Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, on behalf of our leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak as in morning business: Senator Clinton for 1 hour, followed by Senator Collins for a time to be determined; Senator Kennedy for 30 minutes to make a motion to instruct; Senator Landrieu for 20 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that Republican Senators be accommodated, if seeking recognition, in between two Democratic Senators, and that Republican Senators be allocated time that is equal to that consumed by the minority Senators.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a young man who lost his life last Sunday in Iraq. He is an Army sergeant first class who grew up in Delaware, a graduate of Tatnall High School. His name is James ``Shawn'' Moudy. He is the ninth soldier from Delaware to have died in Iraq. Shawn epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. Shawn exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country and, above all else, honor. The way he lived his life and how we remember him, Shawn reminds each of us how good we can be. Shawn was born in Wilmington, DE, on July 14, 1968, to James and Thelma Moudy who now reside in Newark, DE. Shawn attended the Independence School and graduated from Tatnall School in 1986, where he enjoyed playing football and lacrosse. Shawn then attended 1 year at Marion Military Institute in Marion, AL. After earning a nomination to the Coast Guard Academy, Shawn decided instead to enlist in the Army. For almost two decades, Shawn traveled the world on tours of duty in Korea, Germany, Bosnia, and later at Ft. Benning, GA. It was in Korea that he met his wife Myong Sun, and today they have a daughter, Sandra Rebecca. She is 13 years old. In September 2004, Shawn was transferred to Ft. Drum in Watertown, NY, where his family resides today. He was deployed to Iraq in August 2005, a few months ago. Shawn's mission was to train Iraqi troops, and he joined in the security patrols there. Shawn was a member of the 71st Cavalry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division. He always knew he wanted to be a soldier. He had several uncles who served in the military. As a child, his mom and dad told me, he always drew pictures of soldiers. According to his mom, with whom I was privileged to speak the night before last, Shawn believed that ``the world needs to be safe and protected and free. That's what his whole life was dedicated to.'' Those are her words and his. Shawn's parents take comfort in knowing their son was doing what he believed was right. Their son was resolute in his belief that the United States should not leave Iraq until a free society has been established. He died Sunday in western Baghdad when the humvee he was driving struck another one of those roadside bombs we hear so much about. I rise today on behalf of Senator Biden and our whole congressional delegation and the people of Delaware to celebrate his life, to commemorate his life, and to offer his mom and dad and family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss and on ours. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, for the last 3 years that we have been in the Senate, I have been pushing my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and pushing the administration and my colleagues in the House of Representatives to reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. We first authorized it in 1996. There was a 5- or 6-year authorization that had lapsed, and we need to renew it and establish a path forward for welfare programs in my State, your State, and all other States across this country. The Senate Finance Committee has approved unanimously, without dissent, legislation to reauthorize it for another 5 years. It is out of committee and ready to come to the floor. We should take it up, debate it, amend it, if we see fit, pass it, and go to conference with the House. The House passed their own reauthorization measure, which is imperfect in my view. I will mention a couple of problems I have with it. As the Governor of Delaware and lead Governor of the National Governors Association on welfare reform, it occurred to me that if you want people to get off welfare and go to work, they need help with taking care of their kids, and we needed to make sure they had decent health care for the children. If they don't have that, they are not going to be successful in going to work. The measure reported out of the Committee provided extra money for childcare support. It is needed. There is another problem. Under current law, if you are on welfare, you have to work 30 hours a week. However, if you have young kids under the age of 6, you can work as little as 20 hours a week, not 30 or 40 hours. The House measure says everybody has to work 40 hours a week if you are on welfare. That may sound good at the outset, but if you don't have money for childcare to help with the extra time people are going to be working, it is not going to work. Say somebody has a week-old or month-old or year-old child. They are going to have to work 40 hours a week. I ask for support on the motion. Let the committee bring the bill forward and debate it and vote and go to conference. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to urge our colleagues in the Senate to instruct the conferees to the budget reconciliation bill to reject the House provisions dealing with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, Program. Like several of our colleagues, I have a long history of working to improve our Nation's welfare policies to, first of all, make them more effective for States, but also more effective for families. When I was privileged to serve as Governor of the State of Delaware, I also served, at the same time, as cochairman of the National Governors Association's Welfare Reform Task Force, along with then-Governor John Engler, and played a lead role in helping to craft welfare reform legislation for Delaware and for our Nation. As Senator, I have pushed, for the past 3 years, for welfare reauthorization legislation that emphasizes work while also providing help to welfare participants with respect to childcare and educational opportunities. Because of my extensive involvement with welfare reform for more than a dozen years and my belief that the program can work for both States and families, I am troubled that the House of Representatives has chosen to include its welfare reauthorization bill in the budget reconciliation package. Doing so gives the Senate no opportunity to debate the needed changes in this important program. The TANF provisions included by the House would reauthorize and make significant policy changes to our Nation's welfare program. Those changes include far more stringent work requirements than under current law while failing to provide sufficient childcare funding or other work supports to help participants meet those new requirements. The House bill would dramatically increase requirements on States without giving them additional resources. And the House language would make it more difficult for TANF recipients to make the successful leap from welfare to work. The budget reconciliation process is not the right place to reauthorize our country's welfare program. Instead, we should take the opportunity to reauthorize welfare through the regular legislative process, using the bipartisan bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee as our guide. Earlier this year, you may recall, the Senate Finance Committee reported out a welfare reform bill--it is called the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act, lovingly known as the PRIDE Act--on a bipartisan basis. This legislation would make commonsense changes and reauthorize the welfare reform program for the next 5 years. The measure would also provide long overdue stability to States and beneficiaries who have been waiting since 2002 for us to provide long-term reauthorization, a path forward. I would like to commend this afternoon Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, their Finance Committee colleagues, and their staff for their hard work in crafting the bipartisan PRIDE Act. That legislation is a testament to their dedication and their commitment to enabling Americans to move off welfare and, most importantly, be better off. That committee was able to find consensus on issues that can be both complex and, at times, controversial. The PRIDE bill can and should be taken up by the full Senate and debated on the Senate floor early next year. This is not a debate that should consume weeks but, rather, a debate that should consume at most a few days. I pledge today to work closely with my colleagues on our side and the Republican side of the aisle to ensure that the bill does not get bogged down in the Senate and that we move it along. A full debate, though, on the issues would give the Senate, not just a few Senate conferees to a reconciliation bill, the opportunity to have a real discussion about the future of welfare and what policies we should accept or reject during reauthorization. That is what we need to do. And I believe it need not take weeks to develop a consensus and pass a bipartisan bill by a wide margin. In my view, the House welfare reform bill, called the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005, is, unfortunately, decidedly partisan. The bill was reported out of both subcommittee and committee by party-line votes and was then dropped wholesale into the budget reconciliation bill. While I am opposed to the inclusion of the House TANF provisions in the reconciliation bill, I encourage my Senate colleagues to oppose including it for a number of other reasons as well. I fear that the House's inclusion of a welfare reauthorization bill in a budget reconciliation bill sets up two likely possibilities: No. 1, that the conferees will simply recede to the House TANF provisions; or, No. 2, differences between the House TANF provisions and the Senate PRIDE bill will have to be worked out during a hurried conference committee, in which a few conferees will be faced with tough choices on an incredible array of other issues. Neither scenario is acceptable. Welfare will likely be overshadowed in this context and is not likely to get much thoughtful review. The work-first approach to welfare reform has enabled States to reduce caseloads dramatically over the last decade or so, while helping members of low-income families to move into jobs and toward financial self-sufficiency. We should build on these successes, not jeopardize them. By giving welfare the proper legislative consideration in both the House and the Senate, we can do just that. The House TANF provisions differ greatly from the Senate's, and I believe a number of the House provisions are flat out unacceptable. The House bill would dramatically increase, for example, the number of hours that welfare recipients must work. You may recall, under current law, welfare recipients must work an average of 30 hours per week. However, under current law, mothers with young children under the age of 6 must now work at least 20 hours per week. The House bill, by comparison, requires that all welfare recipients--if you have a child a week old or a month old or a year old--even mothers with young children must work 40 hours per week. That is a doubling of the required hours for single parents with young children. I have been supportive of increased work requirements in the past, but the House bill increases work hours while failing to provide adequate funding for badly needed childcare. My friends, we can do better than that. To me, it is just basic logic, basic common sense that in order to move parents off welfare into work, we have to give them access to decent childcare. The House bill provides only $100 million per year in additional childcare funding to meet a doubling of work hours. Spread out over 50 States, that does not come close to meeting the needs of families. In fact, over 5 years, this level of funding is $500 million less than what has been included in previous House-passed bills, and $5.5 billion less than what the Senate would provide. What is more, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it is $4.3 billion less than what is needed to keep pace with inflation and almost $8 billion less than the amount needed to offset increased demand for childcare caused by the increased work requirements. Again, when I was privileged to serve as Governor of my little State, I saw firsthand that parents cannot move to work successfully if they do not have an answer to this question: Who is going to take care of my children and how will I pay for it? If we want to help parents find jobs--and I know we do--we need to help them secure childcare. It is just that simple. In addition to what I feel are inadequate provisions surrounding work and childcare, the House bill also limits the ability of welfare recipients to participate in educational activities such as vocational education, allowing participants to participate in that activity for only 3 months in a 2-year period instead of the current 12 months. The Senate bill, on the other hand, continues to allow 12 months of vocational education and also establishes something called a Parents as Scholars Program, which allows welfare recipients to go on to higher education, not forever but for at least a limited period of time. In my view, the House bill is not friendly to States either. It asks States to make dramatic changes to their programs. Yet it gives them no additional funding to accomplish those changes and little time to meet those requirements before they would be subject to harsh penalties. The Senate bill, on the other hand, gives States time to meet new requirements. If States make improvements but for some reason are not able to immediately ramp up to the strenuous new targets, penalties will be temporarily waived--not permanently, temporarily. Perhaps some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle could find common ground with the House provisions. Perhaps some believe we could improve upon the House provisions in conference to come up with something that is more workable. I argue, however, that no matter what my colleagues think about the House proposal, we can all agree that the Senate should have the chance to consider welfare reauthorization under regular order, and soon. If we are allowed to debate welfare reform in this body, I am confident we could come up with a bipartisan agreement that truly advances our shared goal of making work pay more than welfare. The motion I will offer tomorrow would urge conferees to give the Senate a chance to do just that, by rejecting provisions related to the reauthorization of TANF. Instead, the motion I will offer would urge that the Congress enact freestanding legislation that builds on the bipartisan Senate Finance Committee PRIDE bill. I cannot emphasize enough that the Senate bill was reported out of the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. The House bill, on the other hand, has consistently enjoyed the support of only one party. Further, welfare reform should not be considered in the whirlwind of budget reconciliation. Reform should be based on sound policy, and we should seek to find bipartisan consensus on this most important issue, something I am confident we can do. Tomorrow, when the motion to instruct is offered, I urge and invite my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to support it.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am pleased to voice my support for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and for the Reed amendment that I cosponsored to S.2020, the tax reconciliation bill. The Reed amendment would have fully funded LIHEAP in fiscal year 2006 and would have paid for the increased funding with a temporary tax on the windfall profits of major oil companies. The Senate fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill took an important first step toward providing adequate LIHEAP funds by including $2.183 billion for the program for next fiscal year. This is a good starting point. However, $2.183 billion represents only a very slight increase over fiscal year 2005 levels and is likely not enough to meet the needs of LIHEAP beneficiaries in the coming winter. For this reason, I have worked to find ways to increase funding for the LIHEAP program and to do so in a manner that is fiscally responsible. The Reed amendment would have added $2.92 billion to the LIHEAP program and paid for this increase by taxing the windfall profits of major oil companies. Some have criticized this windfall profits tax. Yet I believe that a temporary, limited tax on the windfall profits of energy companies is a reasonable way to help the least fortunate among us pay for their home energy needs. Indeed, I believe that the country's oil producers can afford to help pay for LIHEAP. Last month they posted record profits. ExxonMobil reported that their profits rose 75 percent, and in just 3 months they made $9.92 billion in profit. Similar record profits have been reported by all of the major integrated oil companies. Some of this increase in profit is due to oil prices that started to rise this summer even before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the gulf coast. After the hurricanes, though, the price of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other refined oil products soared. Our Nation is still struggling to recover from the disasters along the gulf coast. All Americans have had to make sacrifices as a result. This winter the country is facing another crisis, record energy prices and associated increased household heating bills. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, consumers who heat their homes with natural gas prices--about 55 percent of U.S. households--are expected to see their heating bills rise by 48 percent this winter. Those who heat with oil will pay 32 percent more, those who heat with propane will pay 30 percent more, and those who heat with electricity will pay 5 percent more. These increases will take the greatest toll on the least fortunate among us. Low-income Americans will have a harder time heating their homes and may turn their heat down dangerously low in hopes of being able to pay their monthly bills. That is why the LIHEAP program is so important. LIHEAP provides vital home energy assistance to low-income families to help them weatherize their homes and pay their energy bills. The Reed amendment would have asked the oil companies that have profited so much from recent rising energy prices to help ease the burden of this winter's high prices. I am pleased with the approach taken by the Reed amendment because I believe that we should try to pay for increases in spending. I have been uncomfortable supporting some previous amendments to increase funding for the LIHEAP program because they did not find a way to pay for the increased spending. Senator Reed has found a way not only to fully fund this vital program, but to pay for it as well. Unfortunately, Senator Reed's amendment was not accepted by the full Senate during consideration of the tax reconciliation bill. The amendment needed 60 votes to overcome a point of order and received only 50. We will keep trying though. The LIHEAP program serves a vital function in helping as many as 5 million low-income households who need a bit of help paying their energy bills or weatherizing their homes. I'm pleased to have been a cosponsor of the Reed amendment and I will continue to look for ways to increase funding for the LIHEAP program.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I will take some time this morning to talk about why we need new clean air legislation. It has been some 15 years since Congress passed the last revisions to the Clean Air Act. No one disputes the fact that we have made significant environmental progress since that time, but our work is not over. Powerplants continue to blow pollution that causes smog and other air problems in our cities and our communities. Unless we require powerplants everywhere to reduce the amount of pollution they emit, we will continue to be faced with poor air quality and its dangerous side effects. The idea of reducing pollution from powerplants is not new. We have been discussing it for years. In fact, when President Bush first ran for the White House, he promised, in 2000, to make new clean air legislation one of his top environmental priorities. Since I came to the Senate in 2001, we have seen a number of proposals on how to proceed. Senator Jeffords offered his Clean Power Act. The President offered his Clear Skies Act. I, along with Senators Chafee, Gregg, and Alexander, offered a proposal that we call the Clean Air Planning Act. I have always believed that our proposal, the third proposal, is the right one. While I agree with the principles laid out in the bill by Senator Jeffords, I fear it will be too costly and its goals technologically unachievable. By contrast, the President's plan is too weak and would do nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide, which we believe contributes to global warming. What we crafted in response to these two proposals was a middle- ground approach, one that achieved the objectives of the Jeffords bill without relying on the command and control philosophies of the past. It is an approach that reduces pollution further and faster than the President has visualized, while giving utilities the flexibilities they need and the incentives they need to get the job done right. Since we first introduced that bill some 3 years ago, I have tried to get the EPA to conduct an objective scientific analysis of it and how it compares with other proposals. We were repeatedly denied. Earlier this year, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee tried to push through the President's Clear Skies bill. I again asked for an analysis of our proposal and the other proposals, and we were denied. The administration told me I had all the information I needed and there was no reason to further debate it. I told them without that information we could not negotiate. On March 8, Clear Skies was voted on in our committee and it failed on a 9-to-9 vote. Soon after the failure to pass out Clear Skies, President Bush nominated Stephen Johnson to be the new head of EPA. Stephen Johnson had impeccable credentials stemming from his long, distinguished career within the agency. In essence, Mr. Johnson represented the best person for the job. But when he came before our committee to have his nomination approved, I voted against him. I think I was the only one. Then I placed a hold on his nomination, something I have never done in my 5 years in the Senate. I don't have a problem with Stephen Johnson; I had a problem with the way the administration was politicizing EPA and keeping the agency from doing its job in providing the information that I and others were requesting. I believe we need this information in order to enable us to craft the best possible clean air bill. I didn't think it was too much to ask that we have a detailed, up-to-date modeling on how our bills would affect the economy, the health of our public, and our environment. My hold was eventually overridden, I think by two votes. But to my surprise, my pleasant surprise, once Stephen Johnson became administrator, he offered to model the economic, the health, and the environmental impact of the various clean air proposals. I say right now on the floor that I very much appreciate Stephen Johnson's willingness to grant my request. It says a lot about what kind of man he is, and that he is willing to break through the logjam in trying to meet our years-long request. Last month, on October 27, Stephen Johnson and some of his senior leadership from EPA delivered the analysis they have done. It is my hope their analysis from EPA will take the debate that has been going on for a number of years to the next level. After reviewing the details of the analysis, it clearly shows, perhaps ironically, that we can do better than the President's Clear Skies plan. In fact, it shows we can get much better environmental and health benefits than Clear Skies at only a slightly higher cost. On the issue of climate change, the analysis shows we can regulate carbon dioxide cheaply and without worrying that we will hurt coal production or drive up natural gas prices. Let me explain, using a few charts from the EPA analysis. The first chart, ``Projected Emissions From Electric Generating Units''--there are four of them. The first we will look at is sulfur dioxide emissions from electric generators. We have three proposals we can actually see. This yellow-golden line is a proposal called the Clean Power Act offered by Senator Jeffords. This line here is actually several lines that overlap, but it is Clear Skies and current law, the President's proposal. The green line here is the Clean Air Planning Act that Senators Chafee, Alexander, Gregg, and I had offered. This is 2005. This is where we are right now. If the legislation were adopted, you see a spike in sulfur dioxide emission from the Jeffords proposal. Then it drops down lower than the others. What you see here with sulfur dioxide emissions--the President's proposal is the same as current law. What you see here for the bipartisan proposal the other three Republicans and I offered is something that gets us deeper cuts in sulfur dioxide emissions, far deeper than the proposal of the administration, and far deeper than that of current law, and eventually somewhere in between where the Jeffords bill is and where the President's proposal is. Coming over here, looking at emissions of mercury from electric generators, we find the greatest cuts, the deepest cuts, come in 2010. They come from the Jeffords proposal, not surprisingly. The administration's proposals are right here--not much different from current law. The proposal that the three Republican Senators--Chafee, Alexander, Gregg--and myself offered is somewhere in between. Actually our cuts are a little deeper than in the Jeffords proposal between now and 2010, and his mercury cuts are a bit further than ours in the subsequent years. Right here, the third box here, let's look at nitrogen oxide emissions. Again, the deepest cuts are from the Jeffords proposal. The President's Clear Skies proposal--they are all sort of lumped together, and our bipartisan proposal does a little bit better with nitrogen oxide emissions. I think it is kind of interesting, for the nitrogen oxide emissions we are not that far apart. There is a considerable difference between us and the administration on sulfur dioxide and mercury, but we are pretty close together on nitrogen oxide. Here are CO2 emissions. The yellow line, the Jeffords proposals: some reductions between now and 2010, pretty level in the outyears. My proposal doesn't go as far, but it holds the CO2 emissions pretty level until the end of the next decade. Under the President's proposal, under Clear Skies and current law, CO2 levels continue to rise and emissions continue to rise. The next chart we are going to look at actually lets us see what the price is of reducing CO2 emissions. This for me was maybe the biggest surprise of all. In order to reduce emissions of CO2 by a ton starting in 2010, under the Jeffords proposal it is $16 a ton--pretty expensive. By 2020, to get a ton of CO2 reduction out of the Jeffords Clean Power Act--$27 a ton. But look at this. The proposal that Senators Chafee, Alexander, Gregg, and I offered, our proposal--one ton of CO2 reduction in 2010 costs $1. It is $1 per ton in 2015. It is $2 per ton in 2020. Given that low cost, my question to my colleagues and the administration is, What are we waiting for? Let's get started. We have a third proposal, a third chart here. The third chart actually looks at what we could get for our money, for our efforts on reducing areas of nonattainment for particulates, the microscopic stuff that gets in our lungs and causes all kinds of breathing disorders. Now we are looking at nondesignated areas that exist. There are about 40 of them around the country that are nonattainment for small particulate matter. Under the Carper proposal and under the Jeffords proposal, we reduce that almost by three-fourths, down to about 10 in each of those. The administration goes down about half. We continue to show considerably fewer nonattainment areas for particulate matter by 2020 under the Jeffords proposal, which is the lowest, and our proposal, which is next to the lowest. The second chart shows nonattainment areas for ozone. There are a lot of nonattainment areas right now--about 126. If you come up to 2010, there is a dramatic reduction. We go down to about 20. Frankly, the achievements are across the board. Each of the proposals is about the same with respect to reducing ozone. This chart lets us look at annual monetary health benefits of reducing fine particles and ozone. We find in 2010 that my proposal has quantifiable--according to the EPA--health benefits of about anywhere from $110 billion per year to almost $130 billion. That is almost twice what we get under the Clear Skies proposal and under current law; not quite as much as is achieved under the Jeffords proposal. We find in each of the outyears--2015 and 2020--we also have considerably better health benefits that we can demonstrate, in the view of the EPA, between 2010 and 2020. Let me wrap it up by saying that we can do better for our environment, we can do better for our health, and, frankly, I think we can do at least as well for our economy by taking this middle-ground approach that Senators Alexander, Gregg, Chafee, and I have outlined. In terms of health consequences alone, under our proposal, 10,000 fewer people will suffer from chronic bronchitis in 2010. Think about that--10,000 fewer people throughout this country in 1 year will suffer from chronic bronchitis. In 2010, we will see some 14,000 fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits. In 2010, there will be about 160,000 people who will no longer have asthma attacks in this country. And in 2010, companies will have over 1 million fewer lost workdays. These benefits are real. They will have a dramatic impact on the quality of people's lives, and they will have a dramatic impact on worker productivity as well. Since 2001, both Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over multipollutant legislation. Now with an apple-to-apple comparison of various proposals from EPA, I think we can have a process with not just meaningful legislation but that which will get us off the dime and get us to work on improving the quality of our health and doing it in a way that doesn't break the bank for consumers or the utility companies. Over the coming months, I will continue to work with my colleagues, the administration, the utility industry, and environmental groups to develop legislation that has strong bipartisan support. Early next year, we will reintroduce a new and I think improved Clean Air Planning Act, and soon after that I hope to sit down with my friend, Senator Voinovich, and others to develop a bipartisan compromise we can take through the committee and bring to the floor, hopefully, for action. There are five principles we should stick to if we want to get a clean air bill. Climate change must be addressed. As we have seen from EPA, it can be addressed for $1 a ton in reduction of CO2. We should start to improve the environment of people's health as quickly as possible. We can do that. We should provide industry with the regulatory certainty they need and which they have been asking for--and some flexibility, too. We should protect our economy. We should pass stronger protections than those which we already have on the books. I want to get legislation done. I came here to get things done, and I know my colleagues did, as well. I believe that together we can develop a proposal that will help us achieve just that. Again, we can do better. We shouldn't let politics get in the way of doing the right thing. I yield my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to set aside a moment to reflect on the life of Clifford Brown. He would have celebrated his 75th birthday this past October 30. Clifford was a man who made a remarkable contribution toward the world of music by his soulful playing of the trumpet. He was a truly talented man who dedicated his life to music and his family. Clifford was born on October 30, 1930, in Wilmington, DE. His father was a self-taught musician who kept several instruments around the house, including a bugle which young Clifford began playing at only 5 years old. He soon discovered the trumpet, which would change his life and the texture of jazz for all of eternity. At the age of 12, Clifford's father arranged for him to study with esteemed local music teacher Robert Lowery, also from Wilmington. Under Robert's tutelage, Clifford began to display the promise of his ability and develop his own style of playing. After studying with Mr. Lowery for 3 years, during which Clifford played in his teacher's dance band, Clifford moved his music education to Howard High School where he met Harry Andrews, the school's band and choral director. Mr. Andrews taught Clifford how to blend the free- flowing harmonies of jazz with the classical lines of more traditional music. This experience allowed Clifford to develop his own sound, which would be the starting point for his journey to greatness within the jazz community. His tutelage at Howard High School culminated with Clifford playing ``The Carnival of Venice'' as his graduation solo, which would be remembered by all who attended the ceremony. After graduation, Clifford obtained a music scholarship to study mathematics at the University of Delaware, which, at the time, did not have a music department. He later attended Maryland State College, where Clifford played and composed music for the college band. It was during this time that Clifford was to meet the other love of his life, LaRue Anderson. At the time, Ms. Anderson was doing a study on the psychology of music and had caught the eye of two future jazz greats, Charlie Parker and Max Roach, who were also acquaintances of Clifford Brown. Mr. Parker and Mr. Roach decided that Ms. Anderson and Clifford would make excellent companions, so they arranged for the two of them to meet. They met, fell in love, and later married. After recovering from severe injuries due to a traffic accident, Clifford traveled to Europe in 1953 with Lionel Hampton and his big band. Despite contractual obligations, Clifford used his free time to record various solo and group projects, which would propel him to the next level of musical recognition. In 1954, Clifford teamed up with fellow jazz great Max Roach to form the Clifford Brown--Max Roach Quintet which was quickly recognized as one of the most formidable collections of contemporary jazz talent. While touring the Nation with his quintet, Clifford Brown, who was only 25 years old at the time, died in a traffic accident on June 26, 1956. While the tragedy of his passing weighs heavy in our hearts, we are truly blessed that Clifford's musical genius survives in the sounds of modern jazz trumpeters everywhere. His widow LaRue Brown Watson passed away October 2, 2005. It is difficult to refute that Clifford's rare combination of musical intelligence and immense emotional range changed the landscape of modern jazz forever. Fortunately for music lovers everywhere, Clifford's work has been immortalized on numerous recordings, almost any of which can be safely recommended as superior examples of what the jazz trumpet was meant to sound like. I rise today to commemorate Clifford Brown, his life, and his outstanding musical legacy.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I would like to thank Senator Lott and Senator Lautenberg for working so hard to find a way for this important legislation to be considered by the Senate. The lack of authorizing language governing Amtrak--and all the entities with oversight over the railroad--has lead to sporadic, uncoordinated, and often contradictory actions by the administration, the Amtrak board of directors, and Congress. The year began with the President proposing to reform Amtrak through bankruptcy. Thankfully, this was answered by strong support for continued stable Amtrak funding in the House. And here in the Senate, we have provided $1.45 billion for the railroad in fiscal year 2006, allowing Amtrak to continue their capital improvement program. Much of this capital improvement program is designed to bring the Northeast corridor into a state of good repair. This is so badly needed because the Federal Government has ignored its responsibility to maintain the corridor for decades. There were also several authorizing provisions in the transportation spending bill, including language addressing food service and State contributions to the Northeast corridor. While these provisions were removed on the Senate floor, they were initially included because of strong interest in improving Amtrak service and making the railroad work better. We may disagree on how to reform Amtrak, but that is the motivation. And we turn to appropriations bills when there is no opportunity to consider a more comprehensive reauthorization bill. Adding to the confusion, the Amtrak board of directors proposed their own reform package last spring. But since then, the board has changed direction on some issues. For example, the board claimed in their reform package that separating the Northeast corridor from the rest of the railroad's operations would be too complex and would not improve operations. Then in late September, that same board adopted a resolution calling for the creation of a wholly owned subsidiary to manage the Northeast corridor infrastructure. It is clearly time to pass a new reauthorization bill and set out a comprehensive, steady policy for Amtrak. An Senator Lott and Senator Lautenberg have introduced an excellent one. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, S. 1516, was passed by the Commerce Committee in July by a vote of 17 to 4. It has strong bipartisan and broad geographical support, including Senators from Alaska to Hawaii and Delaware to Montana. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act would reduce Amtrak's operating subsidies by 40 percent but would also authorize capital funding for the States to invest in passenger rail infrastructure. This is modeled on the incredibly successful system we employ to support our highway and airport infrastructure. Through the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, we hope Act, we hope to create a national rail policy that allows Governors to make transportation decisions for their States based on what the State needs, rather than which mode of transportation is more highly subsidized by the Federal Government. This is essential if we are going to have an integrated and efficient national transportation system. I wish this legislation could have been considered on its own. But it has been 3 years since the last authorization bill expired, and it is time Congress prioritize our Nation's passenger rail system. We need to move this legislation quickly or continued confusion is likely at Amtrak. This confusion reduces the railroad's ability to provide good service, troubles creditors and riders, leads to short- term decision making and deferred maintenance, and costs the Federal Government more in the long run. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. CARPER. The last time I came to the floor to discuss the benefits of reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules, I related to everyone the theory of holes. As much as I like talking about Dennis Healey, who used to be Great Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was hoping that I wouldn't have to again remind my Senate colleagues of his wisdom. The theory of holes is simple. It says, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Not only are we still digging, we also seem to be digging more furiously, taking ourselves to new fiscal depths. Last year, we dug our way to a $319 billion budget deficit, which is the third worst deficit in the history of our country. That number, by itself, is a clear indicator of our current fiscal misfortunes. What is more telling is that number--again, a $319 billion deficit-- was hailed as good news by some in the current administration. Why? Well, because, at the beginning of the year, everyone expected the deficit to be over $400 billion. An improvement from worse to bad is still bad. It is no wonder that many Americans think Washington, DC is no longer in touch with reality. Where they live--in towns large and small across Delaware and across America--this kind of fiscal recklessness is not an option. To the contrary, the vast majority of the people we serve strive to live by two simple rules: Live within your means and pay as you go. In turn, families demand that their State and local governments live by the same rules. We in Congress used to live by those same rules. Unfortunately, they were allowed to expire in 2002. We have been close to reinstating pay-as-you-go budgeting on two occasions since 2002. A year ago, the Senate voted to reinstate it. Unfortunately, it did not survive conference and was dropped out of the final compromise. Then, earlier this year, we fell one vote short of again passing pay-as-you-go budgeting. With this amendment, Senator Conrad is giving us another opportunity to again live within our means and to pay for the things we find worth doing. Pay-as-you-go budgeting requires that proposals to increase spending would have to be offset, either by cutting other spending or by raising revenue. Likewise, if I were to propose a tax cut, I would have to come up with an offset to make sure the hole we are in was not dug deeper. Pay-as-you-go budgeting served us well during the 12-year period it was in force. And, it is important to note that during that time it applied to both the spending and tax sides of the ledger. That kind of across-the-board fiscal discipline eventually lead to our eliminating the deficit, establishing budget surpluses and even beginning to pay down a significant portion of the publicly held debt. That is not a bad record. In fact, it is a good one. And, it looks especially good when compared to our current period of record deficits and a national debt of over $8 trillion. We cannot continue down the fiscal path we are currently on. A fiscal policy based on cutting taxes, on increasing spending and then on borrowing whatever is needed to make up the difference cannot be sustained. Moreover, today's borrow-and-spend policies are as immoral as they are unsustainable. We are running up bills that will be left for our children and grandchildren to pay. However, we still have time to do the right thing. We still have time to begin to put our fiscal house in order. Voting for Senator Conrad's amendment to reinstate pay-as-you-go budgeting would be a good start to that end. amendment no. 2352

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, when I was governor of Delaware I was guided by a principle I learned years ago--if something is worth doing, it's worth paying for. I served from 1993 to 2001, and we balanced the budget every year I was in office. The principle of paying for the things that are worth doing is not always easy to follow. In fact, sometimes it's quite difficult. It's especially difficult when we face the choice of how to fund important programs that we know provide vital services. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, is one of these important programs. I believe that LIHEAP is worth funding and I think it's worth paying for. And we need to pay for it because we are now in the unfortunate situation of having been saddled with record budget deficits for as far as the eye can see. Unfortunately, more often than not, the current administration has shown us the opposite of good fiscal leadership. Instead of sticking to the motto, ``if it's worth doing, it's worth paying for,'' this administration has chosen to cut taxes and increase spending more than any other administration in the past 30 years. The result: record budget deficits and a bleak fiscal outlook. This administration has turned the largest budget surplus in history into the largest deficits in history. It is for these reasons that we must consider how to pay for increased funding for this vital program and for others as well. The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee took an important step toward providing adequate LIHEAP funds by including $2.183 billion in their fiscal year 2006 committee- reported bill. This represents a small increase over last year's funding levels. This is a good starting point. However, we know that energy prices are rising and household heating bills will rise accordingly this winter. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, consumers who heat their homes with natural gas prices--about 55 percent of U.S. households--are expected to see their heating bills rise by 48 percent this winter. Those who heat with oil will pay 32 percent more, those who heat with propane will pay 30 percent more, and those who heat with electricity will pay 5 percent more. For that reason, I contacted the Appropriations Committee in September to express the need for increased funding. I urged that they provide $1.276 billion in emergency LIHEAP funding as part of a comprehensive supplemental appropriations bill to address Hurricane Katrina and the effects it has had on energy production and the cost of energy for U.S. consumers. This additional funding would provide an approximately 60 percent increase over fiscal year 2005 levels. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the opportunity to consider a Katrina supplemental and during the week of October 24, 2005 we were faced with the choice of how to increase funds for LIHEAP as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I am not comfortable supporting a $3.1 billion increase in LIHEAP funding if it is not offset by either a reduction in spending or an increase in revenues. I believe that we can increase funds for LIHEAP but I also believe that we need to pay for it. As a result, I worked with my colleague, Senator Ben Nelson to search for ways to achieve enough savings to pay for additional funding for the LIHEAP program in fiscal year 2006. Senator Nelson and I filed an amendment on October 26, 2005 to increase LIHEAP funding by $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2006. This would provide a 73 percent increase in funding over fiscal year 2005 levels. The increase would be offset with $1.6 billion from three tax provisions that either close tax loopholes or clarify and bring greater consistency to current law. We believe that these offsets are balanced--all three have gained support in the Senate in the past--and we believe that our colleagues could support their use as an offset for the LIHEAP program. I would like to add even more funding to LIHEAP, but with the offsets Senator Nelson and I were able to identify, we were able to file an amendment that would increase funds by $1.6 billion. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to vote on the Carper/ Nelson amendment during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I will continue to search for ways to increase LIHEAP funding and likewise will continue to search for additional offsets to help pay for such an increase. I believe in the LIHEAP program; I believe it serves a vital function in helping as many as 5 million low-income households who need a bit of help paying their energy bills or weatherizing their homes. However, I also believe that as Americans, we can and must find ways to pay for our priorities. LIHEAP is worth funding, and it's worth paying for.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. While it is certainly reasonable to house evacuees in hotels on a short-term basis, this situation is simply unacceptable nearly 2 months after Katrina struck the coast. I am told that real estate and housing experts have pointed out that perhaps hundreds of thousands of suitable and likely much more affordable apartments could be had throughout the gulf coast region. I am certain that they could probably be had for significantly less than the cost of a hotel room. In addition, the Washington Post recently reported that a joint FEMA- HUD rental assistance program is likely wasting millions of dollars. In at least some cases, the program is not doing much to help evacuees in some parts of the country find suitable housing. Each evacuee participating in the voucher program, according to the Post, initially receives a subsidy amount based on the national median rent for 3 months. In some parts of the country, such as Houston, the national median rent probably isn't enough to find suitable housing. In other communities, it might be more than enough. This means that Katrina evacuees in some parts of the country may be getting more assistance than they need, and those in higher cost areas might not be getting what they need to provide for their families. It has been suggested that the solution to the housing crisis in the gulf might be to place evacuees in trailers or some other form of manufactured housing. But I have heard reports that FEMA is buying many of its trailers straight off the lot at retail prices. I have also heard that there are thousands of trailers just sitting around unoccupied in vacant lots. We have all heard stories about how miserable some of the trailer camps are to live in that FEMA has set up in places like Florida. We can do better than this. FEMA owes it to Katrina victims and to the American taxpayers to find a more comfortable, less expensive way to house our fellow Americans who are going through such a difficult time right now. That is why I am sending a letter today to Acting FEMA Director David Paulison to ask him to tell us exactly what FEMA's plan is to get Katrina evacuees out of hotels and into more stable living environments so that they can begin the process of bringing their lives as close to normal as possible. The problems and the waste we are seeing in FEMA's Katrina housing program remind me yet again that we need to do some work to ensure that the money we are spending to help Katrina victims is spent wisely and effectively. To date we have approved in the Congress $62 billion for Katrina. More money will probably be needed, but given the number of stories we see almost on a daily basis now about financial mismanagement, about confusion at FEMA, and the Department of Homeland Security, we should not be writing a blank check. A recovery effort this large needs additional oversight to make sure the money we are spending is going to the people who need it most, to make sure we eliminate wasteful spending and get the most bang for our buck, and to make sure we reduce the potential for fraud. It is my understanding that we are not sure what legislation is coming to the floor next week. I have a suggestion. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, approved two bills a couple of weeks ago that I believe are desperately needed to make sure Katrina recovery funds are spent properly and go to the people who are most in need. One of the bills we passed would appoint a chief financial officer to oversee the day-to-day use of Federal funds in the cleanup and reconstruction efforts underway in the gulf. I cosponsored this legislation with Senator Coburn of Oklahoma and Senator Obama of Illinois. It enjoys bipartisan support, including the cosponsorship, I believe, of both the Republican leader and Democratic leader of the Senate. The chief financial officer would oversee the various Federal agencies involved in the recovery efforts and hold them financially accountable. The CFO would be Congress's personal watchdog, issuing periodic financial reports about whether the money is going to the people who need it the most and whether it is being used to hire local workers who need jobs. The second bill would expand the authority of the inspector general assigned to Iraq reconstruction to oversee the Katrina recovery efforts. The expanded office would audit recovery operations and investigate allegations of waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Together, these two bills would better protect American taxpayers and bring some much-needed accountability to the recovery efforts. We shouldn't settle for the stories we see in the papers every day about the lack of decent housing for Katrina victims or the lack of competition for Federal contracts. We shouldn't read stories about waste and resign ourselves to the fact that waste is just something that happens in the Federal Government. We can do better, and we must. We owe it to the American taxpayers to do better, and we owe it to Katrina's victims to do better. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss how we could be doing better in our response to Hurricane Katrina. I just spoke with one of Louisiana's Senators coming over to the Chamber to speak, and the word that I heard with respect to the situation on the ground, particularly the response of FEMA to the ongoing crisis, was discouraging. We can do better. We have to be able to do better for the people there and for those who are footing the bill, the taxpayers. Hurricane Katrina was truly an unprecedented event. It was in all likelihood the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. It was certainly the worst natural disaster I have witnessed in my lifetime. I can understand then that there might be some mistakes made, that there might not be easy solutions to some of the problems faced by millions of Americans directly affected by this storm. But I believe there are too many key areas where we have experienced clear failures that just cannot be shrugged off. We have all heard about the slow initial response to the storm. We have also heard about the no-bid contracts that probably weren't necessary. But I am going to speak for a few minutes today about a truly distressing failure that is leading to hardship among Katrina evacuees and is also wasting a lot of Federal taxpayer dollars. As my colleagues are aware, hundreds of thousands of gulf coast residents have seen their homes severely damaged. Too many have seen them completely destroyed. Many of these people are still living far away from home, with little or no hope of returning to their communities any time soon, if ever. FEMA has moved swiftly in recent weeks to move Katrina evacuees out of temporary mass shelters that we saw in places such as the Astrodome in Houston. The problem is that many evacuees are still living in hotels today, waiting for FEMA to move them to longer term temporary housing. There have been a number of media reports recently that FEMA is currently spending millions of dollars every day to house hundreds of thousands of these evacuees in hotels around our country. The total cost of this program, according to the Washington Post this morning, will likely approach $200 million by the end of this month alone. Worse yet, FEMA has apparently not even been keeping track of the number of evacuees in hotels. I ask unanimous consent that several articles on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words while we are contemplating the Transportation appropriations bill. A special thanks to our ranking Democrat and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for the work that their staff and others on the subcommittee have done. One of my primary issues of interest is energy independence. This is an issue that, in this Nation today, we all have to be interested in. Today, roughly 60 percent of the oil we will use to drive our cars, trucks, and vans will be from foreign sources. A lot of the oil is controlled by people who, frankly, are not that friendly to us and some of whom, I am convinced, would do us ill if they had the opportunity. Meanwhile, as we pump more and more money out of our economy into the hands of folks in other countries, who may or may not wish us well, we need to pause and reflect on the wisdom of that. One of the elements in this Transportation appropriations bill is money to continue to fund passenger rail service in this country. I will talk for a moment about whether that is an energy-efficient approach to part of our transportation challenge. We are gathered in Washington, DC. Believe it or not, we can move one ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC, where we are located, up to Boston, MA, using one gallon of diesel fuel by train. Think of that. We can move one ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, by simply using one gallon of diesel fuel. In a day and age when almost 60 percent of the oil we use is from foreign sources, to be able to have that efficiency using rail--whether for freight or, in many cases, by passenger--we are wise to more fully utilize that transportation mode. Today we were having a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, where I serve, as does Senator Bond. We were having a hearing on the question of whether or not we should make it easier for folks to locate a refinery, to build a refinery on military bases that have been made available through the BRAC process. While we go forward and explore that option, I suggested to my colleagues and to those who were witnesses before the committee today that we might be wise, as we again try to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to take a look to the south of our country, down to Brazil, to see what they are doing to reduce their reliance on foreign oil. In Brazil, they have learned how to meet, in an increasing way, their need to drive their cars, trucks, and vans not by importing oil, not by pumping oil but by growing sugarcane, soybeans, in some cases corn, grass, different kinds of grass, and being able to transform those crops into fuel for their cars, trucks, and vans. I understand now over a quarter of the fuel needs of Brazilians, as they are driving around their country today and tonight, are met by the crops they grow. I am proud to say, in Delaware, during the time I was privileged to be their Governor, we decided to try an experiment with our DelDOT vehicles. The experiment was one where we said, Why don't we use a combination of soybean oil--we raise a lot of soybeans in Delaware--use some of our soybean oil and mix it with diesel fuel and see if it works in powering our DelDOT vehicles. It worked fine and it ran well. Actually, there were environmental consequences: The air pollution consequences were better with the mixture of soybean oil and diesel fuel, and we reduced our reliance on oil to some extent. That experiment has given way to a broader experiment in our State, where we use a combination of soybean oil and diesel fuel to power an ever broader number of vehicles that are diesel powered, including farm equipment and I believe now some schoolbuses and other larger trucks. We are building a refinery in Delaware today. It is not a traditional kind of refinery. We have a big oil refinery along the Delaware River in a town called Delaware City. This is a refinery where we are going to bring soybeans to the refinery and create, again, a blend of soybean oil and diesel fuel to help power those DelDOT vehicles and other vehicles normally diesel powered. In the next year or so, new EPA requirements for cleaner, leaner, low-burning emission diesel engines will be phased in, Tier II requirements. As we face those requirements, we will find that diesel- powered vehicles, which used to belch black smoke pulling away from intersections and traffic lights, leaving a huge black plume of particulate and pollutants--those days are, at least with respect to new vehicles on the road, those days will be gone for the most part next year. We will see more diesel-powered vehicles which, in many cases in the future, will be clean burning, as lean burning, as low emission as our internal gas-powered engines that can take advantage of the refinery we are building north of Dover, DE, and other folks that are building similar biodiesel refineries in their own States. We did a couple smart things in the Energy bill that we enacted early this year. They also relate to enhancing our ability to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have expanded the tax credit for people who buy hybrid-powered vehicles, a combination of internal combustion engine with the electric motor. Under current law, the tax credit for people buying hybrids is about $1,000, a flat $1,000. I don't believe it is bigger if you have a vehicle that gets 60 miles per gallon as opposed to one that gets 30. The tax credit for hybrid-powered vehicles will change on January 1. Beginning that day, people who buy a hybrid-powered vehicle, ones that are highly energy efficient, get a tax credit worth up to as much as $3,400. For hybrid engine vehicles that are less energy efficient, the tax credit goes down. Similarly, we are going to begin to offer, on January 1 of next year, a tax credit--again, a variable tax credit--for folks who buy lean- burning, clean-burn, low-emission, highly fuel-efficient diesel-fueled vehicles. The head of Daimler Chrysler in North America, Juergen Schrempp, will head up Daimler Chrysler around the world and was here hosting a reception off of Capitol Hill and brought with him folks from Daimler Chrysler. Vehicles were, in some cases, internal combustion engines and other cases diesel powered. He brought with him a concept passenger car. They have not built it yet but they are hoping. My hope is that they will. The vehicle gets 60 miles per gallon in the city and 80 miles per gallon on the highway. The combination overall is about 70 miles per gallon. The vehicle will meet Tier II diesel requirements for lower emissions, as well. We have seen our friends from GM and Daimler Chrysler create a partnership early this year for developing the next generation of hybrid-powered vehicles. My hope is that one of the concepts they will come up with, one of the engines and power systems they will come up with, is something that marries together this notion of a low-emissions, highly energy efficient diesel-powered engine with an electric engine. It will be a diesel hybrid. GM has already introduced that kind of technology quite successfully with respect to buses. We have thousands of buses that are now roaming the streets of America that are diesel powered but also have a hybrid counterpart, too, to provide better efficiency and lower emissions. I think it would be terrific for consumers and those of us who are interested in cleaner air and for those of us who are interested in reducing our reliance on foreign oil to take that same concept of a diesel engine with an electric hybrid motor--putting them together--and being able to introduce that kind of propulsion system in our cars, trucks, and vans, as we have--at least by GM--in larger vehicles. Nobody in this country should be comfortable with the state we find ourselves in today, with this huge and growing reliance on foreign oil. We can do better. On behalf of all of us in this country, and especially our kids, the folks to whom we are leaving our trade deficit and our budget deficit, we have to do better than this. About a quarter of our trade deficit is attributable to the cost of oil, the importation of oil. We cannot continue on a course, in my view, that has $300 billion or $400 billion budget deficits and $600 billion or $700 billion trade deficits. That is not sustainable. One of the ways we can at least take a big bite out of that trade deficit is to move toward energy independence, maybe by the year 2020--it would be great if we could do it sooner; that may not be realistic--but at least by 2020. With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time and thank the Chair. notice of intent

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the selection of Booker T. Washington Elementary School as a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Award recipient. This prestigious honor is awarded to exemplary schools that meet one of two criteria. The nominated school must have at least 40 percent of a nominated school's student population come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and each segment--including Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, low-income and special education students must show scholastic improvement, or the school must score in the top 10 percent on State achievement tests. This is a well deserved honor for Booker T. Washington Elementary School, attesting to years of tireless commitment that this school, as well as the First State, brings to educating our youth. Booker T. Washington Elementary School is located in historic Dover, DE, the State's Capital. The school was founded in 1919 to serve approximately 240 African-American children from two schools in the downtown Dover area. Today, the school serves approximately 350 students. Booker T. Washington's student body is now comprised of 56 percent African American, 2 percent Asian American, 8 percent Hispanic, and 34 percent Caucasian students. Twenty-three percent of the students are identified as special needs students. Approximately 9 percent of the students have limited English proficiency. Forty-four percent of the students qualify as low income. The school's small size and culturally rich student and staff population enhance the educational and social-emotional growth of the children and affords the school the opportunity to personalize the learning experience for the children. The mission of Booker T. Washington is to offer the best educational program possible in order to develop the mind and character of each child. To accomplish this mission, the school has established a firm foundation in the core subject areas. Led by Principal Marcia Johnson, they have established high expectations for all children and communicate these expectations daily in the staffs' work with them. Booker T. Washington provides an environment that celebrates and promotes understanding of self and others, and expects that everyone will behave in a manner that represents the standards that have been set for the school community. Booker T. Washington has established close working relationships with the parents and the community and depends on their support to help the school meet its goals. Booker T. Washington's primary program nurtures the continuing growth of children's knowledge and understanding of themselves and their world. The remarkable growth of all children over the past 5 years is evident in the decreases in the achievement gaps between all subgroups of children served in the school. Not only is this school meeting yearly targets for all subgroups set by the State and capital school district, but they are also moving more children into higher achievement levels. The growth that children have made is also a direct result of staff members' use of data to make instructional decisions and their willingness to change their instructional practices by participating in professional development activities based on best practices. Collaborative decisionmaking and the participation of parents and the community in the decisionmaking process have added to Booker T. Washington's success. The faculty and staff view themselves as a work in progress. They understand how far they have come over the past 5 years to change the community's perception of their school and to provide instructional activities that will move children toward the goals the district, State, and No Child Left Behind legislation have set for them as learners. Five years ago, there were vast differences in student achievement in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. Today, although some discrepancies remain, the gap has narrowed significantly and continues to close. The school's selection as a national blue ribbon school is a testament to their hard work and dedication. Delaware is a small State, but we are building a growing record of achievement in public school education. Helping lead the way are the students at Booker T. Washington Elementary School, along with their teachers and parents. Collectively, they are truly an inspiration to other schools and communities in Delaware and throughout our Nation. Today we also celebrate the selection of Long Neck Elementary School as a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Award recipient. This prestigious honor is awarded to exemplary schools that meet one of two criteria. The nominated school must have at least 40 percent of a nominated school's student population come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and each segment--including Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, low-income and special education students--must show scholastic improvement, or the school must score in the top 10 percent on State achievement tests. This is a well deserved honor for Long Neck Elementary School, attesting to years of tireless commitment that this school, as well as the First State, brings to educating our youth. It is also the fourth elementary school from the Indian River School District to receive this national recognition, a remarkable accomplishment for any school district. It is not surprising that such an award is bestowed upon a school committed to the philosophy that all students can achieve academic success. The teachers and staff at Long Neck Elementary, led by Principal Charlynne Hopkins, are steadfast in their schoolwide goal that all students are expected to meet Delaware's academic standards. Furthermore, Long Neck Elementary is dedicated to encouraging students to not only meet these standards but to exceed them regardless of their limitations. Long Neck Elementary School is located in the rural town of Millsboro, DE. The school is composed of a large percentage of students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Over half of the school's 522 students receive free or reduced-price lunches. Long Neck Elementary houses a diverse population of students from prekindergarten to the fifth grade. The racially diverse student body includes students from all ethnic backgrounds, including African American, Hispanic, and American Indian. In addition, Long Neck Elementary has an academically diverse student population. The school offers an EXCEL program for high achieving students as well as an intensive learning center and other special education services for struggling learners. It is by combining the efforts of the entire school family that the needs of students at Long Neck Elementary are met and exceeded. At Long Neck Elementary, the school family consists of parents, teachers, support staff and community members, all working together collaboratively for the benefit and growth of its students. An active and continually growing parent teacher organization there works to enable parents to support their school and their children. In addition, parents and community members partner with the school through its Creative Mentoring program, classroom volunteer opportunities, an ``adopt a class'' program, and a weekly career corner on the Long Neck Elementary School's televised news program. Lastly, the school improvement committee, which consists of staff, parents, and community members, identifies and allocates resources to enhance achievement for all students. At Long Neck Elementary, students are not only challenged academically. They are also expected to demonstrate model behavior. Good citizenship is reinforced through a character education program where students are honored monthly with certificates and medals for demonstrating the six pillars of good character which promotes making positive choices and becoming a productive member of society. No school could achieve the gains and progress Long Neck Elementary has met without having a staff that believes every child can learn and who are committed to providing students opportunities to reach their fullest potential. Long Neck Elementary has implemented professional learning communities where teachers work closely together, both within and across grade levels, to promote learning. All members of the staff assist students in improving their academic performances, increasing the likelihood that they will find success through their school years and go on to become productive and active members of society. This is done through after school programs, differentiated instruction, and extra support programs. In addition, instructional staff members participate in numerous learning-focused professional development activities, which enable them to provide students with instructional strategies that are sound and research-based. Tirelessness of staff and parents at Long Neck Elementary have made possible real progress in closing that school's achievement gap. Along with the National Blue Ribbon Schools Award, the school also earned ``Superior'' rating from the State of Delaware in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Long Neck Elementary School is a school that demonstrates that all students can learn. The school's selection as a national blue ribbon school is a testament to their hard work and dedication. Delaware is a small State, but we are building a growing record of achievement in public school education. Helping lead the way are the students at Long Neck Elementary School, along with their teachers and parents. Collectively, they are truly an inspiration to other schools and communities in Delaware and throughout our Nation.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, folks who might be watching this debate across the country may be wondering what this is all about. Let me try to simplify it as best I can. Over the last month or so, the Congress has appropriated some $61 billion to be used to assist in the reconstruction, the aid, and the housing of a lot of people whose lives have been disrupted and in some cases destroyed. There are a number of cities, towns, and jurisdictions within that region where their revenue base--the ability to raise taxes and to provide essential services--is gone. Of that $61 billion, FEMA is not authorized to extend or lend that money to those cities or towns or jurisdictions without our authorization. The legislation that is before us today would authorize the movement of about $750 million from FEMA to be able to lend that money to some of these cities, towns, parishes, and jurisdictions so that hospitals can be helped and police, fire services, and other services can be extended even though the revenue base has dried up under all of this water. Historically, when FEMA has been given the authority to extend this money, to lend money to other communities, other cities, other States, the loans have in some cases been forgiven. It did not require an act of Congress to do that. It did not require any particular action by OMB or certification by OMB to do that. It occurred under the law. The loans were forgiven. Senator Levin mentioned earlier that a number of jurisdictions, a number of local government borrowers borrowed money extended through FEMA to help these communities in their most tough times, in Idaho, in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arizona, and others. They did not have to come and ask for an act of Congress to get that forgiveness. They didn't have to go to OMB and say please forgive this loan. The loans were forgiven. Senator Clinton spoke a bit earlier as well and talked about the generous assistance that the taxpayers of this country provided to New York City on the heels of 9/11. Mr. President, $20 billion was the amount of money, almost a direct infusion. I thought it was loan. For all these years I thought it was a loan that was forgiven. I was wrong. It was a grant--just a gift to the people of New York as they struggled to recover from their tragedy. The tragedy that has fallen on the folks along the gulf coast is every bit as bad for a lot of them as what happened in New York on 9/ 11. Yet we are not prepared to provide a grant to those communities, those cities, so they can provide essential services. Frankly, none of us are calling for doing that. FEMA has all this money we provided them. Absent some legislation today, they are not able to extend any of that money to help these communities and cities. The legislation is designed to say we are going to allow FEMA to extend those loans. But unlike the way we treated New York, which got a grant, not a loan, and unlike the loans that were extended to all the communities listed on this sheet of paper whose loans were forgiven and did not even require our action or OMB's forgiveness, we say with respect to the folks on the gulf coast: We are not going to forgive your loan. Carl Levin--Senator Levin--and I spent a good deal of time last night trying to put together a compromise. I appreciate very much the cooperation of Senator Landrieu to help find that compromise and Senator Vitter and certainly Senator Frist. Senator Levin and I, at the midnight hour last night, were down in the House and found Congressman Lewis, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and said to him: What if we provide a change in language in this bill so, in order to forgive a loan that FEMA would make under the authorization of this bill, it would require an act of Congress? The Senate and House and President would have to concur in that forgiveness. He said he thought that was a reasonable idea and thought even the House might go along with that. I am disappointed to hear this morning that is not going to happen. Senator Frist, last night in conversation after midnight with Senator Levin and me, said he thought that was a reasonable idea. He couldn't commit himself to make it happen, but he thought that was a reasonable approach, and, frankly, I do, too. For the life of me, I do not see why that is not acceptable. If we were to include language--and we are not going to get the chance do this because Senator Levin's amendment is not going to be made in order, but if we were to include language that said an act of Congress was required in order to forgive loans made by FEMA to these jurisdictions in their hour of need, that is a very high standard. It is a standard we never set for these communities. It is a standard we never set for New York. The greatest irony to me is, going back, we didn't require an act of Congress or intervention of OMB to enable the forgiveness of these loans. Going forward, as I read the legislation--going forward, if you are from Delaware or from Michigan or if you are from Georgia and your communities seek a loan from FEMA in a similar situation, an emergency, moneys that have been authorized and appropriated, you don't have to get an act of Congress to have that loan forgiven. You don't have to get any special approval from OMB so the loan can be forgiven. It can be forgiven. Yet in this case, with respect to the Gulf Coast States, we do not allow that to happen. Going back in time and going forward in time it looks to me as if we protect the rest of us. We allow for the loans to be forgiven for the other 49 States or 48 States. But not in this case. That does not make sense. That does not make sense. As we move to pass the legislation, I echo what some of my other colleagues have said. We can do better. When we have an opportunity to return, in a week or so, my earnest hope is that we will do better. In closing, I say to my friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu, it has been an honor to stand by her side in this struggle. The people of Louisiana are fortunate to have Senators with that kind of passion and care for them. I hope, as we go forward working with Senator Vitter, we can get to an outcome that is fair to the people you represent. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 5 minutes.

Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CARPER

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

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 1 hour of time of debate be yielded to Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, those of us who are privileged to serve in the Senate literally cast thousands of votes during the years we spend here. Some votes are procedural in nature and of little consequence. Others are far more meaningful. Katrina relief, pension reform, and trade agreements come to mind. Once in a great while, though, we are called upon in this body to cast a vote of such importance to our Nation that it will resonate for years to come--whether to authorize the use of military force against another nation or whether to impeach a President. There are few votes, however, we will cast in our time here that are likely to leave a more lasting impact on America than the one we will cast tomorrow morning. In confirming the nomination of John Roberts--something that is all but certain--we not only will authorize him to serve as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, we will also make him the leader of the judicial branch of our Government. God willing, he will hold that post for as long as most of us in the Senate are likely to live. A great deal is riding on this vote for our country and its people, both today and for a long time to come. For many of us, this one is a close call. Understandable concerns have been raised on a number of fronts about what kind of Chief Justice John Roberts ultimately will make. Do the writings of a young man in his twenties reflect the views of this 50-year-old man today? If not, why was he reluctant to clearly say so publicly when given that opportunity? Why did the current administration refuse to allow any scrutiny of the writings of Judge Roberts from when he served as the No. 2 person in the Solicitor General's Office of former President Bush? What direction would Chief Justice Roberts seek to lead the Supreme Court in the coming years on issues relating to privacy, to civil rights, and to the prerogatives of the Congress to set policy that may be at odds with the views of State and local governments? How will Judge Roberts seek to interpret and apply the Constitution and a wide variety of laws, both State and Federal? Will the Roberts Court respect precedent or aggressively seek to establish new ones? The honest answer to most of these questions is that none of us really know for sure--not the President, probably not even Judge Roberts himself. That uncertainty explains at least in part why this vote is so difficult for many Members of this body. So we are asked to make a leap of faith. For some, that leap is large. For others, it is not. For myself, I have decided to take that leap of faith. After a great deal of deliberation, conversations with many Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as with others back home and here, I have decided to vote tomorrow to confirm the nomination of John Roberts to serve as our Nation's Chief Justice. Time will determine the wisdom of that decision, along with the decisions of each of our colleagues who join me in casting our votes tomorrow. Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting with Judge Roberts in my office. There, we discussed many of the concerns and question marks I mentioned just a few minutes ago. His responses were forthright. They were insightful. And I believe they were sincere. Our conversation also provided me with insights into how a young man from a small town in Indiana could grow up, attend Harvard, become one of the most admired lawyers in America, be nominated for the Supreme Court, not once but twice, and then sit through 3 days of often grueling questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, responding calmly and respectfully to questions on a wide range of legal issues without the benefit of any notes or even a pad of paper. Judge Roberts and I spoke with one another at length about our respective childhoods and of our parents and the roles they played in our lives and the values they instilled in us and in our siblings. We also talked about our educational opportunities, our careers, our mentors, our spouses, and even about the children we were raising. It was a revealing and encouraging conversation. It was a revealing and encouraging conversation in that it provided me with important insights into his personal values and with a measure of reassurance on the direction he may ultimately seek to lead the highest Court of our land. I shared with him that in the 8 years before coming to the Senate, I served as Governor of Delaware. In that role, I nominated dozens of men and women to serve as judges in our State courts, several of whom enjoy national prominence given my State's role in business and corporate law. Ironically, and I think wisely, Delaware's Constitution requires overall political balance on our State's courts. For every Democrat who is nominated to serve as a judge, Delaware Governors must nominate a Republican, and vice versa. The result has been an absence of political infighting and a national reputation for Delaware's State judiciary regarded by some as the finest of any State in our land. The qualities I sought in the judicial nominees I submitted to the Delaware State Senate included these: unimpeachable integrity, a thorough understanding of the law, a keen intellect, a willingness to listen to both sides of a case, excellent judicial temperament, sound judgment, and a strong work ethic. In applying those standards to Judge Roberts, I believe he meets or exceeds all of them. To my knowledge, no one has questioned his integrity, his intellect, or his knowledge of the law. Democrats and Republicans alike watched, along with a national audience, as Judge Roberts fielded any number of tough questions over the 3 days of hearings and responded knowledgeably, respectfully, with humility, and occasionally with self-deprecating good humor. In all candor, I am not sure any of us would have done as well. Having said that, though, questions and doubts remain about where Chief Justice Roberts will come down on a number of issues-- reproductive rights, civil rights, and respect for congressional prerogatives, to mention a few. I might add that, if truth be known, all of those doubters are not liberal Democrats. Some of them are conservative Republicans. The answers to these questions will come in the years ahead as Chief Justice Roberts assumes this important post and begins to lead this Court and the judicial branch of our Government. In the end, some of the decisions he helps to formulate may surprise and confound people on all sides of the political spectrum. That is something one of his earliest mentors, Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, has done for years. Let me pause and ask my colleagues today to think back just for a moment. How many of us would ever have imagined that a Texas Congressman and Senator with Lyndon Johnson's early civil rights record would go on to champion the civil rights of minorities like no other American President in the 20th century? Who among us, watching former Representative and Senator Richard Nixon, a Cold War warrior for decades, would have foreseen the role he played in opening the door for U.S. relations with Communist China? Then, too, recall, if you will, the loathing many conservatives came to feel toward the late Chief Justice Earl Warren, a nominee of President Eisenhower, or the disdain many liberals came to feel toward former Justice ``Whizzer'' White, a nominee of President Kennedy. The truth is that life and its experiences do change us and some of our views in ways that cannot always be predicted. Having children of our own and later welcoming those children into our lives as well as learning from our mistakes and from the mistakes of others can combine to make us wiser, to temper our views, to broaden our horizons and deepen our understanding of the views of others with whom we share this planet. And so it is likely to be with Judge Roberts. As I prepare to take a leap of faith tomorrow--albeit not a reckless one, in my view--let me close with a few words of advice, respectfully offered, to our President. A second nomination looms just around the corner. President Bush's choice of that nominee is, in many respects, as important as this one. The next choice can divide this Congress and our country even further or it can serve to bring us a little closer together. We need a choice that unites us, not one that divides us further. We also need a choice that reflects the diversity of this country in which we live. There are any number of well-qualified women, and maybe even a few men, who would be a good choice for the seat now held by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On behalf of all of us, Mr. President, let me encourage you to send us one of those names. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.