?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 229-231.
US Constitution, 25th Amendment. http://memory.loc.gov/
const/constquery.html.
Tennessee Constitution Article 3, Section 12. http://
www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/online/section6/tnconst.pdf
(p. 12).
Tennessee Acts Section 8-1-107.
Lon Fuller, ``The Morality that Makes Law Possible,''
The Morality of Law. Yale Law School Press, 1964. pp. 33-
44.
John D. Feerick, The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its
Complete History and Earliest Applications. Fordham
University Press, 1976. pp. 3-23, 193-206.
Bush v. Gore, 2000. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
florida.html.
Al Gore, address to the nation, December 13, 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/
t651213.html.
Paul F. Boller, Jr., ``Picking the Day,'' Presidential
Inaugurations, Harcourt, Inc., 2001, pp. 23-31.
James W. Torke, ``What Is This Thing Called the Rule of
Law?'' Indiana Law Review. Volume 34, 2001. pp. 1445-1456.
Dotty Lynch, ``Back to Abnormal,'' Sept. 28, 2001, from
CBS News Site. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/
0,1597,312915-412,00.shtml.
Tim McGirk, ``Wahid's In, Megawati's Out,'' Dec. 8,
2001, from Time Asia. http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/
interview/0,9754,168569,00.html.
Gordon Silverstein, ``Globalization and the Rule of
Law,'' mimeo, The University of Minnesota, 2001.
3/26: Harvard break.
4/2: ``Ask not what your country can do for you . .
.''--Community. Should all high school graduates perform
one mandatory year of community service?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 56-58, 577-578, 489-
492.
Robert N. Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart,
University of California Press, 1985, pp. vii-xxxv, 275-
296.
Daniel Boorstin, ``From Charity to Philanthropy,''
Hidden History, Vintage, New York, 1989, pp. 193-209.
Barry Alan Shain, The Myth of American Individualism,
Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. xiii-xix.
Lamar Alexander, ``What's Wrong With American Giving and
How to Fix It,'' Philanthropy, Summer 1997. http://
www.lamaralexander.com/articles_03.htm.
Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone, Simon & Schuster, 2000,
pp. 15-28, 48-64, 116-133, 402-414.
4/9: Why Americans don't trust Washington, D.C.--A
government of, by and for the people. Should the U.S.
create a citizen congress: cut their pay and send them
home six months a year, adopt term limits and two-year
federal budgets?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 53-55.
Aristotle, ``Politics,'' from Ravitch and Thernstrom,
pp. 9-12.
Edmund Burke, ``On Election to Parliament,'' Ravitch and
Thernstrom, ibid., pp. 50-51.
Samuel P. Huntington, ``The American Creed and National
Identity,'' American Politics: the Promise of Disharmony,
1981, pp. 36-41.
E.J. Dionne, ``The Politics of the Restive Majority,''
Why Americans Hate Politics, Touchstone, New York, 1991,
pp. 329-355.
Lamar Alexander, ``Cut Their Pay and Send Them Home,''
1994, address to The Heritage Foundation.
Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism, pp. 35-
46.
Joseph S. Nye, et al., Why People Don't Trust
Government, Harvard University Press, 1997, pp. 253-281.
Mark Kim, David King, Richard Zechhauser, ``Why State
Governments Succeed,'' mimeo, John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University, 2001.
4/16: ``Work! For the night is coming . . . ''--Laissez
Faire. Should the federal government pay all working
Americans ``a living wage''?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 506-508, 555-557, 606-
608.
Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life, 1909,
Northeastern University Press, pp. 1-26.
Kevin Phillips, ``The Triumph of Upper America,'' The
Politics of Rich and Poor, Harper, 1991, pp. xvii-xxiii.
C. Vann Woodward, ``The Pursuit of Happiness,'' The Old
World's New World, Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 40-
62.
Seymour Martin Lipset, ``Economy, Religion and
Welfare,'' American Exceptionalism, pp. 53-76.
David Neumark and William Washer, ``Using the EITC to
Help Poor Families: New Evidence and a Comparison with the
Minimum Wage,'' NBER Working Paper #7599 March 2000, pp.
1-4, 24-27. http://papers.nber.org/papers/W7599.
Charles Handy, ``DeTocqueville Revisited: The Meaning of
American Prosperity,'' Harvard Business Journal, January
2001, pp. 5-11.
David Neumark, ``Living Wages: Protection For or
Protection From Low-Wage Workers,'' NBER Working Paper
#8393, July 2001, pp. 1-7, 25-27. http://papers.nber.org/
papers/W8393.
David Cohen, Chasing the Red, White and Blue, New York,
2001. St. Martin's Press, pp. 52-80.
Harvard Living Wage Statements. http://
www.hcecp.harvard.edu/report.htm and http://
www.hcs.harvard.edu/ pslm/livingwage/portal.html.
4/23: ``Pay any price, bear any burden . . . ''--
Exporting American Values. Putin shuts down last remaining
independent Russian TV station (owned 25% by Ted Turner),
expels 100 foreign journalists for ``inaccurate
reporting'' including all Fox News personnel. What does
U.S. do?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 217-220.
George Washington's Farewell Address, 1795. http://
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, 1961. http://
www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html.
Samuel P. Huntington, American Politics: the Promise of
Disharmony, pp. 240-262.
Graham T. Allison, Jr. and Robert P. Beschel, Jr., ``Can
the United States Promote Democracy,'' Political Science
Quarterly, Volume 107, No. 1, 1992, pp. 81-89.
Henry Kissinger, ``The Hinge: Theodore Roosevelt or
Woodrow Wilson,'' Diplomacy, New York Simon & Schuster,
1994, pp. 29-55.
Lamar Alexander, ``In War and Peace,'' We Know What to
Do, pp. 95-107.
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, pp.
309-321.
Samantha Power, ``Bystanders to Genocide,'' The Atlantic
Monthly, September 2000, pp. 84-108.
Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American
Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World, Alfred A
Knopf, New York, 2001, pp. xv-xviii, 3-29.
4/30: Anything is possible--Unbridled optimism. Should
there be a $1,000 limit on individual federal campaign
contributions?
Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., pp. 187-189.
Larry J. Sabato, ``PACs and Parties,'' Money, Elections
and Democracy: Reforming Congressional Campaign Finance,
1990, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.
Todd Eardensohn, A Review of the Alexander for President
Campaign Budget (1995-1996).
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, Simon
& Schuster, 1996, pp. 308-321.
Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism, pp. 51-
52, 267-292.
Lamar Alexander, ``Should Tom Paine Have Filed with the
FEC?,'' January 21, 1998, address to The Cato Institute.
Andrew Del Banco, The Real American Dream, 1999, Harvard
University Press, pp. 103-118.
Lamar Alexander, ``Put More Money Into Politics,''
August 27, 1999, The Wall Street Journal. http://
www.lamaralexander.com/articles_01.htm.
Alexander, ``Keeping the Dream Alive,'' We Know What to
Do, ibid., pp. 165-180.
------------------
[From the National Association of Scholars]
Today's College Students Barely More Knowledgeable Than
High School Students of 50 Years Ago, Poll Shows
Princeton, NJ, Dec. 18, 2002.--Contemporary college
seniors scored on average little or no higher than the
high-school graduates of a half-century ago on a battery
of 15 questions assessing general cultural knowledge. The
questions, drawn from a survey originally done by the
Gallup Organization in 1955, covered literature, music,
science, geography, and history. They were asked again of
a random sample of American college and university
students by Zogby International in April 2002. The Zogby
survey was commissioned by the National Association of
Scholars.
There were variations in the pattern of responses. The
contemporary sample of seniors did better than the 1950s
high school graduates on four questions relating to music,
literature, and science, about the same on seven questions
pertaining to geography, and worse on four questions about
history.
The answers given by today's seniors were also compared
to those provided to the Gallup questions by college
graduates in 1955. Although the relatively small number of
college graduates in the latter sample limits the degree
of confidence one can have in the comparisons, the
consistency and size of the knowledge superiority
displayed by the 1950s college graduates strongly suggests
that it is real.
The overall average of correct responses for the entire
general knowledge survey was 53.5% for today's college
seniors, 54.5% for the 1955 high school graduates, and
77.3% for the 1955 college graduates.
(Removing three questions about which, for reasons
indicated in the full report, the earlier respondents may
have had more ``extracurricular'' sources of knowledge,
the figures become 50.3% for the 2002 seniors, 46.4% for
the 1955 high school graduates, and 67.8% for the 1955
college graduates.)
In addition, the 2002 college seniors were asked two
questions dealing with the reading and musical interests
that were asked of national samples of the American
population in 1946 and 1957. With respect to interest in
high literate and musical culture, the answers fail to
show impressive or consistent differences between the two
groups.
On a question inquiring whether or not they had a
favorite author, 56% of 2002 college seniors, as opposed
to 32% of the general population in 1946--the great
majority of whom had only an elementary or secondary
school education--answered affirmatively. For both groups,
however, most of the authors specifically mentioned were
writers of popular fiction. When only responses naming
``high-brow'' and canonical writers were tabulated, the
differences between the two groups shrank considerably:
17% of the national sample falling into a ``high-brow''
classification in 1946, as opposed to 24% of the 2002
college senior sample. Not a particularly large difference
given the college senior's great advantage in formal
education.
Asked whether or not they would like to collect a fairly
complete library of classical music on LPs or CDs, the
1957 sample of owners 33 rpm-capable phonographs (37% of a
national survey sample) provided a more affirmative
response than did the 2002 college seniors, 39% of the
former, and only 30% of the latter, responding ``Yes''.
On the other hand, the contemporary college seniors were
more likely (69%) to have studied a musical instrument
than were the members of the population as a whole (44%)
in 1957. The type of instrument studied also differed, the
1957 national sample more heavily favoring the violin and
piano than did the 2002 college seniors.
``The results,'' said NAS president Stephen H. Balch,
``though somewhat mixed and based on a limited number of
questions, are hardly reassuring. America has poured
enormous amounts of tax dollars into expanding access to
higher learning. Students spend, and pay for, many more
years in the classroom than was formerly the case. Our
evidence suggests that this time and treasure may not have
substantially raised student cultural knowledge above the
high school levels of a half-century ago.''
``Worst yet,'' he continued, ``the high cultural
interest and aspirations of today's college seniors are
neither consistently nor substantially more elevated than
yesteryear's secondary school graduates. Creating such
interests and aspirations has traditionally been
considered a core element of the collegiate experience. If
the last fifty years have in fact witnessed few gains in
this respect, it represents a real disappointment of once
widespread hopes.''
------------------
Governor's Schools Appendix
Virginia Governor's Schools for Humanities and Visual &
Performing Arts:
Established in 1973;
Takes place in more than 40 sites throughout Virginia;
``The Governor's Schools presently include summer
residential, summer regional, and academic-year programs
serving more than 7,500 gifted students from all parts of
the commonwealth'';
Funded by way of the Virginia Board of Education and the
General Assembly (no specific figures readily available).
Pennsylvania Governor's Schools of Excellence:
Established in 1973;
Program is broken up into 8 schools (Agricultural
Sciences-Penn State University, Global Entrepreneurship-
Lehigh University, Health Care-University of Pittsburgh,
Information Technology-Drexel University/Penn State
University, International Studies-University of
Pittsburgh, Teaching-Millersville University, the Arts-
Mercyhurst College, the Sciences-Carnegie Mellon
University);
Funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Mississippi Governor's School:
Established in 1981;
Program is hosted by the Mississippi University for
Women;
Major academic courses change yearly, however, all
courses are designed to provide ``academic, creative
leadership experiences.''
West Virginia Governor's School for the Arts:
``Brings 80 of West Virginia's most talented high school
actors, dancers, musicians, singers and visual artists to
the West Liberty State College campus for a three-week
residential program.''
Arkansas Governor's School:
Established in 1980;
Program is hosted by Hendrix College and attended by
approximately 400 students yearly;
Areas of focus include ``art, music, literature, film,
dance, and thought in the sciences, social sciences, and
humanities'';
This 6-week program is funded by the Arkansas General
Assembly.
Governor's schools for Montana, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut not found.
Alabama Governor's School:
Established in 1987;
Program is hosted by Samford University;
Academic courses stress fieldwork and problem-solving;
the arts, humanities and sciences are also explored;
Major and minor areas of study include, ``The Legal
Process, American Healthcare, and Urban Geography.''
Delaware Governor's School for Excellence:
One-week summer program;
Open to academically and artistically talented
sophomores from Delaware high schools;
Students attend either the academic program or the
visual and performing arts program.
Kentucky Governor's Scholars Program:
Established in 1983;
Held on the campuses (2003) of Centre College in
Danville, Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, and
Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights;
Five-week long summer program;
Students may choose from over 20 subjects, including
engineering and cultural anthropology;
Students selected attend the program free of cost.
Kentucky Governor's School for the Arts:
Provides hands-on instruction for Kentucky's dancers,
actors, and musicians;
No charge to students because it is paid for by the
State;
Open to sophomores and juniors in high school.
Missouri Scholars Academy:
Three-week academic program for Missouri's gifted
students;
330 students attend each year;
Held on the campus of University of Missouri-Columbia;
Administered by the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, in cooperation with University of
Missouri officials;
Funds to support the Academy are appropriated by the
Missouri Legislature following state Board of Education
recommendations;
Academy focuses on liberal arts and numerous extra-
curricular activities.
------------------
A Glance at Tennessee Governor's Schools
Governor's Schools
Background
The Governor's School concept and practice began in
North Carolina in 1963 when Governor Terry Sanford
established the first one at Salem College, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. The first school was initially funded
through a grant from the Carnegie Corporation. Later it
came under the auspices of the North Carolina Board of
Education of the North Carolina Department of Education.
Upon the establishment of the first school, several
states, including Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas,
Kentucky, and Tennessee established similar schools. As of
1996, there were approximately 100 schools in 28 states.
Tennessee Governor's Schools
Background
The 1984 Extraordinary Session of the Tennessee General
Assembly mandated the Governor's School program as a way
of meeting the needs of Tennessee's top students. For many
years this program has been included in the Appropriation
Bill of the General Assembly.
The Governor's Schools started with 3 schools (100
students each) in 1985:
1. Humanities at U.T. Martin increased to 150 (2000 =
123; 2001 = 113).
2. Sciences at U.T. increased to 150 (2000 = 119; 2002 =
107).
3. Arts at M.T.S.U. increased to 300 (2000 = 226; 2001 =
226).
Added in 1986 International Studies at U. of Memphis
originally served 150 (2000 = 115; 2001 = 106).
Added in 1987 Tennessee Heritage at E.T.S.U. originally
served 80 (2000 = 57; 2001 = 51).
Added in 1991 Prospective Teachers at U.T. Chattanooga
originally served 30 (2000 = 25; 2001 = 22).
Added in 1996 Manufacturing at U.T. originally served 30
(2000 = 26; 2001 = 21).
Added in 1998 Hospitality and Tourism at TSU originally
served 60 (2000 = 60; 2001 = 0).
Added in 1999 Health Sciences at Vanderbilt originally
served 25 (2000 = 20; 2001 = 0).
Discontinued in 2001 Hospitality and Tourism (per
legislature).
Discontinued in 2001 Health Sciences (per legislature).
Added (but not held) in 2002 Information Technology
Leadership at T.T.U. originally served 30.
Suspended for 2002 All Governor's School Programs.
During the 2001 Governor's Schools session 646 students
attended.
2001 total amount allotted to the Governor's Schools:
$1,411,000.00 (1999 = $1,981.08 per student; 2000 =
$2,037.61 per student; 2001 = $2,180.83 per student)
Governor's Schools today
Today, there are 8 Governor's Schools across the state,
serving several hundred students and teachers each year.
Although funding for the schools was cut last year during
a budget crisis, support has been restored this year.
As stated earlier, there are currently 8 Governor's
Schools across the state. Each school is held on a college
campus during the summer months. Listed below is a table
of all of the schools, including subject area that is
taught, the location, and the dates for the 2003 session.
The School for the Arts--June 15-July 12, 2003--held on
the Middle Tennessee State University campus in
Murfreesboro, and located only 30 miles from Nashville and
the Tennessee Performing Arts Center.
The School for the Sciences--June 15-July 12, 2003--held
on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville,
near the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Tremont
Environmental Center, and in the heart of TVA.
The School for the Humanities--June 15-July 12, 2003--
held on the campus of the University of Tennessee at
Martin, in the center of Shiloh Battleground and the
sociological cultures of the Mississippi and Tennessee
Rivers.
The School for International Studies--June 15-July 12,
2003--held on the campus of the University of Memphis, in
the heart of Tennessee's growing international corporate
center, home to Federal Express, Holiday Inns, and
Schering-Plough.
The School for Tennessee Heritage--June 15-July 12,
2003--held on the campus of East Tennessee State
University--in Johnson City--surrounded by the area where
Tennessee's history began and only a few miles from
Jonesborough, the state's oldest existing city.
The School for Prospective Teachers--June 15-July 12,
2003--held on the campus of the University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga--with access to many schools throughout the
area.
The School for Manufacturing--June 15-July 12, 2003--
held on the campus of the University of Tennessee in
Knoxville--focuses on the importance of manufacturing as
an integral part of the culture and economy of Tennessee.
President's School for Information Technology and
Leadership--June 15-July 12, 2003--this self-funded school
will be held on the campus of Tennessee Technological
University in Cookeville. It focuses on developing a
complete business plan for an information technology-based
business and enhancing student's knowledge of information
technology and business leadership.
The Tennessee Governor's Schools offer selected gifted
and talented high school students intensive learning
experiences in the Humanities, Math and Science, Arts,
International Studies, Tennessee Heritage, Prospective
Teaching, Manufacturing and Information Technology
Leadership. Admission to the various programs are highly
competitive, as 1,250 applications have been received thus
far for the 2003 year for The School for the Arts, and
only 300 spots are available. Additionally, The School for
the Sciences has received 800 applications thus far, for
125 spots.
Students in the 10th and 11th grades who are interested
in participating in the programs receive information from
their school's guidance counselor and then proceed with
the application process.
Students selected to attend these highly competitive
schools are provided housing and meals for the duration of
the program, which is about a month long. Students
participate in a variety of courses that are offered. For
example, there were 14 academic courses offered to the 115
scholars at the Governor's School for the Humanities in
2001. All of the scholars were enrolled in courses at 9
a.m. and 10:15 a.m. This particular curriculum was
designed to expose the scholars to a rich selection of
humanities courses including literature, philosophy,
religion, ethics, poetry, history and media studies. In
addition to the required morning classes, the scholars
were given the opportunity to participate in afternoon
electives, such as the yearbook staff and the student
newspaper. In the evening hours at the Governors School
for the Humanities, students were offered a broad-range of
humanities-related speakers and activities.
Governor's Schools make a difference
The scholars' satisfaction with the 2001 Governor's
School for the Humanities program is reflected in the
overall rating of the program, with 94% of the scholars
rating the program as either ``excellent'' or ``very
good.''
This satisfaction is also evident from the feedback the
students were asked to write upon completion of the 2001
Governor's School for the Humanities program. Some
examples of the feedback from the program are as follows:
``I had the fortunate chance of coming here, and I am
glad I came. The cool thing about the people here is that
I got along with everyone, and I especially got along very
well with my roommate. My favorite class was Lord
Chamberlain's Men. I better developed my acting skills and
overall understanding of what goes on in a play
production. This campus is so beautiful. The people,
activities, and atmosphere are unbelievable. I have had
the time of my life here, and I would especially come to
this campus again for a future GS, but I doubt that is
possible. I love the freedom I get from being here. The
classes were challenging for me and I believe I am
prepared for my classroom experience now. There are some
very strange people that came here who I wouldn't even
think would be accepted to Governor's School. I have
learned to accept all different types of people and their
views and lifestyles since coming to GS. I love the fact
that Tennessee is rewarding me and everyone here that is
smart with the opportunity to become a better person. This
experience was wonderful. I speak for a lot of people when
I say that I don't want to leave!''
``I honestly would have to say that Governor's School
has been one of the best experiences I have ever had. By
coming here, I have met so many people from different
backgrounds, and I learned to grow as a person. I learned
so much in and out of class, both from the staff and
students. I really enjoyed all the activities because I
had fun and because I was able to be myself. The
atmosphere was so receptive and nurturing, and the
teachers showed that they wanted us to learn and grow. I
feel that the variety of electives offered allowed each
person to pick what he/she was interested in and enabled
each person to show their talents and abilities. The time
in which I was here flew by, but so many wonderful things
happened. It sounds funny, but every time I would write or
call home, I couldn't help but smile as I told my parents
about the fun I was having. This may or may not seem
relevant to the Governor's School experience, but it
helped me to see that I can go off to college in a year
and I will be fine. Overall, I feel that this was a
positive growing experience, and I can't wait to take back
home all that I have learned. Thank you all so much!''
Other Governor's Schools around the country
The Arkansas Governor's School is a 6-week summer
residential program for gifted students who are upcoming
high school seniors and residents of Arkansas. State funds
provide tuition, room, board, and instructional materials
for each student who attends the six-week program on the
site of a residential college campus, leased by the State.
The Arkansas Governor's School is a non-credit program.
Students are selected on the basis of their special
aptitudes in one of eight fields: choral music, drama,
English/language arts, instrumental music, mathematics,
natural science, social science, or visual arts.
The Virginia Governor's School Program provides some of
the state's most able students academically and
artistically challenging programs beyond those offered in
their home schools. With the support of the Virginia Board
of Education and the General Assembly, the Governor's
Schools presently include summer residential, summer
regional, and academic-year programs serving more than
7,500 gifted students from all parts of the commonwealth.
There are three types of Governor's Schools that provide
appropriate learning endeavors for gifted students
throughout the commonwealth: Academic-Year Governor's
Schools, Summer Residential Governor's Schools, and the
Summer Regional Governor's Schools. The Virginia
Department of Education and the participating school
divisions fund the Governor's School Program.
The Georgia Governor's Honors Program is a six-week
summer instructional program designed to provide
intellectually gifted and artistically talented high
school juniors and seniors challenging and enriching
educational opportunities. Activities are designed to
provide each participant with opportunities to acquire the
skills, knowledge, and attitudes to become life-long
learners. The program is held on the campus of Valdosta
State University, in Valdosta, Georgia. The GHP teacher-
to-student ratio is usually 1:15.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the majority
leader for this time. I yield the floor.
Saxby Chambliss
Wednesday, February 5, 2003
Mr. President, today I rise in support of Miguel
Estrada, the nominee for the 12th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
It is an honor to serve my State of Georgia in this
great institution, and I am pleased that the work we are
undertaking today pertains to such an important issue for
our country--filling the vacancies in our courts with good
and honorable judges.
One of the most important burdens that has been placed
on the shoulders of the Senate is the sanction of Federal
judges. I relish this task because it grants us an
opportunity to have a hand in the future of the laws that
govern this great land. And there is no better way to help
craft the America of the next generation, the America to
be served by our children and our grandchildren.
Before I came to Congress, I practiced law for 26 years
and I can say that it is rare to meet someone as qualified
for the bench as Miguel Estrada. The American Bar
Association unanimously rated Mr. Estrada as ``well
qualified.'' I understand that some of my colleagues in
the past have referred to this rating as the ``gold
standard'' for judicial nominees. It seems then that a
unanimous ``well qualified'' rating should speak volumes
about Mr. Estrada's merit.
Some critics have said that Mr. Estrada should not be
confirmed because he lacks judicial experience. I would
simply highlight the examples of Justice White and Chief
Justice Rehnquist. Both men had no prior judicial
experience when they were appointed to the Supreme Court.
Also on the same court that Mr. Estrada would join, five
of the eight sitting judges had no prior judicial
experience, two of which were nominated by President
Clinton.
Mr. Estrada, however, has had exceptional experience
both in the government and in private practice. From 1992
to 1997, he served in the Clinton administration as
Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of
Justice. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court
and is widely regarded as one of America's leading
appellate advocates. He is currently a partner for a
leading law firm with their appellate and constitutional
law practice group. I believe that this represents
sufficient experience for his nomination.
Another argument made by some is that Mr. Estrada has
refused to produce confidential memoranda that he wrote
when he was with the Solicitor General's Office. I would
argue that this request, if met, would have a debilitating
effect on the ability of the Department of Justice to
represent the United States before the Supreme Court and I
have a letter signed by every living former Solicitor
General--Democrat and Republican alike--saying the same. I
would ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2002.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy: We write to express our concern
about your recent request that the Department of Justice
turn over ``appeal recommendations, certiorari
recommendations, and amicus recommendations'' that Miguel
Estrada worked on while in the Office of the Solicitor
General.
As former heads of the Office of the Solicitor General--
under Presidents of both parties--we can attest to the
vital importance of candor and confidentiality in the
Solicitor General's decisionmaking process. The Solicitor
General is charged with the weighty responsibility of
deciding whether to appeal adverse decisions in cases
where the United States is a party, whether to seek
Supreme Court review of adverse appellate decisions, and
whether to participate as amicus curiae in other high-
profile cases that implicate an important federal
interest. The Solicitor General has the responsibility of
representing the interests not just of the Justice
Department, nor just of the Executive Branch, but of the
entire federal government, including Congress.
It goes without saying that, when we made these and
other critical decisions, we relied on frank, honest, and
thorough advice from our staff attorneys, like Mr.
Estrada. Our decisionmaking process required the
unbridled, open exchange of ideas--an exchange that simply
cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear that
their private recommendations are not private at all, but
vulnerable to public disclosure. Attorneys inevitably will
hesitate before giving their honest, independent analysis
if their opinions are not safeguarded from future
disclosure. High-level decisionmaking requires candor, and
candor in turn requires confidentiality.
Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly
privileged deliberations would come at the cost of the
Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the
United States' litigation interests--a cost that also
would be borne by Congress itself.
Although we profoundly respect the Senate's duty to
evaluate Mr. Estrada's fitness for the federal judiciary,
we do not think that the confidentiality and integrity of
internal deliberations should be sacrificed in the
process.
Sincerely,
On behalf of: Seth P. Waxman, Walter Dellinger, Drew S.
Days, III, Kenneth W. Starr, Charles Fried, Robert H.
Bork, Archibald Cox.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Also, as we have heard, Mr. Estrada has a
great story; he is accomplished, competent, and
experienced. This man came to America to seek the American
dream and he is now living that dream. He came to the
United States from Honduras when he was 17 years old and
has spent his life gaining credibility as a Hispanic man
of distinction. If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would break a
glass ceiling by being the first Latino judge to serve on
the DC Court of Appeals. However, if he is not confirmed,
it would not just be terrible for the District of
Columbia, but it would send the wrong message to Hispanic
communities in my home State of Georgia and across the
Nation. But I would say to my colleagues that you should
not vote for Miguel Estrada because he is Hispanic, you
should vote to confirm him because he is a world-class
lawyer and he will make a world-class judge.
He has the qualifications, the capacity, the integrity,
and the temperament to serve on the Federal bench. I was
happy to support his nomination last week in the Judiciary
Committee and I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the President's nominee for this important
position.
Norm Coleman
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding the
time.
I rise in support of the Cochran amendment. Last year
when I was running for the U.S. Senate, I promised to get
something done in the way of relief for Minnesota farmers.
The picture the distinguished Senator from North Dakota
showed is a picture that is close to the heart of
Minnesotans who suffered disasters. They have suffered
flooding. They have been hurt. They have suffered losses.
Last year, the House and the Senate attempted to pass
the Daschle legislation, but it never became law. Those
two bills looked good on paper, but they never became law.
They never lightened the load of one farmer. They never
comforted one farm family. They never provided a single
auction.
I never promised to vote for something that everyone
knows is going nowhere, and then shrug my shoulders and
say: Gee whiz, I tried. I promised to shoot straight for
the people back home and to be honest about what I think
can be done and then help it become law. No one believes
the alternative disaster package now scored by the
Congressional Budget Office at nearly $7 billion has
support to become law. I think it is irresponsible to
raise hopes and expectations to that level.
I was elected to get something done. I have some serious
concerns about the $3.1 billion disaster package in the
Cochran amendment. In my view, the help provided in this
bill needs to be better targeted to farmers hit by
disaster. I was among a number of Senators who expressed
concerns to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He
went back to the drawing board. He made some changes to
better target the help. Although he didn't go as far as I
would like, we are going to get something done for
Minnesota farmers. Farmers can't produce cashflow on
promises alone. They need help now. I am told this $3.1
billion relief package can get help to our farm families
within weeks. I am going to support this $3.1 billion
package. I was elected to get things done. The Cochran
amendment gets things done. Let's pass it and let us move
on.
I yield the floor.
John Cornyn
Wednesday, February 5, 2003
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the seven
men and women of the Space Shuttle Columbia who dedicated
their lives to the future of this Nation and our Nation's
space program. In particular, seven men and women who knew
the risk of strapping themselves on top of a rocket,
leaving the Earth behind and exploring the heavens. Seven
men and women who knew what they were doing but,
nevertheless, volunteered for an extremely dangerous but
critically important mission: Shuttle Commander Rick
Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Commander Michael
Anderson, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission
Specialist David Brown, Mission Specialist Laurel Blair
Salton Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon.
These brave seven showed the Nation, indeed they showed
the entire world, that our thirst for knowledge and
exploration is not yet quenched and, God willing, will
never be. These brave seven are shining examples of the
courage, enthusiasm, and awe that runs through the veins
of all of the men and women associated with our space
program, as well as the eager children across this Nation
who look to the stars and see the beginning, not the end,
of their dreams.
These brave seven and their colleagues throughout the
space program inspire not only our Nation and our
children, they inspire the entire world. Their actions,
bravery, and achievements are a challenge to all
humankind, a challenge to dream more, to achieve more, and
to reach farther than ever thought possible.
As we know and as the President observed yesterday, high
achievement is inseparable from great risk. These seven
proved that in a terrible and tragic way.
I would also like to take a moment to honor the men and
women in my State of Texas--the police, fire, and
emergency services, as well as thousands of local
volunteers who have worked so hard on the ground in the
aftermath of this terrible disaster to prevent further
tragedy. In addition, they are in the process of
collecting important evidence that will ultimately, we
trust, lead to the determination of what caused this
terrible tragedy so it will never ever happen again.
Literally within minutes of the tragedy, ordinary Texans
did extraordinary things. By working together, they helped
to ensure the safety of their neighbors, and they helped
speed the investigation so that heroic astronauts on
future space missions will return home safely. These
volunteers are still onsite working together with law
enforcement personnel. I want to express my gratitude, as
I know the Nation does, for their efforts.
The fact that America and the world delight in every
takeoff and hold their collective breath at every landing
is a testament to the power and hope embodied in our
Nation's space program. The heroes who create, maintain,
and fly these amazing machines are a testament to the fact
that dreams are the beginning and not the end of the
possible.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that more than
one nation mourns this tragedy. The nations of Israel and
India and the rest of the world share in our grief as they
share in our hope for the future.
Our space program inspired a young girl in the small
town of Karnal, India, to look to the heavens and see her
future. Kalpana Chawla came to the United States, studied
hard, worked hard, and became part of the greatest
exploration force in the history of the world. Her efforts
have inspired thousands of schoolchildren, and her example
will inspire countless more in the future. She, in
particular, has inspired schoolchildren in her hometown to
watch in awe as she achieved what they only dreamed.
In Israel, Ilan Ramon was the hope of a nation and the
inspiration for the next generation of scientists, fliers,
and adventurers in the nation of Israel. And he no doubt
inspired many young people in that country to reach beyond
what now seems impossible--to dream beyond the unrest in
that troubled area of our world and to dream about
achieving the impossible. He is a hero, there and here,
and an inspiration to all who dream of the stars.
As we mourn these fallen heroes, let us also take the
opportunity to look forward to the future when shuttle
flights are as common as air travel and the marvels of the
space program are missions the mind has yet to imagine.
I yield the floor.
Elizabeth Dole
Thursday, June 5, 2003
Mr. President, I first thank the majority whip, Senator
McConnell, and the Democrat whip, Senator Reid, for their
very kind comments this morning. Then I thank you, Mr.
President, and other members of the leadership, for your
unwavering support of this freshman class.
I also recognize Senator Frist for the traditional
courtesies of a maiden speech to be extended to the new
Senator and express my appreciation for his commitment to
the rich history of this great tradition.
Tradition is held that, by waiting a respectful length
of time, senior colleagues would appreciate the humility
shown by a new Member of the Senate who would use the
occasion to address an issue of concern.
I come in that sense today to share my thoughts on a
matter that weighs heavily on my mind. Hunger is the
silent enemy lurking within too many American homes. It is
a tragedy I have seen first-hand and far too many times
throughout my life in public service. This is not a new
issue.
In 1969, while I was serving as Deputy Assistant to the
President for Consumer Affairs, I was privileged to assist
in planning the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition,
and Health. In opening the conference, President Nixon
said:
Malnutrition is a national concern because we are a
nation that cares about its people, how they feel, how
they live. We care whether they are well and whether they
are happy.
This still rings true today.
On National Hunger Awareness Day, I want to highlight
what has become a serious problem for too many families,
particularly in North Carolina.
My home State is going through a painful economic
transition. Once thriving textile mills have been
shuttered. Family farms are going out of business. Tens of
thousands of workers have been laid off from their jobs.
Entire areas of textile and furniture manufacturing are
slowly phasing out as high-tech manufacturing and service
companies become the dominant industry of the State. Many
of these traditional manufacturing jobs have been in rural
areas where there are fewer jobs and residents who are
already struggling to make ends meet.
In 1999, North Carolina had the 12th lowest unemployment
rate in the United States. By December 2001, the State had
fallen to 46--from 12 to 46. That same year, according to
the Rural Center, North Carolina companies announced
63,222 layoffs. Our State lost more manufacturing jobs
between 1997 and 2000 than any State except New York.
Entire communities have been uprooted by this crisis. In
the town of Spruce Pine in Mitchell County, 30 percent--30
percent--of the town's residents lost their jobs in 2001.
Ninety percent of those layoffs were in textile and
furniture manufacturing. These are real numbers and real
lives from a State that is hurting.
Our families are struggling to find jobs, to pay their
bills, and, as we hear more and more often, to even put
food on the table. In fact, the unemployment trend that
started in 1999 resulted in 11.1 percent of North Carolina
families not always having enough food to meet their basic
needs. That is according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. And North Carolina's rate is higher than the
national average. This means that among North Carolina's
8.2 million residents, nearly 900,000 are dealing with
hunger. Some are hungry, others are on the verge.
My office was blessed recently to meet a young veteran,
Michael Williams, and his family. Michael served his
country for 8 years in the U.S. Army before leaving to
work in private industry and use the computer skills he
had gained while serving in the military. He was earning a
good living, but after September 11 and the terrorist
attacks, he and his wife Gloria felt it was time to move
their two children closer to family back home in North
Carolina. As he said, ``It was time to bring the
grandbabies home.''
But Michael has found a shortage of jobs since his
return. He worked with a temp agency but that job ended.
It has been so hard to make ends meet that the family goes
to a food bank near their Clayton, NC, home twice a month
because with rent, utilities, and other bills, there is
little left to buy food.
Their story is not unlike so many others. Hard-working
families are worrying each day about how to feed their
children. As if this were not enough, our food banks are
having a hard time finding food to feed these families. In
some instances, financial donations have dropped off or
corporations have scaled back on food donations. In other
cases, there are just too many people, and there is not
enough food.
At the Food Bank of the Albemarle in northeast North
Carolina, executive director Gus Smith says more people
are visiting this food bank even as donations are off by
25 percent. Thus Gus says, ``We just can't help everybody
at this point in time.'' To try to cope, they recently
moved to a 4-day workweek, meaning the entire staff had to
take a 20-percent pay cut just to keep the doors open.
America's Second Harvest, a network of 216 food banks
across the country, reports it saw the number of people
seeking emergency hunger relief rise by 9 percent in 2001
to 23.3 million people. In any given week, it is estimated
that 7 million people are served at emergency feeding
sites around the country.
These numbers are troubling indeed. No family--in North
Carolina or anywhere in America--should have to worry
about where they will find food to eat. No parent should
have to tell their child there is no money left for
groceries. This is simply unacceptable.
I spent most of the congressional Easter recess going to
different sites in North Carolina: homeless and hunger
shelters, food distribution sites, soup kitchens, farms,
even an office where I went through the process of
applying for government assistance through the WIC
Program, the Women, Infants, and Children Program.
I was also able to meet, on several occasions, with a
group known as the Society of Saint Andrew. This
organization, like some others across the country, is
doing impressive work in the area of gleaning. That is
when excess crops that would otherwise be thrown out, are
taken from farms, packing houses, and warehouses, and
distributed to the needy.
Gleaning immediately brings to my mind the Book of Ruth
in the Old Testament. She gleaned in the fields so that
her family could eat. You see, Mr. President, in Biblical
times farmers were encouraged to leave crops in their
fields for the poor and the travelers. Even as far back as
in Leviticus, chapter 19, in the Old Testament, we read
the words:
And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt
thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave
them for the poor and the stranger.
So gleaning was long a custom in Biblical days, a
command by God to help those in need. It is a practice we
should utilize much more extensively today. It is
astounding that the most recent figures available indicate
that approximately 96 billion pounds of good, nutritious
food, including that at the farm and retail levels, is
left over or thrown away in this country.
It is estimated that only 6 percent of crops are
actually gleaned in North Carolina. A tomato farmer in
North Carolina sends 20,000 pounds of tomatoes to
landfills each day during harvest season.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to present an
example of produce on the Senate floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. DOLE. Sometimes the produce cannot be sold.
Sometimes it is underweight or not a perfect shape, like
this sweet potato I show you in my hand. This would be
rejected because it is not the exact specification. Other
times it is simply surplus food, more than the grocery
stores can handle, but it is still perfectly good to eat.
Imagine the expense to that farmer in dumping 20,000
pounds of tomatoes each day during his harvest season. And
this cannot be good for the environment. In fact, food is
the single largest component of our solid waste stream--
more than yard trimmings or even newspapers. Some of it
does decompose, but it often takes several years. Other
food just sits in landfills, literally mummified. Putting
this food to good use, through gleaning, will reduce the
amount of waste going to our already overburdened
landfills.
I am so appreciative of my friends at the Environmental
Defense Fund for working closely with me on this issue.
Gleaning also helps the farmer because he does not have to
haul off and plow under crops that do not meet exact
specifications of grocery chains, and it certainly helps
the hungry, by giving them not just any food but food that
is both nutritious and fresh.
The Society of Saint Andrew is the only comprehensive
program in North Carolina that gleans available produce
and then sorts, packages, processes, transports, and
delivers excess food to feed the hungry.
In the year 2001, the organization gleaned 9.7 million
pounds--almost 10 million pounds--or 29.1 million servings
of food. It only costs a penny--1 penny--a serving to
glean and deliver this food to those in need. Even more
amazing, the Society of Saint Andrew does all this with a
tiny staff and an amazing 9,200 volunteers.
These are the types of innovative ideas we should be
exploring. I have been told by the Society of Saint Andrew
that $100,000 would provide at least 10 million servings
of food for hungry North Carolinians.
I set out to raise that money for the Society in the
last few weeks, and thanks to the compassion of a number
of caring individuals, companies, and organizations, we
were able to surpass our goal and raise $180,000--enough
for over 18 million servings of food. More than ever, I
believe this is a worthy effort that can be used as a
model nationwide.
I am passionate about leading an effort to increase
gleaning in North Carolina and across America. The
gleaning system works because of the cooperative efforts
of so many groups, from the Society of Saint Andrew and
its volunteers who gather and deliver the food, to the
dozens of churches and humanitarian organizations that
help distribute this food to the hungry. Indeed, gleaning
is, at its best, a public-private partnership.
Private organizations are doing a great job with limited
resources. But we must make some changes on the public
side to help them leverage their scarce dollars to feed
the hungry. I have heard repeatedly that the single
biggest concern for gleaners is transportation. The food
is there. The issue is how to transport it in larger
volume.
I want to change the Tax Code to give transportation
companies that volunteer trucks for gleaned food a tax
incentive. And there are other needed tax changes.
Currently, only large publicly traded corporations can
take tax credits for giving food to these gleaning
programs. But it is not just large corporations that
provide this food; it is the family farmers and the small
businesses. Why should a farmer who gives up his perfectly
good produce or the small restaurant owner who gives food
to the hungry not receive the same tax benefits? The
Senate has already passed legislation as part of the CARE
Act that would fix this inequity. Now the House of
Representatives needs to complete work on this bill.
However, the answer to the hunger problem does not stop
with gleaning. That is just part of the overall effort.
There are other ways we can help, too.
This year we will be renewing the National School Lunch
Program and other important child nutrition programs, and
there are some areas I am interested in reviewing.
Under School Lunch, children from families with incomes
at or below 130 percent of poverty are eligible for free
meals. Children from families with incomes between 130 and
185 percent of poverty can be charged no more than 40
cents. This may seem to be a nominal amount, but for a
struggling family with several children the costs add up.
School administrators in North Carolina tell me that they
hear from parents in tears because they don't know how to
pay for their child's school meals.
The Federal Government now considers incomes up to 185
percent of poverty when deciding if a family is eligible
for benefits under the WIC Program. Should we not use the
same standard for School Lunch? Standardizing the
guidelines would even allow us to immediately certify
children from WIC families for the School Lunch Program.
It is time to clarify this bureaucratic situation and
harmonize our Federal income assistance guidelines so we
can help those most in need.
The School Lunch Program is the final component of our
commitment to child nutrition, and we must do everything
to maintain and strengthen its integrity so that it works
for those who need it and isn't viewed as a government
giveaway.
There are a lot of interesting ideas being discussed
such as adjusting area eligibility guidelines in the
Summer Food Program. But these need to be looked at
carefully, and we need to ask important questions such as
how many people would be affected and what is the cost. I
have discussed many of these ideas with groups such as
America's Second Harvest, Bread for the World, the Food
Research and Action Center, and the American School Food
Service Association. I look forward to the opportunity of
exploring them further during reauthorization of these
important programs in the Agriculture Committee, on which
I am honored to serve.
Our work cannot stop within our own borders. The Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations says
hunger affects millions worldwide. During my 8 years as
president of the American Red Cross, I visited Somalia
during the heart-wrenching famine. In Mojada, I came
across a little boy under a sack. I thought he was dead.
His brother pulled back that sack and sat him up and he
was severely malnourished. He couldn't eat the rice and
beans in the bowl beside him; he was too malnourished. I
asked for camel's milk to feed him.
As I put my arm around his back and lifted that cup to
his mouth, it was almost as if little bones were piercing
through his flesh. I will never forget that. That is when
the horror of starvation becomes real, when you can touch
it.
There are many things that will haunt me the rest of my
life. When I visited Goma, Zaire, which is now Congo--this
was a place where millions of Rwandans had fled the
bloodshed in their own country but they stopped at the
worst possible place, on volcanic rock. You couldn't drill
for latrines so cholera and dysentery were rampant. You
couldn't dig for graves, so I was literally stepping over
dead bodies as I tried to help those refugees. Those
bodies were carried to the roadside twice a day. They were
hauled off to mass graves.
Former Senators Bob Dole and George McGovern are the
architects of the Global Food Program, which has a goal of
ensuring that 300 million schoolchildren overseas get at
least 1 nutritious meal a day. The Department of
Agriculture estimates that 120 million school-age children
around the world are not enrolled in school in part
because of hunger or malnutrition. The majority of these
children are girls. The Global Food for Education Program
is now operating in 38 countries and feeding 9 million
schoolchildren.
I want to see this program expanded. I plan to work on
appropriations to advance that goal. Just helping a child
get a good meal can make such a difference in developing
countries. Feeding children entices them to come to school
which allows them to learn, to have some hope, some
future. And improved literacy certainly helps the
productivity, thereby boosting the economy.
This problem deserves national discussion. Hunger
affects so many aspects of our society. In the spirit of
that landmark conference held by the White House in 1969,
I am asking President Bush to convene a second White House
conference so that the best and brightest minds can review
these problems together.
I am honored to work with leaders of the battle to
eradicate hunger: Former Congressman Tony Hall, now the
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. food and agricultural
programs, and former Congresswoman Eva Clayton from my own
State of North Carolina, now an assistant director general
for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome.
Both were champions on hunger while in Congress. And there
are many others. Former Agriculture Secretary Dan
Glickman, a leader on gleaning; Catherine Bertini, Under
Secretary General of the United Nations who was praised
for her leadership to get food aid to those in need
throughout the world; Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson,
cochair of the Congressional Hunger Center who carries on
the legacy of her late husband Bill who was a dear friend
and leader on this issue.
Here in this body, my chairman on the Agriculture
Committee, Thad Cochran, and ranking member Tom Harkin,
Dick Lugar, Patrick Leahy, Pat Roberts, and Gordon Smith
are leaders in addressing hunger issues.
Partisan politics has no role in this fight. Hunger does
not differentiate between Democrats and Republicans. Just
as it stretches across so many ethnicities, so many areas,
so must we.
As Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote
yesterday: America has some problems that defy solution.
This one does not. It just needs caring people and a
caring government working together.
I get inspiration from the Bible and John, chapter 21,
when Jesus asked Peter: Do you love me? Peter, astounded
that Jesus was asking him this question again, says: Lord,
you know everything. You know that I love you. And Jesus
replies: Then feed my sheep.
One of North Carolina's heroes, the Reverend Billy
Graham, has often said that we are not cisterns made for
hoarding; we are vessels made for sharing. I look forward
to working with Billy Graham in this effort. Indeed every
religion, not just Christianity, calls on us to feed the
hungry. Jewish tradition promises that feeding the hungry
will not go unrewarded. Fasting is one of the pillars of
faith of Islam and is a way to share the conditions of the
hungry poor while purifying the spirit and humbling the
flesh. Compassion or karuna is one of the key virtues of
Buddhism. This issue cuts across religious lines, too.
I speak today on behalf of the millions of families who
are vulnerable, who have no voice, for this little
Sudanese girl in this picture, stumbling toward a feeding
station and so many like her. I saw this picture some
years ago in a newspaper. It broke my heart. I went back
to find that picture today because, as I recall the story,
she had been walking for a long, long way and she had not
yet reached that feeding station. That has been emblazoned
on my mind since that time.
Anthropologist Margaret Meade said: Never doubt that a
small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
One of my heroes is William Wilberforce, a true man of
God. An old friend John Newton persuaded him that his
political life could be used in the service of God. He
worked with a dedicated group. They were committed people
of faith. His life and career were centered on two goals:
abolishing slavery in England and improving moral values.
He knew that his commitment might cost him friends and
influence but he was determined to stand for what he
believed was right. It took 21 years and Wilberforce
sacrificed his opportunity to serve as Prime Minister. But
he was the moving force in abolishing slavery and changing
the moral values of England.
In my lifetime, I have seen Americans split the atom,
abolish Jim Crow, eliminate the scourge of polio, win the
cold war, plant our flag on the surface of the Moon, map
the human genetic code, and belatedly recognize the
talents of women, minorities, the disabled, and others
once relegated to the shadows. Already a large group of
citizens has joined what I believe will become an army of
volunteers and advocates.
Today I invite all of my colleagues to join me in this
endeavor. Let us recommit ourselves to the goal of
eradicating hunger. Committed individuals can make a world
of difference, even, I might say, a different world.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to
President Bush be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2003.
President George W. Bush,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The White House Conference on Food,
Nutrition and Health, convened by President Richard Nixon
on December 2, 1969, may well have been one of the
country's most productive and far-reaching White House
conferences. At the time, President Nixon said that the
conference was ``intended to focus national attention and
resources on our country's remaining--and changing--
nutrition problems.'' In hindsight, it achieved that and
more.
So much has been accomplished since that historic White
House conference. With bipartisan support in Congress, the
food stamp program has been reformed and expanded, school
nutrition programs have been improved and now reach over
27 million children each school day, WIC was created, and
nutrition labels now appear on most food items.
At the same time, however, the mission is not complete.
There are children who qualify for reduced price meals in
North Carolina, and throughout the country, but their
families cannot afford even this nominal fee. And while 16
million children participate in the free and reduced
school lunch program, in the summer many children go
without. America's Second Harvest, an extraordinary
organization, reports that demand often exceeds the supply
of food in local communities. Further, the country is
challenged by the paradox of hunger and obesity.
Mr. President, it is time, I believe, for another White
House conference to assess the progress we have made in
the fight against hunger and to recommit the country to
the remaining challenges. I was pleased to work with
President Nixon on the 1969 conference; I would be honored
to work with you on a second historic conference.
There is a very special tradition in America when it
comes to fighting hunger. Perhaps it is a function of our
agricultural bounty, the famines in Europe that led to
early migration, or the teachings of all major religions,
but Americans are intolerant of hunger in our land of
plenty.
Mr. President, I hope you will convene a second White
House conference with the business, civic and charitable
organizations, educators and advocates who continue to
work tirelessly to address hunger in America and around
the world. Hunger is not a partisan issue and I know that
we can work together, with our colleagues on both sides of
the political aisle, to address the problems and needs
that still exist. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dole.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Lindsey O. Graham
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Madam President, I have a housekeeping chore. I would
like to submit to the clerk a modification to my amendment
and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.
No modification is needed, I am told. Thank you.
Madam President, Social Security is not only hard to
solve, it is also hard to get before the Senate. So I
apologize for the confusion.
I understand the concern of my colleague from North
Dakota, but having a bit of time to talk about Social
Security I think is very appropriate.
The budget resolution process is a roadmap to make sure
we can understand what we are doing as the year progresses
in terms of spending and taxes and what provisions to take
up and when. I applaud both the Senator from North Dakota
and the Senator from Oklahoma for working together to try
to make this as painless on the body as possible. But this
amendment, hopefully, can be accepted in some form, either
voted on or accepted by the body.
If you are going to have a roadmap for America this year
or any other year, it is time we start putting Social
Security on that roadmap. Social Security is a system that
Democrats and Republicans embrace as being vital to the
Nation. It is a system that working Americans pay into
every year. Millions of Americans receive a substantial
part, if not all, of their retirement income from Social
Security, after years of paying into the system.
This amendment is part of this roadmap for America that
we are talking about. It lays out some findings and some
facts that are not Republican spin, not Democratic spin,
but come from the Social Security trustees themselves, the
people in charge of telling us, in managing the program--
``us'' being the House and the Senate--the state of
affairs with Social Security.
We are on the verge of a war. Only God knows what will
happen here shortly. But it is my belief, unless there is
some major miracle, we will be involved in hostilities
with young men and women in harm's way protecting our
freedom. I know one thing every Member of the body can
agree on is that these young men and women deserve our
support and our prayers if ordered into battle. And they
will get that support and those prayers in a bipartisan
way because what they are doing is very noble, in my
opinion, trying to preserve our freedom and bringing about
more stability in the Middle East.
We can argue about the nuances of the diplomacy and lack
thereof in some people's opinion that got us to being on
the brink of war, but once hostilities begin, I am sure
everybody will come together and say a prayer for our
troops and support our President the best they can.
That same dynamic needs to exist with Social Security,
because there is a big, gaping hole in America's domestic
agenda. You can talk about the size of the tax cuts,
whether we should have one, whether it should be $750
billion or $350 billion or 30 cents or $2 trillion.
Whatever opinion you have, I respect, and I have my own
about that; and that is a point of debate.
One thing we need to understand and come together on
quickly, in my opinion, is certain facts surrounding
Social Security.
In 75 years--I know that seems forever. But my
predecessor, Senator Thurmond, turned 100 a few months
ago. He is going to be a first-time grandfather. Our
State's former junior Senator, now senior Senator, is 81.
So in South Carolina, 75 years is not long in politics. It
seems forever, but it is not, really.
In 75 years, our trustees, the people in charge of the
Social Security Trust Fund, tell us we will be $25.3
trillion short of the money necessary to pay benefits. I
want to repeat that. I know there are a lot of important
votes to come on ANWR and tax cuts, and this roadmap is
about this year; and we are trying get through this day to
make sure we can get on with the business of the Senate.
And that is the way politics is, probably to a fault
sometimes: getting through this day, getting through this
amendment, so we can get on with the next event of the
next day. We are in the middle of an international crisis,
and our hope is we can get through the coming days as
quickly as possible and resolve it.
Time is not on our side in solving Social Security
structural problems. You could say: Well, 75 years is a
long time. But between now and 75 years from now, for the
obligations of the trust fund, and the money to pay those
obligations, there will be a $25 trillion gap. And I ask,
simply, the following question: Where does the money come
from?
People want to know how much the war is going to cost--
and the occupation. The truth is, it is going to be
billions of dollars over several years. As we try to find
out where the money comes from to get us through this day
and this year, I hope we will start focusing on, in a
bipartisan fashion, where does the money come from to keep
Social Security solvent?
Seventy-five years from now, if nothing changes--if all
we do is run ads against each other and belittle
opportunities to fix it in a partisan way; if the
Democratic and the Republican parties stay on track, based
on the last campaign cycle, of trying to use the Social
Security issue as a way to capture power for the moment--
then we are going to allow one of the best programs in the
history of the Nation not only to become insolvent but
create a financial crisis in this country that we have not
experienced, ever.
Another date I would like to point out: In 2042, which
seems forever, but it is not, a problem occurs with Social
Security. Seventy-five years from now, the unfunded
liability in obligation will be $25.3 trillion. But before
you get to that point in time, the next major event,
according to the trustee report released yesterday, is
2042.
What happens in 2042? In 2042, the amount of money
available to pay benefits will be such that benefits will
be reduced for the average recipient by 28 percent. I want
to say that again. If we do nothing different, if we just
collect the same amount of money, and get the same growth
rates, in 2042 you are going to reduce benefits for
everybody on Social Security by 28 percent. The other
option is, according to the trustees, raise payroll taxes
of the workforce in existence then by 50 percent. These
are two very dramatic and unacceptable options, in my
opinion.
Now, in 2042, I doubt if I will be here. But if the
history of my State stands the test of time, I will be
here because I will turn 100 in 2055. If I can do what my
predecessor has done, which I very seriously doubt, I will
have another term left. I doubt if that will happen in my
case, but somebody is going to be here in 2042 from South
Carolina and every other State represented here today.
My hope is that during my time in the Senate, I can join
with my colleagues of like mind on both sides of the aisle
to make life a little better for the American public, the
taxpayer, and those who will be doing the job we are
engaged in today a little better than the trustees tell us
of what is going to happen in 2042.
I would like to recognize certain Members of this body:
Senator Gregg, Senator Breaux, and many others, Senator
Moynihan, a former Member of the Senate, who have brought
ideas to the table, have worked in a bipartisan manner,
along with President Bush. I compliment President Clinton
for putting the issue of Social Security on the table. I
didn't particularly like his solution to better growth
rates, but he acknowledged that growth rates were a
problem. So there is the foundation being laid in the last
couple years to do something constructive.
I compliment everybody in this body who has been part of
that process. As a Member of the House for four terms, I
tried to be a constructive Member dealing with Social
Security over there.
The temptation to achieve political power is great when
the Senate and the House are so closely divided. Every
issue is looked upon as the issue that can get you back in
the majority or the issue that may cost you the majority.
My concern is that if we have that approach to reforming
and solving Social Security--I know the Senator from North
Dakota who is managing the minority side of the bill is a
fine Member who loves his country as much as I do--if we
keep this partisan atmosphere going that has existed in
the past and has been bipartisan in the demagoguery, we
will run into a problem. So in 2042, I would like us to
avoid what is coming our way. The only way to do is to
start now.
Another date the Social Security trustees tell us is a
very important date is 2018. I have gone from 75 years now
to 2042 to 2018. What happens in 2018? In 2018, for the
first time in the history of the program, we will pay more
in benefits than we collect in taxes. What is going on
here? There are a lot of young folks working in the
Senate--pages, interns. We are really talking about their
future more than anything else.
In 2018, we pay out more in benefits than we collect in
taxes. What is wrong with Social Security? Why is it
mounting up this unfunded obligation? Why are we beginning
to pay more in benefits than we collect in taxes? Why do
we have to cut benefits in 2042, and why are we $25
trillion short in the money to pay everybody 75 years from
now?
Well, it is not a Republican or a Democratic problem in
terms of politics. It is just the way the country has
changed. I was born in 1955. In 1950, a few years before I
was born, there were 16.5 workers to every retiree.
According to the trustees, in 1950, there were 16.5 people
working paying Social Security taxes for every retiree.
Today there are 3.3 workers to every retiree. Twenty years
from now, there are going to be two workers for every
retiree. That is not a Republican problem. It is not a
Democratic caused problem. That is not because we can't
get along up here. That is because the ratios have
changed. There is no reason to believe they will go back
the other way.
My father and mother are deceased now, but I think in my
mother's family there were nine members of her family, and
my father had eight. I am not married. I don't have any
kids. My sister has one. I sort of reflect what is going
on in the world. I hope to help solve the problem later
down the road. If I do what Senator Thurmond has done, 23
years from now, I would have my first child. I doubt if
that will happen, either.
But as we kind of mark these points in time and make it
personal, the problem is that the demographic changes in
America have put Social Security at risk. It is nobody's
fault, but it is everyone's problem. You cannot keep the
program solvent when the ratio has gone from 16.5 workers
to 1 in 1950 to 20 years from now being 2 to 1. There is
just not enough money coming into the system.
Now, when you talk about Social Security spending and
what to do and the idea that we are spending Social
Security surpluses to run the government, you get
everybody upset. And they should be. I came to the House
in 1995. One of the first things we tried to do was
isolate Social Security money surpluses and make sure we
did not use the Social Security dollars paid into the
system to run the government. That has been a practice
that has been going on for 30 or 40 years. Both parties
have engaged in that practice.
Every year we collect more in Social Security taxes than
we pay in benefits. That extra money is called surplus. We
have borrowed that extra cash, given the trust fund IOUs
that have to be redeemed in the future. That has allowed
us to grow this government without a direct tax on people.
That is a bad practice. It is not good government. It is
not good business. For several years we have been able to
avoid doing that in a bipartisan way.
You remember in the last debate there was the lockbox.
Let's put everything related to Social Security in this
lockbox. In my last campaign for the Senate, I constantly
heard it: If you just left Social Security money alone and
you didn't take it out to run the government, if you kept
it in a lockbox and left it alone, most of these problems
would go away.
That is not true. As much as you would like to believe
that, that is not true. If you took every penny collected
from Social Security and you dedicated it totally to the
trust fund and totally to the benefits to be paid, you are
still $25 trillion short in 75 years. It still runs out of
money in 2042. The problem is that two workers paying into
the system will not be able to support the massive number
of baby boomers coming into the system.
Having said that, I would like to work with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do a better job
of protecting Social Security. I don't believe there is
any party that has been in power for the last 40 years
that could look the American public in the eye and say
that they have not been guilty of using the surpluses in
some fashion for other than Social Security.
In September of last year, I wrote a letter to the
Social Security Administration asking 17 questions. Here
is one of the questions I asked: Some have proposed a
Social Security lockbox; would a lockbox, by itself,
extend the solvency of Social Security beyond the year
Social Security is expected to become insolvent? In a
nutshell they said, the implementation of a Social
Security lockbox would not alter this commitment and thus
would have no direct effect on the future solvency of
Social Security.
Having said that, I do believe we should isolate Social
Security dollars and dedicate those dollars to the payment
of Social Security Trust Fund obligations. That is just
good government. But please do not tell your constituents
back home that will fix this problem because it most
certainly will not.
After having heard my rendition, there is probably not
much good news you have heard yet. The good news: there is
a way, in my opinion, to make up the $25 trillion
shortfall over 75 years, to change the fact that you will
have to reduce benefits by 2042 by 28 percent--that is all
the money you will have to pay benefits by then--and to
even change the dynamic of paying more out in benefits
than you collect in taxes by 2018.
The good news--just like everything else in Washington,
there is a bad news/good news part of what I am about to
say--is that the growth rates for Social Security, the
amount of return you get on your FICA tax dollars or
Social Security tax dollars taken out of your paycheck for
younger workers, people born in the 1980s, it is less than
2 percent. If you happen to be a minority in this country,
born in the 1980s, it is less than 1 percent.
Let me say that again. This is not Lindsey Graham saying
that. The Social Security trustees have reported back to
me in this letter.
I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Social Security,
Office of the Chief Actuary,
Baltimore, MD, September 26, 2002.
Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Graham: Thank you very much for the opportunity
to answer the questions you have posed in your letter of
September 6, 2002. The answers below are based on the
intermediate assumptions and projections presented in the
2002 Annual Social Security Trustees Report and estimates
that we have provided for a number of reform proposals
over the past several years.
Many of the questions that you raise are very complex
and the answers are subject to considerable uncertainty
and even debate. I am providing brief answers reflecting
my understanding of these issues based largely on the work
done in the Office of the Chief Actuary for the Trustees,
the Administration, and the Congress. I hope these
responses will be helpful. I look forward to working with
you, and Aleix Jarvis and Jessica Efird of your staff in
the effort to develop proposals to reform Social Security
and restore long-term solvency for the program.
(1) Based on the Social Security Administration's
projections, in what year does Social Security begin to
pay more out than it takes in?
Answer. Under the current intermediate assumptions of
the 2002 Annual Report of the Social Security Board of
Trustees to the Congress, and assuming that current law is
not changed, we project that annual cash flow for the
Social Security program will remain positive through 2016
and will turn negative for calendar year 2017 and later.
Annual cash flow is defined here as the excess of income
(excluding interest) over expenditures.
(2) Based on the Social Security Administration's
projections, in what year is Social Security expected to
become insolvent?
Answer. Under the intermediate assumptions, full
benefits would continue to be payable after 2016 and part
of the way through 2041 by augmenting current revenue from
taxes with revenue from redeeming special United States
Treasury obligations held by the Trust Funds. During 2041,
the theoretical combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
(OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds are
projected to become exhausted and full scheduled benefits
would no longer be payable on a timely basis. This
condition is referred to as insolvency of the Trust Funds,
because available tax revenue would then be sufficient to
cover only about 73 percent of the cost of scheduled
benefits. In fact, the OASI and DI Trust Funds operate
separately and the projected dates of insolvency are 2043
for the OASI Trust Fund and 2028 for the DI Trust Fund.
For simplicity of analysis, the date for theoretical
combined Trust Funds is usually considered.
(3) Assuming current growth rates remain the same would
benefits have to be reduced or taxes increased to keep
Social Security from insolvency? If so, how much?
Answer. The intermediate assumptions for the Annual
Trustees Reports reflect the Trustees' best judgment about
the continuation of current trends in demographic and
economic variables like birth rates, death rates, average
wage increases and price increases. Assuming the
intermediate assumptions of the 2002 Trustees Report are
realized, Social Security will require either a reduction
in benefit levels or an increase in revenue starting in
2041 for the combined OASDI program (and in 2043 for the
OASI program and 2028 for the DI program). If benefits
were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the
combined program, the reduction would need to be 27
percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in
2041 and would rise to 34 percent for 2076. Alternatively,
if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2041,
revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about
3.3 percent (from 12.4 percent under current law to about
15.7 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional
revenue needed for 2042 would be equivalent to a payroll
tax rate increase of about 4.5 percent. Thereafter the
amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise,
reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the
payroll tax rate of about 6.4 percent for 2076. There is,
of course, a great variety of ways in which benefits could
be reduced or revenue increased for the Social Security
program. Many different combinations of provisions to
reduce benefits and or provide increased revenue from
taxes could be developed to avoid insolvency of the OASDI
Trust Funds throughout the 75-year projection period, and
beyond.
(4) If Social Security surpluses were not diverted from
the general budget, how would that affect the system?
Would it avert a future insolvency?
Answer. I assume you are referring to the fact that for
most years in which Social Security has taken in more tax
revenue than it has paid out in benefits and other
expenses, the rest of the Federal budget has operated in
deficit. In these years, the Social Security tax revenue
not currently needed for benefit payments has, by law,
been invested in securities backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States Government. In practice, this
revenue has been invested in special issue United States
Treasury securities. These securities represent a
commitment to redeem these investments, with interest at
the market rate, when the Social Security Trust Funds are
in need of revenue. Such commitments to the Social
Security and Medicare Trust Funds have always been met in
the past and should be expected to be met in the future
regardless of the fiscal operations of the rest of the
Federal Government. Therefore, the trust funds are in no
way compromised in their role of maintaining solvency as a
result of being invested in special Treasury securities.
However, redemption of these Treasury securities held by
the Trust Funds does require the Treasury to allocate
General Revenue for this purpose, and this allocation must
be met by increasing taxes, reducing other federal
spending, or increasing borrowing from the public.
(5) Some have proposed a Social Security ``lock box.''
Would a ``lock box'' by itself extend the solvency of
Social Security beyond the year Social Security is
expected to become insolvent?
Answer. As suggested above, the Social Security Trust
Fund investments represent commitments of the United
States Treasury that should be expected to be met when the
Trust Funds need to redeem these investments. The
implementation of a Social Security ``lock box'' would not
alter this commitment and thus would have no direct effect
on the future solvency of Social Security.
However, if the effect of a ``lock box'' were to require
that the non-Social-Security Federal budget be in balance
or surplus for the years in which Social Security makes
investments, then the amount of borrowing from the public
might be reduced. In this case the difficulty of
generating General Revenue for the redemption of Trust
Fund investments in the future would likely be diminished.
(6) How many South Carolinians do you project will be
receiving Social Security benefits when the program
becomes insolvent? How many South Carolinians currently
receive benefits?
Answer: In December of 2001, about 704 thousand South
Carolinians were receiving Social Security benefits. This
represented about 1.5 percent of all Social Security
beneficiaries at that time. If this percentage remains the
same in 2041, when the combined Social Security Trust
Funds are projected to become exhausted, we estimate that
about 1.4 million South Carolinians will be receiving
Social Security benefits at that time.
(7) What is the ratio of workers per retiree when the
program began, in 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990,
today, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040?
Answer: The table below provides the historical and
projected numbers of Social Security covered workers and
beneficiaries. Ratios of covered workers to beneficiaries
are shown both where beneficiaries include all
beneficiaries and where beneficiaries are limited to
retired workers. The number of beneficiaries was extremely
small in 1940, the first year that monthly benefits were
payable, because only workers with some work in 1937
through 1939 could qualify. This resulted in a very high
ratio of covered workers to beneficiaries at the start of
the program, which required several decades to mature.
SOCIAL SECURITY (OASDI) COVERED WORKERS, BENEFICIARIES,
AND RATIOS--1940-2080
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Beneficiaries Ratio of Covered Workers
------------------------------------ to--
--------------------------
Covered Retired Total All
workers workers Retirees beneficiaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
1940................. 35,390 112 222 316.0 159.4
1950................. 48,280 1,771 2,930 27.3 16.5
1960................. 72,530 8,061 14,262 9.0 5.1
1970................. 93,090 13,349 25,186 7.0 3.7
1980................. 113,649 19,564 35,118 5.8 3.2
1990................. 133,672 24,841 39,470 5.4 3.4
2002................. 152,461 29,123 46,239 5.2 3.3
2010................. 165,443 34,126 52,865 4.8 3.1
2020................. 172,848 48,324 68,699 3.6 2.5
2030................. 178,131 61,740 84,070 2.9 2.1
2040................. 184,433 66,895 90,068 2.8 2.0
2050................. 189,845 69,692 94,109 2.7 2.0
2060................. 194,568 74,937 100,177 2.6 1.9
2070................. 198,687 80,635 106,723 2.5 1.9
2080................. 202,238 85,939 112,895 2.4 1.8
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Note.--Projections are based on the intermediate
assumptions of the 2002 Trustees Report.
(8) What is the sum of the total cash shortfalls that
Social Security is projected to experience from now
through 2075, from 2025-2050, and from 2050-2075? (in
constant and in present-value dollars)?
Answer. Combining financial values over substantial
periods of time is generally done taking into account the
``time value of money.'' This is accomplished by
accumulating or discounting the separate annual values
with interest to a common date. Values combined in this
way are referred to as present values as of the date to
which they are accumulated or discounted.
In present-value dollars (discounted at the OASDI Trust
Fund interest rate to January 1, 2002) the total net OASDI
cash flow for years 2002 through 2076 is projected to be
nearly -$4.6 trillion. When the Trust Fund balances of
over $1.2 trillion at the beginning of 2002 are added to
this value, we get a financial shortfall (or unfunded
obligation) for the 75-year period of $3.3 trillion. This
unfunded obligation indicates that if an additional $3.3
trillion had been added to the Trust Funds at the
beginning of 2002, the program would have had adequate
financing to meet the projected cost of benefits scheduled
in current law over the next 75 years. It should be noted
that if the dollar amount of this unfunded obligation is
accumulated with interest to the end of 2076, and then
expressed in constant (CPI-indexed) 2002 dollars we get
$33 trillion.
The present-value net cash-flow of almost -$4.6 trillion
for the period 2002 through 2076 can be separated into the
three 25-year sub-periods: +$0.4 trillion for the period
2002 through 2026, -$2.7 trillion for the period 2027
through 2051, and -$2.3 trillion for the period 2052
through 2076. If only years of negative cash flow are
included then the value for the first 25-year sub-period
is -$0.5 trillion and the total for the 72-year period is
-$5.5 trillion.
Summing constant 2002-dollar values from several
different years is equivalent to taking their present
value and assuming that the operative real interest rate
is zero. This may result in values that are difficult to
interpret. Constant-dollar values are generally used for
comparing separate values over time rather than for
combining them. A comparison of constant-dollar values for
a series covering many years is helpful in illustrating
the extent of real growth in the series over time. There
is no meaningful interpretation of the result from summing
constant dollar values from many different years.
Expressing the combined values discussed above in terms
of simple sums of constant 2002 dollars (CPI discounted
dollars) results in quite different results from present
value because much greater weight is placed on more
distant future years than would be indicated by current
market interest rates. Using this approach produces
constant-dollar cash-flow sums of +$0.1 trillion for 2002
through 2026, -$8.6 trillion for 2027 through 2051, -$15.3
trillion for 2052 through 2076, and -$23.8 trillion for
the entire 75-year period. The sum for the first 25-year
period with only negative values included is -$1.1
trillion. The sum for the 75-year period including only
negative annual values is -$24.9 trillion.
(9) As a demographic group, do African-American males
receive the same proportional return from the retirement
portion of Social Security as other demographic groups?
Answer. Due to the nature of the Social Security program
it is difficult to look at retirement benefits in
isolation. The payroll tax rate is specified in two
components, one for retirement and survivor benefits and
the other for disability benefits. In addition, a
significant portion of the benefits payable from the
retirement and survivor tax, for years after reaching
normal retirement age (NRA), is actually attributable to
the fact that many become eligible for disability benefits
before reaching retirement age. However, there are some
observations that we can make.
To understand the tradeoffs, first consider the
comparison of returns on retirement and survivors taxes
for men and women. Men tend to die younger and have higher
career-average earnings than women. These factors tend to
make the return on contributions for retired worker
benefits alone lower for men than for women. However, most
men marry, and many have spouses with lower career
earnings who receive spouse or widow benefits based on the
earnings and contributions of their husbands. This tends
to raise the relative return for contributions made by
men. Finally, men have higher disability rates than women
and thus are more likely to have a shortened career,
lessening their lifetime payroll tax contributions without
materially affecting their monthly benefit level when
retirement and survivors benefits become payable. Thus,
with all these factors taken into account it is less clear
whether men get a lower return on their retirement and
survivor taxes than do women.
For African-American males the situation is even less
clear. Life expectancy for African-American males is lower
than for white males. But average career earnings are also
lower. These factors have at least partly offsetting
effects. Because African-American males have higher death
rates, they are also more likely to leave a widow
beneficiary if married. Importantly, African-American
males are also more likely to become disabled than are
white males.
Some recent studies have suggested that African-American
males get a lower return from Social Security retirement
benefits. But these studies have not sorted out many of
the complicating factors mentioned above. In particular,
many of these studies consider actual case histories of
individuals who work successfully without becoming
disabled up to retirement. For such individuals, life
expectancy at retirement is clearly greater than for those
who have been disabled prior to that time, but these
studies use overall population death rates. Because
African-American males are relatively more likely to
become disabled, this distortion of overstating death
rates for those who do not become disabled is relatively
large for them. This is a significant shortcoming that
causes a disproportionately large understatement in
retirement returns for African-American males. We are
working on a more complete model that we hope will address
these concerns and will inform you of our progress in the
future. But for now, the evidence on this question appears
to be inconclusive.
(10) What is the average current return on investment
for FICA tax contributions for someone born before and
after 1948?
Answer. Actuarial Note Number 144 ``Internal Real Rates
of Return Under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical
Workers'' authored by Orlo Nichols, Michael Clingman, and
Milton Glanz in June 2001 addressed this issue. This note
provides extensive estimates of real internal rates of
return for a wide variety of cases.
The most representative of these hypothetical cases
presented may be the married couple with a husband and a
wife, each having medium career earnings. For this case,
assuming a realistic earnings scale through the working
lifetime, the real internal rate of return was computed to
be 3.50 percent for those born in 1920, declining to 2.33
percent for those born in 1943. Assuming that present-law
scheduled benefits would be payable in the future with no
change in the payroll tax rate, this real rate of return
is projected to decline gradually, reaching 2.20 percent
for those born in 1964, and then rising gradually as life
expectancy rises. However, the current payroll-tax rate is
projected to be inadequate to finance scheduled benefits
in the long run. Under the hypothetical assumption that
payroll tax rates would be increased as needed to finance
scheduled benefits in the future, future real rates of
return are projected to decline more rapidly, reaching
1.95 percent for those born in 1985 and 1.63 percent for
those born in 2004.
In general, real rates of return are higher for married
couples with one earner and for workers with low earnings.
Rates are generally lower for single workers and for high
earners.
(11) Have policy proposals been introduced that keep
Social Security from insolvency, allow for personal
accounts, and do not change benefits for those already
receiving Social Security benefits?
Answer. Absolutely. A number of Congressional proposals
would accomplish these goals. At a hearing before the
House Ways and Means Committee in June 1999, ten plans
were presented by Congressional sponsors. The sponsors of
these plans were, Archer/Shaw, Kolbe/Stenholm, Nadler,
Moynihan/BKerrey, Gregg/Breaux, PGramm, NSmith, Stark,
MSanford, and DeFazio. We estimated that all ten of these
proposals would restore solvency for the Social Security
program for at least the full 75-year projection period.
None of these proposals would reduce benefits for current
beneficiaries, but three of them would slow growth in
benefits for current recipients by reducing the size of
the automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) either
directly, or indirectly (through modifying the CPI). Seven
of these proposals provided for individual accounts on a
voluntary or mandatory basis.
Since 1999 additional proposals have been developed that
would meet these criteria, including the Armey/DeMint plan
and Models 2 and 3 of the President's Commission to
Strengthen Social Security.
(12) Have there been any proposals introduced that would
create personal accounts, to avert a future insolvency of
Social Security, without reducing benefits or increasing
taxes? Have there been any proposals without personal
accounts introduced that would avert a future insolvency
of Social Security without reducing benefits or increasing
taxes?
Answer. The financial shortfalls projected for the
Social Security program can only be eliminated by reducing
the growth in benefit levels from what is scheduled in
current law, or by increasing revenue to the program. In
the long-run, additional revenue can be generated by
expanding the amount of advance funding either in
individual accounts or in the Social Security Trust Funds.
All of the proposals mentioned above pursue this approach
to some degree. However, creating additional advance
funding requires additional revenue for a period of time.
This additional revenue may be generated by (1) reducing
Social Security benefits paid from the Trust Funds, (2)
directly increasing the amount of payroll tax or some
other tax, or (3) providing transfers or loans from the
General Fund of the Treasury. Whether General Revenue
transfers or loans represent an indirect increase in taxes
depends on a number of complex factors many of which are
generally unknown in the context of Social Security
reform, so no definitive answer can be given.
All of the plans that we have analyzed in recent years
provide for one or more of the three measures to generate
additional revenue both to restore solvency for the Social
Security Trust Funds and to provide for additional advance
funding. This is true for plans that include individual
accounts as well as for those that do not.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Goss,
Chief Actuary.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. They have laid out the
rates of return for people born after 1980.
As I have told you, they are less than 2 percent. Over
time, they go down because the problem, over time, gets
worse. As you pay into the system as a young worker, the
obligations of the system get greater, and there really
will be no rate of return. As a matter of fact, by 2042,
not only does your money not work for you, it is not
enough to pay benefits to people who are already in the
system.
Here is the good news. If we could, in a bipartisan
fashion, work together, I am confident we could construct
a program for younger workers--voluntary in nature--that
would allow them to take part of the money they pay into
Social Security, invest it in a different system--equity
and nonequity, depending on what they want to do--that
will dramatically outpace a 1.8 percent return.
Here is what I suggest to you as reality. If you had a
business and you wanted to sell an annuity to young people
in America, and you laid out the program of that annuity
and it mirrored Social Security, nobody in the country
would invest in it simply because they can get a better
rate of return leaving it in a checking account.
Now, everything about Social Security is not total
retirement. There is a component of Social Security that
pays for people who have been disabled and injured. That
aspect of the program is extremely important also.
But a better business view of Social Security is
necessary. If we could achieve better growth rates--and
the trustees tell us that if you achieve better growth
rates, every dollar in additional growth, every time the
fund beats that 1.8 or 1.6 rate of return, that extra
dollar allows benefits to be paid without raising taxes.
We are going to argue about the tax cut and how to
stimulate the economy. I remember in my last campaign,
when I presented this idea, the ad was that ``Lindsey
Graham is going to take your Social Security tax dollars
and put them in Enron stock.'' Well, I didn't wake up one
day and think investing in Enron with Social Security was
a good idea. That is not what this program is designed to
do.
There is bipartisan support for personal accounts,
allowing individual Americans the opportunity, if they
choose, to invest in plans to get better growth rates.
There are visitors here from all over the country, most
likely, and I welcome them here. One thing about being a
Member of the Senate, or the House, or a Federal employee
in any fashion, is that you have the opportunity, if you
choose, to invest in the Thrift Savings Plan. It is a
pretty good deal. I, as a Senator, can invest up to about
$10,000 of my salary into a thrift plan. It is a
government-sponsored plan, administered by the private
sector, where I can choose between three or four different
investment options, based on the risk I want to take.
There are stock funds, mutual funds, bond stock funds,
Treasury notes, which I can choose based on the risk I
want to take.
All of these funds are supported by the government in
the sense that we are going to stand behind them and not
let them collapse. It is even better than that. The
government puts in 50 cents on the dollar up to the
$10,000 I put in, and they do the same for every Federal
employee.
I suggest something like that should exist for the
average working person in this country because under the
current tax system, the average American will pay more in
Social Security taxes than in any other form of tax,
because this comes out of our paycheck--6.5 percent--no
matter what our income is, up to a certain level.
For middle- and low-income workers struggling to get by,
6.5 percent--I think that is the correct number--comes out
of your paycheck to go into the Social Security Trust
Fund. For younger workers, we are taking that money from
you. We are giving you no options to invest it. We are
controlling it for you, and you are going to get that 2
percent--eventually less than 1 percent--over time.
I think that is wrong for the people paying taxes. But
here is the big crime of it all: That system locks in
failure for Social Security. Some Senate, somehow,
someday--if we don't do something relatively soon--is
going to be dealing with a trust fund that is $25 trillion
short of the money necessary to pay the obligation, and it
is going to be dealing with a trust fund from which
somebody gets a letter one day saying: That check you got
last month will be reduced by 28 percent, and I am sorry
we don't have the money to pay you.
I don't know who will be occupying this seat then--I
doubt if it will be me--but I would like to take some of
that burden off their shoulders and off the working
families and the working people in this country, in terms
of taking their money and getting a better rate of return
for it.
So the hope and purpose of this amendment is to put into
the record this year, 2003, let it be said--if there is a
record that stands the test of time, let it be said that
in 2003 the Senate will soon adopt facts that I think are
irrefutable, nonpartisan in nature, that lay out the
future of Social Security solvency in a very honest,
dramatic, and chilling way.
I congratulate my colleagues who are willing to accept
this amendment as part of the roadmap for the budget this
year. The facts are real. They are not going to go away
unless we make things happen differently.
One thing I remember from President Clinton--and it was
a good line--is that the definition of insanity is doing
an event the same way and expecting different results. So
I think it is insane politically for us to keep this
system in place expecting different results to fall out of
the sky. They will not fall out of the sky.
Our freedom is about to be strengthened because some
young man and woman chose to volunteer to serve their
country and risk their life for our freedom. You can
debate all you would like whether this is an appropriate
thing to do. But they have taken on that sacrifice, and
they will accept the order, if given, to go forward. That
model is the model that has kept us free for over 200
years--average, everyday Americans who are willing to do
their part, willing to risk their sons and daughters,
their own lives, to make sure the next generation can have
the blessings of liberty that we have enjoyed.
There was an interview I heard today of a family with
twin sons serving in the same Marine unit, both of them
ready to go tomorrow, if that is the day chosen. The mom
and the dad were very worried but bursting with pride
about the fact that both of their sons have chosen to
serve in the Marine Corps and both of them are on the tip
of the spear. What they were trying to tell the
commentator was that they are proud of them because they
are willing to serve their country and protect their way
of life. The parents mentioned the fact that their hope is
that life will be better for their kids than it was for
them, and that truly is the American dream. That is what
keeps us all going, trying to make sure that we pass on to
the next generation a future with a possibility, with hard
work, to be better than the one we have experienced.
I can say with all the confidence in the world that if
we don't act soon, and act decisively, and if we are not
willing to sacrifice politically and make some structural
reforms to Social Security, we are committing political
malpractice, and the future of Social Security is dismal
and the ability to maintain the system is going to be
unbelievably costly, and you can wind up with a Social
Security pension plan and the military, and no money to do
anything else. That is what awaits us as a nation.
But I am just as confident that we will rise to the
occasion, and I cannot see how right now--it is beyond my
ability as a political person to see how all this is going
to come together. I am telling you that, based on faith, I
know it will. The problems facing our troops--there are so
many scenarios that face them in the aftermath of Iraq.
There are thousands of different scenarios of ``what if
that.'' I can only tell you I have the same faith that at
the end of the day we will be successful and the
sacrifices will be made.
Unfortunately, some people, most likely, will lose their
lives or be injured. We are going to get through this
thing at the end of the day stronger rather than weaker.
We are doing the right thing.
I have faith in our troops and in our President that the
dictator, Saddam Hussein, will be gone soon. I have faith
that this body, starting this year--I hope it is this
year--will come together to address the looming problems
that face Social Security. This amendment lays out those
problems. It puts it as part of the road map for this
year's budget and, at the end, it encourages all to work
together with the President to come up with solutions to
avoid raising taxes and cutting benefits. It is a small
step that will hopefully get us to the right place one
day.
I am standing on the shoulders of people who have gone
before me who have addressed problems of Social Security,
such as Senator Moynihan and other Senators in this body
from both parties. I do not know how long I will be here.
Only the Good Lord and the voters know that. I can tell my
colleagues one thing for certain: While I am here--I
consider it to be an honor to be here--I want to do as
many constructive activities for my country as possible. I
think one of the best things I can do is to come up with
an approach my colleagues from the other side can buy
into, which means a give and take, to put in place a plan
that begins to turn around the dynamics that are facing
Social Security.
The good news is if we work together, if we start now,
we can beat this problem, we can solve this problem. The
bad news is if we continue to do what we have done for the
past decade, we are going to pass on to the next
generation of political leaders and taxpayers a dismal
picture. I would argue that would be the first time in the
history of the country that political leaders passed on a
country that was diminished, not enhanced. I am confident
we will not be the first ones to make that mistake.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Frank Lautenberg
Tuesday, June 7, 1983 \1\
Mr. President, I rise today to make my first speech on
the Senate floor and I do so with gratitude and awe.
I am deeply grateful to my fellow citizens in the State
of New Jersey for entrusting me to serve them in this
great center of debate and decision.
I am in awe of the brilliance of our forefathers who
wrote the Constitution for a Nation that welcomed those
seeking freedom and a new way of life. Their wisdom
enabled my parents to be brought here by their families
searching for refuge and opportunity.
It was their pattern of sacrifice that served as my
critical learning experience. All that followed whether at
university, business, or life in general was molded by the
framework provided by these new citizens.
I am grateful also to those who preceded me in this
Chamber for their contribution to this beloved democracy,
and to those colleagues with whom I presently share this
honor for the advice and encouragement they regularly
impart to me.
In particular, I am deeply indebted to the senior
Senator from the State of New Jersey, Senator Bradley,
with whom I share common interest and goals, and to the
Democratic leader, Senator Byrd, who has extended to me
every courtesy and whose respect for the history and
traditions of this institution set a high standard for a
new Member like myself.
Mr. President, not very long ago, our Nation entered
what many call the information age: a period during which
information-serviced industries have become predominant in
our economy. They have eclipsed manufacturing, just as
manufacturing surpassed farming decades ago. The change
has been gradual, but undeniable. Some 60 percent of our
work
--------------
\1\ Senator Lautenberg served from the 98th
Congress through the 106th Congress, retired,
then returned in the 108th Congress. Although
he is a member of the class of the 108th
Congress, his maiden speech was delivered in
the 98th Congress on June 7, 1983.
force is employed in creating, storing, processing, or
distributing information. Who does that include? Office
workers, salespeople, secretaries, people at work in
telecommunications, computers, in education, research and
science, financial services and insurance, to name a few.
People applying information technology to make the
production of goods more efficient.
Technological innovation has brought vast changes in our
society, in our workplaces, in our homes and schools.
Innovation and change are accelerating. This will drive
the future growth of our economy and alter the character
of our society. Mr. President, this Nation can ride the
wave of the information age, or be swamped by it. Great
challenges accompany the promises of change. In responding
to those challenges, we must draw on the best of our
values and ideals. In a Nation that is plugged into
computers, questions of success and failure may become
questions of who is on-line and who is off-line. In an
economy where technology will dominate our future, how do
we cope with businesses, people, and places still tied to
the past?
Mr. President, these are issues I hope to address in the
Senate. They are issues of equity and opportunity in the
1980s and the 1990s and beyond. They are issues that
trouble my State. I am proud that New Jersey has been the
home of many of the inventions that are the foundation of
this new age. But New Jersey was also the birthplace of
American manufacturing--and many of its factories and
plants are in decline. New Jersey was third in the Nation
in new patents last year. But it lost 46,000 jobs in
manufacturing. For those workers there is no end to the
recession.
The suburbs of my State are enjoying great growth, tied
to service- and research-based industries on the rise. But
New Jersey's cities are being stripped of the industry
around which they were built. The unemployment in some of
our cities is about the highest in the Nation.
In reflecting on these contrasts, I feel compelled to
offer a personal note. I myself am the son of a
millworker. My father worked in textile mills that have
long since shut down. But I made my mark in a computer-
based company, a company that advanced in tandem with
technology. I crossed into that future because my country
gave me the chance. It gave me an education. It afforded
me opportunity.
I pledged to the people of my State that one of my main
missions would be to work to provide employment and
economic opportunity. We must work to ensure that everyone
shares in what is to come. Already, we can see the kinds
of challenges we face. Already, we can identify the tasks
that lie ahead, to ensure that the promises of the future
are promises for all of us.
There is a broad consensus that we must place increased
emphasis on training in math and science. There are
proposals to enhance the quality of teaching, to enrich
the opportunities for students at all levels. Most of our
new jobs will be information related. They will require
new skills, constantly upgraded over a worker's lifetime.
New demands will be placed on our educational and training
systems and on our people. The capacity to use and work
with computers is becoming essential, almost as essential
as being able to read and write clearly.
The concept of computer literacy in turn defines a new
type of illiteracy, and the potential for new and
distressing divisions in our society. From fall 1980 to
spring 1982, the number of microcomputers and computers
available to public school students tripled. Growth in the
use of computers in the schools is accelerating. By
January 1983, more than half of all schools in the United
States were using microcomputers in instruction. But where
is the growth occurring?
According to one study, Title I schools--schools with
programs for the economically and socially disadvantaged--
average 25 percent fewer computers than non-Title I
schools. Almost 70 percent of wealthy schools have
microcomputers; almost 60 percent of poor schools do not.
These statistics are ominous.
Numbers raise other questions as well. The same schools
that lack the resources to buy computers very likely lack
the resources to enrich the skills of their teachers, to
buy the software, and design the programs and provide the
faculty necessary for effective teaching. In an age that
demands computer literacy, a school without a computer is
like a school without a library. And the same patterns
extend to the home. The Office of Technology Assessment
says that the number of computers in homes has doubled
from 1982 to 1983. Those computers are being acquired by
the affluent, reinforcing disparities in opportunity.
As we address the issue of education in an information
age, we must address the question of equal opportunity.
There will continue to be debate over what is the
appropriate Federal role when it comes to education. I
believe that a major responsibility is to even out the
inequities, to ensure equal opportunity. The Congress is
considering various proposals to ensure an education
appropriate to our times. We have to make sure that all
students have an equal chance to get the education they
need to grow and succeed in America today.
Mr. President, we face other issues of equity.
Telecommunications networks will be the new
infrastructure: Satellite networks to conquer the physical
isolation of rural communities; networks that link
computers and businesses in a national web; networks that
channel more information, at faster speeds than ever
before. Who will be connected, and who will not?
The American Telephone & Telegraph Co., our national
phone system, is being broken up. Local telephone
companies will be spun off and will provide basic
telephone service.
For years, profits from long distance and equipment
charges have held down the cost of local telephone rates.
But that day is ending. We are fast approaching a time
when local telephone users will have to pay the full cost
of local service. Local rates may double or triple. In my
State, regulatory officials predict that basic telephone
rates could rise as much as 150 percent by early 1984.
The effect could be devastating. For every 10 percent
rise in price, we can expect that 1 percent of telephone
users will drop their service. Projected price increases
could lead to a fall off of telephone service to more than
10 percent of the population. Further increases will cut
millions more from the most basic of our information
networks--the telephone system.
Cut off will be the poor, the sick, and the elderly, in
need of telephone service for emergencies, for contact
with the outside world.
Cut off will be the unemployed, who will become further
isolated from job opportunities.
Cut off will be whole areas of our poorest cities,
adding another impediment to their revival.
Our concern for equity in the information age must also
extend to heavy industry and industrial workers. While we
should encourage the growth of service opportunities, we
cannot turn our backs on basic industries or the people
and places affected by job loss. Monumental changes occur
in the life of an individual and his or her family when
unemployment hits, when new skills must be acquired, when
a new job must be found and a new life made, perhaps far
from a person's home. And substantial distress is
experienced by old cities with so-called sunset
industries--when the tax base and infrastructure built
around declining industries erode.
Advance notice, information about job markets, and
opportunities for retraining help workers adjust more
easily to change. Targeted incentives and appropriate
planning help many cities attract the makings of new
industry--information-based service industry and new jobs.
As a matter of responsibility, we must ease the process of
adjustment.
We cannot stand back and permit our industrial base to
disappear. We cannot concede these jobs to our foreign
competitors. We must encourage change in our manufacturing
and industrial plants to make them competitive. This can
be done through changes in tax policy, in trade policy,
and other incentives--and by promoting partnership among
management, workers, and government. The Democratic
industrial policy task force, on which I serve, is
studying these questions to shape a legislative agenda to
address them.
Mr. President, in my own State, there is growth and
prosperity directly tied to the coming of the information
age--jobs in research, science, and financial services.
But at the same time there are areas in deep decline,
cities where unemployment is pervasive, and industry on
the wane.
In welcoming the information age, we must not leave
these people and communities behind.
Mr. President, our Nation has long stood for
opportunity, equality, and fairness. I would not be here
today, were it not for the opportunities granted me. A
child of the Depression, I was given the chance to get an
education, to go forth, and make a mark. We are in the
midst of substantial changes in our economy and our
society. Industries are transforming. Tasks are changing.
Demands are shifting. In our efforts to seize the best the
new age has to offer, we must not ignore the call of our
conscience, to ensure that we go forward together, as a
united people sharing the potential of this new age.
Lisa Murkowski
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Mr. President, it is actually quite fortuitous I am
standing before you tonight. I have not spoken on the
floor but once since I have been here in my new role as
the junior Senator from Alaska. But I stand before you
tonight to do the one thing I have been asked by the
residents, the people of Alaska to do, and that is to work
for jobs, for a sustainable economy for my State and for
my constituents. So to stand tonight to talk about ANWR
[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] and what ANWR means not
only to my State but to all of America is, as I say,
significant because ANWR is about jobs, it is about the
economy, it is about economic security, domestic energy
production. It is also about Native rights in my home
State, and it is about common sense.
I have been listening very closely to the comments that
have been made tonight, some by my fellow colleague from
Alaska, quite passionately arguing the facts. We have seen
some beautiful pictures, and we have seen some numbers
thrown around. I think it is so important that we put into
perspective what ANWR really is, what it means. To do
that, we have to go back a bit in history. We have to look
to the history of ANWR.
We have known about ANWR's oil potential since the early
1900s. It was in 1913, 1914, that the U.S. Geological
Survey found strong indications of oil. So we have known
that oil reserves, strong oil reserves, are on the North
Slope.
This area now known as the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge was originally created in 1960 by Executive order
under the Eisenhower administration. This Executive order
has been pointed to a couple times tonight. It seems that
it has been construed that it was recognized by this order
that somehow ANWR, the Coastal Plain, should be reserved
as some wilderness or should be put off limits. It is
important to go back to the language of that Executive
order so we understand clearly what President Eisenhower
recognized in 1960.
The order states:
For the purposes of preserving the wildlife, the
wilderness, and the recreational values described in
northeastern Alaska containing approximately 8.9 million
acres, is hereby subject to valid existing withdrawals,
withdrawn from all forms of appropriations under the
public land laws, including mining, but not the mineral
leasing laws.
This is where people are failing to read the rest of
that order: ``but not the mineral leasing laws.''
In 1960, through Executive order, was the first time it
was recognized that the potential for mineral and oil was
significant on the Coastal Plain.
I have a chart that details exactly what is in the
refuge. The Coastal Plain, which is 1.5 million acres, was
created in 1980 under ANILCA. The wilderness area in
yellow was also set out in ANILCA. When the initial refuge
was set up, it was this portion, additional refuge land,
which is not wilderness, which was created under section
303 of ANILCA. It added this section.
When we talk about ANWR, the refuge, and the wilderness
and the 1002 area, it is important to keep in mind that we
are talking about different animals, if you will. The
Coastal Plain, the 1002 area, is separate and distinct
from the wilderness area that has been created and
separate from that refuge.
In 1959, Alaska had become a State with certain rights
guaranteed to it under the Statehood Act. Within that act
was a recognition by President Eisenhower--again through
the Executive order--that the North Slope had vast oil and
gas potential and that it should remain available at all
times for domestic use.
There was a recognition in 1960 that something was
different about the Coastal Plain--a Federal recognition
that the oil and gas potential along the plain is too
important to lock it up.
Go forward 13 years when Congress authorized through the
Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Authorization Act the
construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. This pipeline
was to carry up to 2.1 million barrels of oil from the
North Slope to the tidewater in Valdez for export to the
lower 48. This was the next recognition, if you will, of
the potential for reserves in the North Slope.
Our pipeline spans 800 miles from the north of the State
all the way down to the southern terminus in Valdez. It
goes through some of the most rugged and beautiful country
one is ever going to see, and this pipeline carries the
oil safely and efficiently without harm to the environment
or the wildlife. It survived the biggest earthquakes the
designers could have foreseen. We had a 7.1 earthquake in
November. It was a construction marvel that pipeline
worked the way the designers had envisioned it would.
Our pipeline is an amazing wonder of American ingenuity
and spirit. This pipeline has been around for three
decades now, and it has been doing a good job. As Senator
Stevens pointed out earlier this evening, our pipeline is
half full. We need additional oil deposits to maintain
operations.
I have said this is an 800-mile pipeline, but again I
think it helps to put things in perspective if one is not
from the State of Alaska. This pipeline covers a span of
country equal to the distance between Duluth, MN, and New
Orleans, LA. To date, it has carried over 14 billion
barrels of Alaska oil to the lower 48--day in, day out.
This pipeline was constructed in 1973. We have been
transporting oil in it ever since. In 1980, Congress
enacted the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation
Act, which is commonly known as ANILCA. This bill was a
culmination of 5 years' worth of legislative negotiations
spanning three separate Congresses. There was an agreement
reached, which Senator Stevens mentioned earlier, between
Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington and Senator Paul
Tsongas of Massachusetts, two Democrats and two protectors
of the environment. The bill included language which was
agreed to by Alaska to ensure access to the Coastal Plain
for oil and gas exploration.
This is where we get the phrase or why we keep referring
to this parcel as the 1002, because it came from section
1002 of ANILCA. It specifically set forth the requirements
for exploration and development of oil and gas reserves in
this small portion of ANWR, consistent with the
protections for wildlife.
With ANILCA, we doubled the size of President
Eisenhower's Arctic National Wildlife Range. This was the
range initially. We doubled the size by adding the refuge
and changed the name to the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
Through ANILCA, we put half of the land in refuge, 8
million in wilderness and 1.5 million reserved as an
energy bank for the United States. Again, I point out, it
is important to mention that the 1002 area is technically
not part of the refuge. It lies within the outer
boundaries of the refuge, but it is technically not part
of it. It is essentially an area in legal limbo waiting
for Congress to fulfill the statutory requirements that
were set out in section 1002 of ANILCA, and to fulfill the
promises that were made to Alaska on statehood.
It is not really in the refuge, but it is definitely not
a part of the wilderness, and it is not part of the
wilderness by definition or in just the everyday sense of
the word.
If one looks up ``wilderness'' in Webster's, it is
defined as an unsettled and uncultivated region. The
Coastal Plain does not meet this definition of wilderness,
because for years we have had military installations that
have been involved in monitoring Soviet and cross polar
activity. We have a community. We have the village of
Kaktovik which sits right within the 1002 area. These
people call the area home. They have their homes there.
They have a school there. They have community centers
there. They have hospitals. They have a community. This is
not a wilderness.
Some of the pictures we have seen lead one to believe
there is nothing up there, but when you take your camera,
you can look in whatever direction you want to prove your
point. So I think we need to keep in mind, let's envision
what we have up there. We have made offers to people. If
they have not seen ANWR, come up and see what we are
talking about. See what the Coastal Plain is. See what
drilling looks like in Alaska.
At the outset, I mentioned this also had to do with
Native rights issues. Under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, some Alaska Natives were given the right
to select lands on the North Slope. A group of Alaska
Natives from the North Slope region selected 92,000 acres
within the boundaries of the 1002 area specifically for
its oil and gas potential. Those Natives who have selected
those lands are denied any opportunity to develop. Through
the 1971 act of Congress, they were given the right to
select those lands. They selected them, but there is
nothing further they can do with them. They are being
denied the right to do with the land what they feel should
be done. If they need jobs and opportunities, we are
denying them that opportunity.
This refusal to allow the Natives to use their land is
another example of the hand of government falling upon
Natives and Indians in America, because government knows
how to do it best. So that is kind of our preliminary
history lesson about ANWR.
Let's get to some of the facts, though, that have been
mentioned this evening. We are importing nearly 11 million
barrels of oil every day from other countries. Most of
them are from countries that are not so very friendly or
not so very stable. Alaska is producing 1 million barrels
of oil per day, when the pipeline can carry twice that
amount. We are wasting this national asset. We have a
pipeline that is half full.
Prior to the last gulf war, Alaska produced nearly 2.1
million barrels of oil per day, all of it destined for
West Coast ports in the lower 48. Now, rather than move to
open a small portion of the Coastal Plain to responsible
oil and natural gas development, our opponents are
suggesting we can basically conserve our way out of the
reduced dependency in an economically responsible manner.
I will be the first to tell my colleagues we must work
on our conservation efforts, but we must be realistic
about what it is we can and cannot do. I have heard those
who state that ANWR is a false choice when compared with
higher CAFE standards, that that is the way we need to go.
But desiring tougher standards at the expense of more
domestic production is the real false choice. It is a
false choice because we have to do both. We have to pursue
conservation, but we have to pursue increased domestic
production if we are going to get our energy situation
back on track.
To suggest we do not do any more, that we cut it off,
that there is no need for any more oil, that we are going
to go to this wonderful hydrogen-based society and we are
all going to be able to power our vehicles on something
other than gasoline, it is not today, it is not tomorrow,
it is probably not 10 years. Having said that, should we
not work toward it? Sure, that is fine, but let's keep in
mind that we use gasoline for more than powering our
vehicles. We use gasoline in a whole host of ways.
I was talking to a group of students this morning. They
said, gasoline is used for cars, and if we change the way
our vehicles are fueled, surely we will not need to rely
on gasoline.
But it is used for home fuel oil, jet fuel,
petrochemicals, asphalt, kerosene, lubricants, maritime
fuel, other products. If we look at this chart, of the
gasoline that we consume, one barrel of oil makes 44.2
gallons of economic essentials. So 44 percent of a barrel
of oil is going into the gasoline component. The
remainder, 56 percent, is going into all of these other
things.
So the kids wanted to know, what are all of these other
things? They are plastics, CDs, crayons, contact lenses,
panty hose, photographs, roofing material, dentures,
shaving cream, perfumes, umbrellas, golf balls, aspirin,
bandages, deodorant, tents, footballs.
To suggest we need to cut back on oil because we do not
want to have a society that is dependent on oil for our
vehicles is one thing. We can look to alternatives for how
we might power our vehicles. But we have to recognize we
are oil-dependent: 56 percent, 58 percent of the oil we
consume in the United States is imported oil. That is not
a good place to be, particularly when we can do better
domestically. We want to be able to do that.
Alaska has been a proud supplier of 20 percent of this
country's oil production for the past 25 years. We produce
this oil in the harshest environment imaginable. We do it
better and we do it safer and we do it in a more
environmentally sound and scientific manner than anywhere
on Earth. Every spill on the North Slope is reported.
Every drop. If a can of soda pop is dropped, it is
reported. We are conscious. We know what is going on. We
are being careful and cautious.
The National Academy of Sciences 2 weeks ago released a
report on the cumulative impact of North Slope oil
development. What did they find about oil spills on the
North Slope? No major oil spills had occurred. There was
no cumulative effect. The discussion about how to drill
and where to drill is moot because we are in a situation
where we have essentially a professional environmental
community that says no development at all anywhere. They
are using ANWR as their rallying cry.
What they are doing by stopping development in ANWR and
by saying you cannot go there, is shutting down not only
oil development but human progress. There is a community
in Kaktovik, a community on the North Slope in Barrow,
existing because of oil. Their school, their hospital,
their community exists because they have jobs and a
resource base. That is human progress that most would see
as positive.
There was an interesting article in the Washington Post
a few days back. Phillip Clapp, president of the National
Environmental Trust, summed up what today's modern
professional environmental movement is about, talking
about drilling in ANWR and talking about the technology
and whether cumulative impact had been good or bad. He
noted, even if new technology has lessened the environment
damage, it is not the drilling itself but the other
activities, such as road building, housing for workers,
the infrastructure needed to support them, that cause
damage.
If you think that through, if it is the school, if it is
the house, if it is the road that causes the damage, it is
not necessarily the drilling. They are doing the drilling
fine. The road is that way or the house is blocking the
wind and causing snow to drift and that will accumulate
and then melt and puddle in the spring; that is a negative
change. We are going to have all kinds of problems. By Mr.
Clapp's standard, the elementary school in Fayetteville,
AR, causes a negative impact.
We have to be realistic. We deal with this not-in-my-
backyard syndrome and it seems this NIMBY is now morphing
into BANANA, build almost nothing anywhere near anyone. If
you carry it further to a little more ludicrous level, you
have the term NOPE: not on planet Earth.
We in Alaska are starting to feel cut off from the rest
of the world, that the rest of the world or the rest of
the country would just as soon lock us up and say nothing,
nada, zip, you cannot do anything. You are not responsible
enough to carry on development because we are concerned
about the environment.
Again, I challenge Members to come up, see the oil
development, how we bring oil out of the ground safely
every single day and deliver it to the rest of the lower
48. We do a good job. Give us credit.
We had a bit of an example about the technology used on
the North Slope now. The comment was made earlier when we
first began producing in Prudhoe Bay, the size of the oil
fields, the pads, the footprint was bigger, but the
technology in the past 30 years has brought us to a
remarkable place where we can drill, and for all intents
and purposes you do not know we are there. We have a
picture that shows when the drill is complete there is a
stump put in the ground. That is what you look at at the
end. You do not have a huge infrastructure.
I had a meeting this afternoon with an independent oil
company working in Alaska, explaining to us some
incredible new technology that allows for construction of
modules on the tundra, elevated so the tundra is not
affected by any warmth or heat coming off the building.
These modules are supported on beams not made from ice but
inserted in an ice sleeve so when drilling is complete,
when the project is complete, they melt the ice, pick
everything up, and they are out of there. The technology
we have today is so remarkable, so incredible, we can go
in, we can do the job, and we can do it in a manner that
does not disturb the environment.
The point was made earlier about the size we are talking
about. The maps of Alaska do not do justice to the size or
the expanse. The development of the Coastal Plain would
use an area of land smaller than the Little Rock airport.
It was mentioned that in the area of drilling we are
looking to do in the 1002 area, six drills would fit
within Dulles Airport. Conceptualize this: An area 290
times smaller than Ted Turner's private ranch in New
Mexico. I have not been there, but I can visualize it. Or
an area the size of George Washington's Mount Vernon when
he first inherited the property in 1761.
This is what we are talking about, a tiny sliver on the
Arctic Coastal Plain. Yes, we did see lovely pictures
taken during the summer when the tundra is abloom. Those
flowers do exist. I have seen the purple flowers. But most
of the time it looks like the moon. It is white, it is
deserted. Most days you cannot tell the sky from the land.
This is the world that we are talking about. It is frozen
9 months out of the year. It is windswept. It is bitter
cold. It is not hospitable country. Yet small groups of
Alaskan Eskimos have chosen to call this home and want to
be able to stay there, have decent jobs there. This is
what we are talking about when we talk about ANWR.
I was going on about the size of ANWR. It was pointed
out to me that the amount of land we need is the same size
as the world famous Pinehurst Golf Resort in North
Carolina, home to eight world-class golf courses. In fact,
a new golf course opens every day in the United States,
which means that the amount of land that we need to
produce billions of barrels of oil for the American
consumer is gobbled up in just 8 days by golf courses
nationwide.
It seems kind of silly to be comparing ANWR and the
incredible contribution you are going to be getting from
ANWR and its resources to a golf course, but I think it
helps to put it in perspective. First, think about the
size we are talking about and think about our land use.
This is not an area where you would want to go and have a
round of golf.
Also tonight there has been discussion about the
wildlife up in the 1002 area. Since Alaska oil production
began nearly three decades ago, the caribou herds have
increased an average of 450 percent; duck, geese, and
other migratory birds are flourishing. As has been
mentioned, there are more caribou in Alaska than there are
people. The caribou are doing fine. They hope it is not
going to be another bad bug year, but the caribou are
thriving.
When we get right down to what ANWR is about to the
Alaskan people, it is about economic opportunity; it is
about real jobs for them. But I don't suggest that only my
State is going to benefit, that the only reason we should
open ANWR is so people in the State of Alaska can have
jobs. This is jobs for the Nation. This is jobs for
America.
By opening the Coastal Plain as intended by President
Eisenhower, we would create hundreds of thousands of jobs
nationwide, employ thousands of union and nonunion members
in many States, and produce $2.1 billion in the first few
years alone for the Federal Treasury.
Going back to the jobs I mentioned, it is not just
Alaska. There was a study done in Alaska by probably the
most reputable analyst in the State, the McDowell Group.
They did an assessment of ANWR-developed-related
employment throughout the United States. They base their
numbers on $36-a-barrel oil. But given that price range
throughout the 50 States, it is estimated that a total of
575,000 jobs would be created across the country.
We are talking today, tomorrow, and the following day
about the President's economic stimulus plan, the economic
growth plan. I am here to tell you, if we want economic
growth, if we want economic stimulus, we need jobs. And
575,000 jobs across the country is nothing to shake a
stick at.
It is not just jobs on the west coast. Just pick a
number here. Pennsylvania: 27,000 jobs; Tennessee--the
good Senator was here speaking earlier: 11,000 jobs are
estimated to be available in Tennessee.
The sponsor of this amendment from California--
California will see 63,000 jobs. The Senator from
Washington was here earlier: 10,000 jobs in Washington.
You can go down the list. There is no State that somehow
or other does not stand to gain if we are able to open
ANWR.
You say, how are we really getting 10,000 jobs in
Washington or 63,000 jobs in California? We are going to
need the pipes, the valves, the drill bits, the trucks--
everything else that goes along with drilling and opening
a new field and connecting these pipes. So these are real.
It is not an accident that this is included in this
budget resolution. It is part of the President's priority
and agenda because this is about jobs.
Many of the unions across the country have truly
identified this as a jobs issue and are working very hard
on this issue. To many of the families who are struggling,
this is a family issue.
We talk about the caribou and we are concerned about the
caribou and we care for the wildlife. But the fact is, you
have to have money to buy your kids shoes and put food on
the table, and only the jobs can provide that.
The jobs that will come will be real jobs with real
wages for people in my State. To hear the opponents of
ANWR talk, you would think that they want Alaska to be
locked up and to be just this big, beautiful tourist
attraction so they can come and visit. That is nice. We
want to have visitors to our State. We want people to come
up and see Prudhoe Bay. We want them to come and see the
good job that we do.
But this thought process implies that they want
California or Massachusetts or New York or other States to
produce tangible items for our economy. The jobs Alaskan
residents, my constituents, will get are carrying bags for
these people when they come to visit as a tourist. Those
are not the kinds of jobs that I want for my constituents.
Those are not the kinds of jobs that Alaskans want. We
want real jobs. We want the ability to create real jobs.
It is demeaning and it is unfair to say that
Massachusetts can keep its 20,000 petroleum-based jobs;
that New Jersey can keep its 27,000 petroleum-industry
jobs; and New York can keep its 36,000 petroleum-industry
jobs, while Alaska supposedly looks to other alternatives.
Why is it OK for everybody else to do it, and yet in
Alaska for some reason we are not responsible, we can't
handle it, we don't do it right, we need to lock it up and
preserve it because it is the last Serengeti?
By opening ANWR, we are trying to save the 11,000
petroleum-industry jobs that we have in Alaska. We want to
provide other States with similar opportunities.
When it comes to resource development in Alaska, we are
not looking to spoil the environment. We want the
environmental safeguards. We want to make sure we do it
right. We want to make sure that we, those of us who
choose to live there, are going to continue to want to
stay there because it is the quality of life that attracts
us. We don't want to circumvent any environmental
requirements or processes. We want to use the most safe
and most clean and most expensive technology available to
get this oil out of the ground.
I have lived my whole life in Alaska. I was born there.
I am third generation. In fact I am the first person to
represent Alaska in the Congress who was actually born in
the State. I was born during territorial days. I have no
desire to see the environment of my State ruined.
My husband came to Alaska because he was attracted by
the beauty of the State, by the fishing, by the wildlife.
My husband and I are raising two sons who live for hunting
and fishing and camping. This is why we are in Alaska. I
would be the last person to suggest that we should do
anything to ruin our environment.
But I have seen what we can do. I know we can do it
right. And we can balance the development with the
environment. They are not contradictory terms.
It is difficult to stand here as a new Senator and go
over these arguments, but I cannot imagine what it must be
like to stand in the senior Senator's shoes, and having
had this argument and this discussion and this debate
about opening ANWR for the past 20, 25 years, and to hear
the same concerns and the same argument and the same
discussion, and still our oil is locked up. It is a long
time to be talking about this. It is a long time.
If we had been successful--actually, they were
successful in 1995, when ANWR passed the Congress, but
President Clinton vetoed that ANWR legislation in 1995. If
he had not vetoed that, the oil from ANWR would soon be on
its way down the existing Alaska oil pipeline in time for
who knows what lies ahead.
I have mentioned we have a lot to look forward to in the
years ahead, and it is not necessarily an oil-based
economy. We have mentioned that the President's
initiative, the hydrogen initiative to power our cars, is
out there. We are looking forward to that. But we have
also talked about the need to continue with our oil
reserves for all those other resources and products that
we have out there.
I have not touched on the desire, the concern, the
request from Alaskans. Alaskans are looking at ANWR and
saying: Well, wait a minute. Why is it so difficult? If we
are willing to accept the development in our State, why
can't we move forward with this?
We listen very well and very closely to the arguments
and concerns in other locales. In the Midwest, right now,
they are saying: No, don't drill in the Great Lakes. We
don't want to do that. And I would say: If you don't want
drilling in the Great Lakes, and you are the people who
live there, and you say, no, we don't want it in our area,
then, no, there is no need to go there.
But in Alaska, we have said: We accept it. We want it.
We are here to help. Yet we are being turned down. We are
being refused. We are being blocked by outside interests
that seem to think they know better than Alaskans about
what we need to do.
In Alaska, we do not have this NIMBY syndrome. We are
saying: Put it in our backyard. We will accept it. We will
be responsible stewards for this environment and for this
resource. Let us help you.
We respect and defer to the opinions of those in other
parts of the country who do not want drilling near them.
All that we ask is that same deference be afforded to us.
I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to
increase our use of renewable fuel sources. We have had
some good discussions with several Senators about
biodiesel, ethanol. But the Senators from those States
also need to recognize that in order to grow the crops
necessary to make these renewable fuels, they are going to
need fertilizers.
Fertilizers come from natural gas. I have been talking,
for most of the evening, about oil. But we need to also
keep in mind that ANWR has vast deposits of natural gas,
as much as 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that
could be used to mitigate the unusually high natural gas
prices we are seeing.
Yesterday we received a letter from the American Farm
Bureau Federation. In it the Farm Bureau requests support
of environmentally sound energy development in ANWR and
supports its inclusion in the Senate budget resolution.
They recognize it is critical, it is important, for the
farmers of America. If they are going to get the
fertilizer they need, they are going to need that natural
gas from somewhere. They are projecting ahead; they are
anticipating that demand, and asking that we assist with
the supply. And ANWR can assist with the supply.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter
from the American Farm Bureau be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.
Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: The American Farm Bureau
Federation requests that you support environmentally sound
energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) and support its inclusion in the Senate Budget
Resolution.
America's farmers and ranchers utilize numerous energy
sources in the most efficient ways possible to grow the
products that help feed and clothe the world. Current
world circumstances have clearly pointed out this nation's
over-reliance of foreign sources to meet our energy needs.
American agriculture will spend from $1-2 billion more
this year than last and that is just to complete the
planting season and to get a crop in the ground. The
instability of current energy prices negatively affects
each and every aspect of agricultural production. From the
fuel we use directly to the natural gas that is turned
into fertilizer for crops to the diesel used in the
locomotives and barges to transport agricultural
commodities to processors and consumers; we are all
reliant on affordable energy.
A balanced national energy agenda, complete with new
technology advancements, renewable energy allowances and a
significant increase in the domestic production of oil and
gas supplies will help meet the energy needs of America's
growing economy and population while providing a more
reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible
energy supply.
AFBF supports the environmentally sound energy
development in ANWR and urges you to oppose any attempt to
remove this language from the budget resolution.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was commenting a moment
ago about the desire or the willingness of Alaskans to
take on ANWR development, that we are receptive to it.
Earlier, on the floor this evening, the good Senator from
California mentioned, and I believe had printed in the
Record, a statement of opposition to drilling from a
tribal entity. I have not seen that. I am not certain from
where it came.
But I would like to also have in the Record that the
Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the federation of
all the Natives in the State of Alaska, has passed a
resolution in support of the opening of ANWR and urging
the Congress ``to adopt legislation to open the Coastal
Plain area of ANWR to an environmentally responsible
program of oil and gas leasing and development.'' I ask
unanimous consent that this resolution be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., Board of Directors,
Resolution 95-05
Whereas, the members of the Alaska Congressional
Delegation, as representatives of the people and in their
capacity as newly elected Chairmen of the Senate and House
Committees having jurisdiction over matters related to
Alaska Native people and the management of the energy and
natural resources on public lands, have requested the
Alaska Federation of Natives' Board of Directors to adopt
a resolution in support of the opening of the Coastal
Plain; and
Whereas, the Governor of the State of Alaska has
requested the Alaska Federation of Natives' Board of
Directors to adopt a resolution in support of the opening
of the Coastal Plain of ANWR, with a proviso for the
protection of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and the
subsistence needs for the Native people of Alaska; and
Whereas, the Alaska State Legislature has adopted a
resolution calling upon the U.S. Congress to adopt
legislation that would open the Coastal Plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to responsible oil and gas
leasing and development, with protection for the Porcupine
Caribou Herd and the subsistence needs for the Native
people of Alaska; and
Whereas, North Slope oil production has declined from
more than two million BD in 1990, to less than 1.6 million
BD today; and
Whereas, revenues from oil production have been
providing about 85 percent of the State's revenues to fund
programs to meet the educational, social welfare, and
other needs of Alaska's people; and
Whereas, the small 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain study
area of ANWR, adjacent of Prudhoe Bay and other producing
fields is the nation's best prospect for major new oil and
gas discoveries; and
Whereas, opening the Coastal Plain area to an
environmentally responsible and carefully regulated
program of environmental oil and gas leasing would provide
important revenue benefits to the U.S. and to the State of
Alaska; and
Whereas, opening the Coastal Plain will create new jobs
for Alaska Native people, new contracting opportunities
for Native-owned companies, and stimulate the State's
local and regional economies: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the members of the Board of Directors of
the Alaska Federation of Natives calls upon the Congress
of the United States to adopt legislation to open the
Coastal Plain area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to an environmentally responsible program of oil and gas
leasing and development.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is, obviously, an
issue that generates a lot of passion. We have seen that
on the floor this evening. It has generated a lot of facts
and figures. I would caution people to look critically at
the facts. Make sure they add up.
We have heard discussion from a couple of different
individuals tonight about the amount of oil that is out
there. And is it a 6-month supply? And, if so, we surely
should not open up ANWR.
As was pointed out by my fellow Senator from Alaska,
that is assuming there is no other source produced
domestically or used domestically. It is an overt effort
to skew the facts to one side's advantage.
In a debate such as this, it is critical that we know
that our facts are sound, that our science is sound. So I
ask people not to be swayed by the emotion. Caribou are
beautiful animals, but I can tell you, we are caring for
the caribou, our caribou are doing fine, our caribou are
multiplying at a wondrous rate, and they are doing it
around the areas of development.
So it is important to try to show the rest of the
country what ANWR is. But keep in mind, these little, tiny
brief snapshots of a flowered field, with beautiful
mountains in the background, are not where the 1002 area
is that we are intending to drill. We are intending to
drill an area that is the size of the Pinehurst Golf
Resort in North Carolina, in an area that looks like the
Moon.
I appreciate the hour. I appreciate the attention to
this issue because in my State there is nothing more
important that is happening. I would certainly encourage
my colleagues tomorrow to listen intently to the debate.
I hope we move forward on oil and gas exploration along
Alaska's Coastal Plain and oppose the Boxer amendment.
Mark Pryor
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is
important to many people throughout the State of Arkansas
and indeed throughout this country. I rise to express my
disappointment with the budget as it pertains to law
enforcement programs and, in particular, community
policing.
I believe the budget shortchanges smaller communities
and grossly underfunds programs that have put more police
officers on the street, reduced crime in rural areas,
curbed drug abuse, and put at-risk youth back on the right
track.
Mr. President, this budget cuts funding to the Community
Oriented Policing Services--known by its acronym COPS--by
85 percent. That is 85 percent. This program was funded at
$1.1 billion in fiscal year 2002. President Bush proposes
only $164 million for the COPS Program in fiscal year
2004. The administration's budget request for COPS
represents a 100-percent cut to the COPS Universal Hiring
Program, and a 100-percent cut to the ``COPS in School''
Program. In fact, the only program that is funded under
this budget is the COPS technology program, and even that
has been cut by 66 percent.
From its inception, COPS has awarded just over $8
billion to local and State law enforcement agencies across
the country. With grant money, departments have hired over
110,000 community police officers, in addition to
purchasing technological upgrades and equipment.
The COPS Program was established to focus on crime
prevention and community engagement. This breaks with
traditional notions of law enforcement by moving from
reactive responses to proactive problem solving, focusing
on the causes of crime and disorder. Community-oriented
policing requires much more interaction on the
neighborhood and community level than previous policing
efforts.
In Arkansas, we have been able to hire over 1,300
additional officers with the $83 million we have received.
We have also used that money to combat methamphetamine use
and to implement the COPS Program in schools.
A February 3 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,
my State's largest newspaper, stated the reason given by
this administration for cutting funding is that COPS has
``not produced conclusive results in lowering crime.''
I speak today not only as a Senator, but also as the
former chief law enforcement officer of Arkansas, and I
wholeheartedly disagree with this administration's
assessment of these very important programs.
I have worked closely with law enforcement officers of
my State to make Arkansas a safer place and a better place
to raise a family. They are strong leaders in their
communities and demonstrate the character and the courage
that define us as a nation. Together, we are able to keep
over 1,000 criminals off the street due to their work on
the front lines.
Oftentimes, these police officers work in smaller rural
communities. They operate under tighter budgets with
smaller staffs than most of their urban counterparts.
Nonetheless, they put their lives on the line every single
day. They make real differences in people's lives, and
they do it with professionalism and an attitude of public
service. They do it because it is the right thing to do.
They do not do it because it is easy or because it is
pleasant, and, Lord knows, they do not do it for the
money. They are not asking for much in return.
I wish to take this time to thank all law enforcement
officials for the work they do. I especially thank Sheriff
Marty Montgomery of Faulkner County, Sheriff Ron Ball of
Hot Spring County, and Sheriff Chuck Lange of the Arkansas
Sheriffs' Association. They are in Washington today as
part of their national association's meeting. I thank them
not only for their commitment to public service and to
keeping our communities safer--combined they have 87 years
of law enforcement experience--but I also thank them for
sharing with me their insights into the COPS Program and
helping to demonstrate just how important the program is
to them and other local law enforcement.
You see, Mr. President, to them, this funding could mean
the difference between life and death. This past Saturday
at 7:30 p.m., Faulkner County sheriff's deputy, Brad
Brocker, was called to investigate a suspicious person
call in a high drug-use area. When Deputy Brocker arrived
on the scene, he was met with three bullets to the heart
in the upper chest. Luckily, he was wearing his
bulletproof vest, but he risked his life to make his
community and, yes, even his Nation, safer and better. But
there is more to the story.
The Kevlar vest he was wearing was paid for by Federal
grant money, and Deputy Brocker was originally hired as a
deputy under the COPS Program. Putting this Federal money
back into our communities works. In fact, Faulkner County,
with its 90,000 citizens and spanning 700 square miles,
has used COPS funding to hire 12 officers in the past few
years. Twelve may not sound like a lot, but it constitutes
half of the Faulkner County sheriff's police force. It has
made a difference.
In the last 7 years, the arrest rates for burglary,
robbery, and methamphetamine production have all gone up.
Any one of my colleagues who lives in a rural State can
surely tell you about their problems with the use and the
production of methamphetamine. It has become an epidemic
throughout rural America.
Last year alone, the Faulkner County Sheriff's Office
seized 44 labs and shut them down for good. Sheriff
Montgomery is proud of that accomplishment, as he should
be, but he warns that by cutting law enforcement programs,
such as COPS, the steps they have taken forward will be
lost, and they cannot sustain the manpower and law
enforcement presence in their county.
I believe we have a duty to support legislation,
programs, and budgets to address the challenges facing law
enforcement agencies in rural areas in Arkansas and all
across the country, in communities such as Malvern, a
small city in southwest Arkansas. Richard Taft is the
police chief of the Malvern Police Department. Mr. Taft
has 32 years of experience in law enforcement and 10 years
as Malvern's police chief. When Chief Taft took over in
1993, the Malvern police force consisted of 14 people
responsible for protecting a city of over 10,000 citizens.
As Chief Taft put it to me one day: I didn't have enough
officers to protect my officers, much less the citizens of
Malvern.
In 1993, according to Chief Taft, crime was rampant.
Robberies, drive-by shootings, and burglaries occurred on
a weekly basis. Since instituting the COPS Program and
utilizing its grant funding, crime is down. The Malvern
police force today is 22 people strong. With the
additional manpower, Malvern has assembled a special crime
team with the ability to respond to critical incidents,
including chemical spills and missing persons. They did
not have that ability before. COPS funding has allowed the
Malvern Police Department to free up some of their money
for other necessities, such as computers and radios.
Chief Taft says: ``Without the COPS Program, I wouldn't
have a police force.''
Yet this administration says there is no conclusive
evidence that the COPS Program works? I disagree with
that. More important, there are scores of law enforcement
officials who would also stand up to dispute that claim.
In 1993, Little Rock, AR, had the highest violent crime
rate per capita in the country. By working with the
Federal Government, using the COPS Program, and their own
additional hires, the Little Rock Police Department
bolstered their force and violent crime has dropped by 60
percent.
Chuck Lange, the head of the Arkansas Sheriffs'
Association, knows the significant impact the COPS Program
has had statewide--and I am sure sheriffs in other States
can tell you the same thing--by putting more police
officers on the street. He knows that more officers have
helped shorten response time. That is especially important
in sprawling rural communities. He knows that time is not
a luxury afforded to crime victims. I know it as well. It
may be because my grandfather, my great-grandfather, and
my great-great-grandfather were all sheriffs of Ouachita
County.
Hot Spring Sheriff Ron Ball told me that in his county
the COPS Program has enabled him to direct more time and
resources to curbing domestic violence.
He knows that if his department doesn't do a better job
of protecting the abused, they have nowhere else to turn.
And these law enforcement officers all know and have all
told me that if we let these drastic COPS funding cuts
stand, rural America will suffer.
The list of law enforcement officials opposed to these
cuts is long, but the opposition is not only limited to
law enforcement. There are many mayors, community
activists, and school administrators who also realize the
importance of this program; school administrators like Dr.
Benny Gooden.
Dr. Gooden is the superintendent of schools in Fort
Smith, AR. He oversees 26 schools with 12,500 students.
Dr. Gooden knows how successful the COPS in Schools
Program has been. He knows that COPS is an asset to this
community and to his schools. The presence of friendly,
approachable police officers, known as school resource
officers, on their campuses and in their neighborhoods has
had a calming effect on Fort Smith schools.
Since the implementation of the COPS Program in Fort
Smith schools, Dr. Gooden has witnessed a decline in
violent incidents. Over the past few years suspensions
have decreased by 65 percent. Expulsions have been reduced
by 80 percent. The drop-out rate has been cut in half.
When talking about the positive effect of the COPS in
Schools Program, Dr. Gooden calls it a powerful
relationship; a win-win for both the schools and the
community. Because the police officers are in the
community and in the schools and are connected to the
students and their families, officers can better identify
and proactively defuse any potential problems there may
be.
Oftentimes problems that are found in schools begin in
the neighborhood and in the home. Police officers in Fort
Smith recognize this and are in a better position to
resolve such problems.
Dr. Gooden has also witnessed, first-hand, the
affirmative impact of this program on a child's
educational experience. The officers interact with
students. Some officers have offices in the schools. They
are invited to school activities. These officers do not
just show up when there is trouble, they are positive role
models for Fort Smith's children and are involved in their
lives. They spend time with students and in the community
when there is no trouble and that presence can make all
the difference.
These positive results are not limited to Fort Smith nor
are they only appreciated by the administrators. As
Arkansas Attorney General, I spent a lot of time in
schools talking to our young people, and more importantly,
listening. Over and over the students told me how much
they liked having school resource officers on campus. It
made them feel safer, it provided a needed role model and
it oftentimes provided an adult they could talk to. It
showed our children that their community cared about them
and gave them a much better perspective on law
enforcement.
We must also not forget the importance of these police
officers as an integral part of our homeland defense and
as first responders in the case of terrorist attacks.
September 11 changed a lot of things for our country. It
woke us to the need of genuine partnerships that involve
all segments of our communities, and all levels of
government. We all have a role in keeping our community
safe, and overall when we talk about homeland security, we
need to give serious thought to our law enforcement needs.
Unfortunately, we saw how September 11 strained the
resources, and the budgets, of many towns and cities. The
administration's law enforcement budget does not help that
problem. Our civilian authorities must be able to respond
to whatever may confront them in the future, but how can
they properly respond, when they are given a budget that
cuts deep into their existence? The irony is that I have
heard Secretary Ridge speak many times about how important
local law enforcement agencies are to homeland security,
but at the very moment when our Nation needs them most, we
are drastically cutting assistance to them.
The Federal Government must ensure that local
governments are given the resources to complete their task
and that we share the responsibilities for homeland
security wisely and fairly. I know that Democrats and
Republicans alike agree with this. I know Secretary Ridge
agrees with this. I know that President Bush agrees with
this.
President Bush said on February 20 regarding the 2003
omnibus appropriations that he was concerned that the
Congress had failed to provide over $1 billion in funds
for State and local law enforcement and emergency
personnel. He went on to lament that the shortfall for
homeland security first responder programs was more than
$2.2 billion.
For the record, I share President Bush's concern, but
shortchanging our local law enforcement efforts by
underfunding the critical, popular and effective COPS
Program is not the answer. I take a line from Chief Taft
of the Malvern Police Department, who put it best when he
said: ``Doing away with the COPS Program, when we are so
concerned with homeland security, is the wrong thing to
do.'' I could not agree more.
Much is made of the word ``hero.'' Before September 11,
to pick up a magazine or to put on the television, hero
was synonymous with professional athletes, movie stars, or
musicians. But September 11 reminded us that real heroes
are right in our own backyard. While everyone was rushing
out of the World Trade Center, EMT, firefighters and
police officers were rushing in. That is the definition of
``hero.''
Local law enforcement officers protect our communities,
our homes and our families from the threat of violent
crime. Simply put, they stand up for justice. I believe we
must do more to stand up for them. They need funding to do
their jobs properly and deliver the same quality service
that our citizens expect and deserve, whether they live in
New York City, or Des Arc, AR.
During the upcoming budget debate, I will support
increasing funding for the COPS Program and other law
enforcement programs. I would urge my colleagues to do the
same. I also plan to be a proud co-sponsor of Senator Joe
Biden's legislation to reauthorize the COPS Program.
We need to build on what we know works and develop
initiatives that respond to the law enforcement needs of
our communities. The COPS Program works and deserves
adequate funding. These communities who benefit from this
program deserve it as well.
I yield the floor.
John E. Sununu
Wednesday, February 5, 2003
Mr. President, today I join my colleagues and millions
around the world to express our enormous sorrow at the
loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia and to
extend sympathy to the crews' families and friends.
This tragedy, like the loss of the Space Shuttle
Challenger 17 years ago, has left an empty space in our
hearts. We struggle for the words that might help to make
sense of the events we witnessed last Saturday.
A return to Earth that we have come to view as
``routine,'' instead has reminded us of the fragility of
life. We are all subject to the flaws of man and the
vagaries of nature. Yet these seven brave men and women
accepted great risk as they strove to expand the
intellectual capital of all mankind.
For thousands of years, the heavens have inspired,
intrigued, and called us to explore their boundaries. This
unending quest for knowledge is the very essence of what
makes us human. It is a flame that burns so bright. It
burns so bright that not even the depth of this tragedy or
the shock of our loss can quench the desire to learn, to
seek and to explore.
There is no doubt in my mind that we will move forward
to expand and strengthen America's space program. And
through the investigation that has just begun, we will
find out what caused this accident and then we will fix
it. But today, we mourn for those whom we have lost and
offer comfort to those who have been left behind.
The astronauts who fly the space shuttle are a unique
and unparalleled breed of men and women. They inspire us
with courage and intellect, and they sacrifice in service
to their country and profession. But perhaps their
greatest service of all is rendered when they reach out to
future generations and plant the seeds of curiosity in a
young student's mind.
I have visited classrooms in the company of astronauts
to see faces of children alive with wonder and awe. Like
any one of us, our children want to know what it is like
in space, what it is like to be a scientist, what it is
like to be an explorer.
Seventeen years ago when the Challenger was lost, among
the seven astronauts was a teacher from New Hampshire,
Christa McAuliffe, who was dedicated to nurturing and
inspiring students not just in New Hampshire but all
across the country. Her spirit and enthusiasm has been
captured for future generations in the Christa McAuliffe
Planetarium in Concord, NH.
Each time I visit the planetarium, I am reminded that a
child's curiosity grows into a lifetime search for answers
to the great questions of our age. As long as we have
astronauts to engage this curiosity, the quest for
knowledge will endure and our space program will thrive.
Generations of Americans have been inspired by their
courage and vision, but today, thoughts and prayers of
millions are with the families and friends of Columbia's
crew. The sadness of this moment may well one day fade,
but the memory of these seven heroic figures will remain
forever strong.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
James M. Talent
Friday, August 1, 2003
Mr. President, it is my pleasure to speak to the Senate
today about a subject on which I have risen to speak
before, a very important piece of legislation that I think
has the potential to solve what is probably the No. 1
problem that small business people and their employees
confront today. I am talking about the bill which I have
co-sponsored along with Senator Snowe, who is the chairman
of the Small Business Committee, and others. It is a bill
to allow small business people to create association
health plans.
This bill is not a government program. In a time of
great deficits, it does not require us to spend any money.
It is going to take a long step toward solving the
problems of the uninsured, reducing the number of the
uninsured, and getting working people better health
insurance at less cost. It does not cost the taxpayers
anything because all it does is allow people to work
together and do for themselves, as small business people
and employees of small businesses, what big companies and
employees of big companies can already do.
Most people in the United States who have health
insurance are a part of a big national pool--almost
everybody is. You are either in Medicaid or Medicare or
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan or covered by a
labor union plan or a multi-employer plan with a labor
union or you work for a big company. If you are in any of
those situations, you are covered by health insurance, and
it is health insurance where you are a part of a big
national pool.
The only people who are not in that situation are people
who work for small businesses. I define that very broadly.
That includes farmers. It includes people who are self-
employed consultants operating out of their own home. They
are in the small group market. They have to buy insurance.
If they own or run a small business or a farm, they are
buying insurance for small groups of people, 5 people or
10 people or 20 people or 25 people.
Insurance works better when you spread the risk across
as large a pool as possible. It doesn't take an advanced
degree to understand that. All association health plans
do--and it is very important what they do--is simply allow
the employees of small businesses to get the same
efficiencies and economies of scale that employees of big
business already enjoy. All I would do is allow trade
associations--the Farm Bureau, the NFIB, the Chamber of
Commerce, the National Restaurant Association--to sponsor
health insurance coverage nationally the same way the
human resources side of a big company would do.
Let's take a big company such as Emerson Electric, a
great company in Missouri, or Sprint, or Anheuser Busch,
all headquartered there. They have a human resources side,
an employee benefits side. They contract with insurance
companies nationally; they may have a self-insured side.
Then their employees all over the country can enjoy an
option in different plans as part of pools of 5 or 10 or
20 or 30,000 people. The administrative costs of such
plans are much lower because they are spread across a much
wider base of employees. They have much greater purchasing
power and negotiating power when dealing with the big
insurance companies. They have the competitive
possibilities of self-insurance. So insurance is better in
that situation and it costs less.
It doesn't mean they don't have problems, but you are a
lot better off there than you would be and are right now
if you are struggling as a small business owner or the
employee of a small business.
Of the 44 million people uninsured in the country, about
two-thirds either own a small business or work for a small
business or are dependents of somebody who owns or works
for a small business. I am including farmers. Then there
are tens of millions of other people who may have health
insurance through a small business, but it is barebones
health insurance. It is not what it should be because the
costs are so high, and they are going up every year.
There is a human side to this. Senators who have not
done this--I imagine most Senators have--go out and talk
to people who work in small businesses or run small
businesses. I guarantee you, they will tell you the No. 1
problem they are confronting, short and long term, is the
rising cost of health insurance and increasing
unavailability. This hits people where they live.
We have had too many layoffs in Missouri. We have lost
more jobs in Missouri in a 1-year period than any other
State. There are a lot of bad results connected with the
layoff, obviously. But I think maybe the first that hits a
family when they lose a job or are concerned about losing
a job, particularly if it is a family with kids, is: What
about my health insurance? What do I do for that? It is as
important as people's wages.
Folks in the small business sector, employees of people
in the small business sector have labored too long in a
market that does not work. It is dominated by a few
companies, and they are acting more and more like
monopolists, raising prices higher and higher, providing
fewer and fewer services, less and less quality insurance.
We need to do something about it. We can do it, if this
Senate will pass association health plans. It passed in
the House by 100 votes last month--strong bipartisan
support. It has passed several years in a row in the
House. The President supports it. We in the Senate ought
to pass it.
I fought on the floor of the Senate for it. I will
continue to do so. It is a great bill. We have great
sponsors. We will take up the debate again in the fall. I
am very hopeful we can pass it.
It is no secret--and Senators know this because I have
been talking to them and I know how strongly they are
being lobbied on both sides, lobbied in opposition to
association health plans. Who is at the core of the
lobbying effort against association health plans? It is
the Blue Cross Insurance Company. It is no secret why.
Blue Cross is dominant in many States. It is one of the
few big insurance companies in almost every State that
currently provides health insurance to small businesses.
They have a big stake in not having association health
plans enter the market to compete. It would be a huge
competitive force. It would take business away from them
or cause them to lower their prices in order to keep the
business.
I don't begrudge them or anybody else their
opportunities or rights to lobby on legislation that comes
before this Senate. They have lobbied. They spent $4.3
million last year on lobbyists. I don't know how much of
that was spent on association health plans. We do know
this is the No. 1 priority for that company--to stop this
bill. We can all infer why. I don't begrudge them that.
But the debate ought to be done honestly, and it ought to
be done within the limits of fair play. That is not
happening. I want the Senate to know about it.
First, I said it is not being done within the limits of
honesty. The No. 1 charge being brought against
association health plans is not only not true, it is
exactly the inversion of the truth. It is exactly the
opposite of the truth. If you want to fool somebody, tell
them something that not only isn't true but is the
opposite of the truth. Try and sell them on that.
The No. 1 charge against association health plans is
that they would result in cherry picking; that is, that
small businesses that are healthy would want to go into
the association health plans; small businesses with
employees who are sick would not want to go into
association health plans. That is the exact opposite of
the truth. I think everybody who currently is trapped in
the small group market is going to want to be a part of an
association health plan. Who would not want to get
insurance through a big national pool as opposed to a
small group of 5 or 10 people, if you could do it? It is
simply economics--more efficient operation, better
operation, lower costs for everybody. By our estimates, it
will lower costs for small business, on average, 10 to 20
percent and reduce the number of uninsured by millions. It
will provide good quality health insurance to others who
right now are laboring with bare-bones insurance because
the market is so difficult. Everybody is going to benefit.
The people who will benefit especially are people who are
trapped in small groups where somebody has become sick.
I have talked about this subject and toured scores and
scores of small businesses. I have brought up this charge
of cherry picking. I say to people: If you had a history
of medical problems and you had a choice of working for a
big company which provides health insurance the way an
association health plan would or, on the other hand,
working for a small company which is trapped in this small
group market and that was all you knew about the two
opportunities--big company, national pool; small company,
small group market--and you were sick, for which one would
you want to work? I have never had a single person say: I
want to work for the small business; I think I am going to
get better health insurance there.
One of the big competitive advantages big businesses
have over small businesses is that generally they offer
better health insurance. Everybody in the job market knows
it. I have had a lot of small business people tell me: We
have lost employees to big companies on the health
insurance issue. We have not been able to hire people we
want because they went to work for a big company because
they thought they would get better health insurance.
I don't begrudge the larger companies. But why should
small businesses and their employees not have the same
opportunities? This will benefit everybody in the small
business market, but it is going to benefit most the
people who are ill, or employers who are struggling along
with people who are ill and are doing the best they can to
provide good health insurance.
Here is another reason it is not association health
plans that will cherry pick. The legislation requires that
they take everybody, all comers. Must offer/must carry.
Join the association and you get the health insurance.
They cannot screen you out because you have somebody who
has cancer or heart disease or something like that.
Mr. President, it is the big interest companies now who
are cherry picking. Just talk to people who run small
businesses. When somebody in their business gets sick and
files a claim, their rates get jacked up or they get
canceled. Everybody knows it. I could give a lot of
examples. One example is Janet Poppen, a small business
owner from St. Louis. Like many small business owners, she
wants to do right by her five employees, so she tries to
provide them health insurance. How many hours and hours
does Janet and people like her spend just on the
administrative details? It is hours they need to spend
running their small business.
If we had an association health plan, they would join
the trade association, and the trade association has done
all that work. It just sends them the papers and they sign
up their employees. She had health insurance through Blue
Cross/Blue Shield, and one of her employees had the
temerity to get sick with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. As soon
as she started getting treatment for the cancer, Janet's
premiums increased by 16 percent. That is on top of the
substantial premium increases that had occurred the year
before. Her premiums had gone up 35 percent over 2 years.
This is not an uncommon story. Everywhere I go, small
businesses say that premiums are going up 15, 20, 25
percent a year, doubling over 3 years, going up by a third
over 2 years. That happened to Janet Poppen, and she is
insured by Blue Cross. They are the ones cherry picking.
Association health plans are the remedy, and to say
otherwise is the exact opposite of the truth.
One other point, and then I will close. I have
trespassed on the Senate's time enough. We ought not to
turn this debate, which is one of the most important ones
we are going to have in the Senate, into a sweepstakes.
Blue Cross is doing that. They have sponsored a Web site.
There are other problems as well, but on that Web site
they have a sweepstakes. You can enter the sweepstakes to
win a trip to Washington for four people, and they will
give you $300 cash on top of it. Do you know what you have
to do to enter the sweepstakes? You have to click on the
place where you can send an e-mail to your Congressman and
Senator opposing association health plans. Then you get in
the sweepstakes. Then you get a chance to win a trip to
Washington--if you will just click on the e-mail and send
a letter to Washington opposing association health plans.
You don't get anything if you send in a letter supporting
association health plans. I will show the Senate where it
says enter to win.
Here is a chart, and this is the Web site now. It says
that you can make your voice heard by sending a free fax
to Congress. That is what they tell people. They don't
tell you what the fax is about, that the fax has to oppose
association health plans and support their business
interests. Then they have some misrepresentations about
association health plans.
Go to the third chart. This is what you get if you do
it. At least you have a chance at this. It is a drawing.
The grand prize is a trip for four to Washington, DC,
including round-trip coach class air transportation at the
U.S. airport nearest the winner's home, double occupancy,
standard hotel accommodations, two rooms, a 4-hour
Washington, DC, bus tour, shuttle bus airport transfers,
and a total of $300 in spending money. It has an
approximate retail value of $4,000.
All you have to do is join Blue Cross, sending in an e-
mail opposing the association health plans. You don't get
to join if you decide you want to support them. You don't
get a chance at the sweepstakes then.
I always encourage people to contact their Congressmen
and Senators. I like it when people contact me, even if
they disagree with me on something. That gives me a chance
to write back and explain my position. I have had great
exchanges with constituents that way. But we ought not to
give people a monetary incentive one way or another
because that means the opinions we are getting are not
unnecessarily unbiased, are they?
I don't blame anybody who wants a shot at a $4,000 trip
and participates in a sweepstakes in order to get it. But
I sure blame the people who have sponsored that Web site
and are distorting the debate on this serious issue before
the Senate. And this is a serious issue.
There are millions and millions of people in this
country who don't have health insurance and who need it.
Most of them are stuck in a market that isn't working and
is dominated by a few competitors, and we have a chance to
change that. It doesn't even cost the taxpayers anything.
I hope we can do it. They have done it in the House with a
bipartisan vote. I hope we can do it in the Senate. At the
very least, we need a debate that is conducted honestly,
conducted fairly, and that doesn't turn health care into a
sweepstakes. I hope after this we will have it.
I yield the floor.