Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before Senator Durbin leaves the floor, he has mentioned the 9/11 Commission. When he and I were first elected in the Congress in 1982--to the House--we arrived at a time when Social Security was not just rumored to be in dire straits but was in very dire straits. And an earlier commission was created similar to the 9/11 Commission but different as well. The Republican Members were appointed by President Reagan. As I recall, the Democratic Members were appointed by Democratic Speaker, Tip O'Neill, and I think by Senator Robert Byrd. The Blue Ribbon Commission was chaired by Alan Greenspan, with Members Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Robert Dole, and Claude Pepper, with whom we served in the House. They worked for a whole year trying to couple a combination of benefit cuts and revenue increases to enable us to put Social Security on a sound footing for another quarter of a century. I think that serves as a good role model as well as the 9/11 Commission, which Senator Durbin mentioned. While he was on the floor, I wanted to remind him and us of that. But I think our first response to the catastrophe is to make sure that people who need help get help. First of all, get help in getting out of dangerous places to safe places, get help in reuniting families, get help in making certain their medical needs are met, having something to eat and drink, making sure the kids from K-12th grade are getting to the schools they need to get into, making sure students who have been displaced in college have a chance to get back in a college or a university to continue their studies without losing a quarter or a semester or a year, helping to create jobs and getting the economy moving in places that have been destroyed or badly damaged. Those are the kinds of things that need to be done and are being done. While our startup was slow and disappointing, I believe, as time goes by, we are doing better. I commend all--not just in government, not just the first responders, not just the Guard, not just FEMA, which is doing a better job today, but also a lot of folks who are giving of themselves--volunteers from my State, and all other States, who have gone to the region, giving blood, and raising money in our home States, receiving folks who have been displaced, to give them a home, a place to live, and a job for a while. Those efforts are to be commended. Those are the first responders. Maybe I should say second responders because the first responders were not even responding. Second, last week, Senator Coburn, Senator Obama, and I spoke about the introduction of legislation which is supported by Senator Frist, by Senator Reid, our respective leaders, to create a CFO--chief financial officer--to serve as a watchdog so we don't find ourselves 6 months or 12 months from now looking back to see that we spent X billions so foolishly in response to Katrina, to make sure we get out ahead of this expenditure as best we can rather than looking at it after the money has already been spent, in some cases inappropriately. The amount of money that is going to be spent in Katrina relief over the next couple of months will dwarf the annual appropriations that go to most of our Federal departments. Every one of our Federal departments has a chief financial officer. We need to make sure, when we are spending this much money this quickly to try to help a lot of people in a hurry, that we spend it wisely. It is a bipartisan issue. We believe one of the ways to make sure we do that is to have a chief financial officer who is well qualified and can get on the job and do the work quickly. The third thing I mention is oversight. I serve on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We have obvious oversight of a good deal of what is going on, including the Homeland Security Department, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and any number of responder agencies. We have a responsibility to do our oversight. We have begun that oversight with hearings last week and informal hearings the week before that. We will continue this week and next week and on and on. Our interest is in finding out what we did well, what we did collectively--State, local, Federal, volunteer organizations, military, National Guard, Armed Forces--and what we did not do well. Then, if this happens again--and we have another hurricane that is trying to round the corner in Key West today--to make sure if this comes north and revisits again, whether New Orleans, God forbid, or Mississippi-- that we are better prepared to do more of the right things. The last thing is the point Senator Durbin raised, the notion of an independent commission. I was skeptical as to whether or not the 9/11 Commission would enable Congress to do much good with respect to restructuring of our intelligence operations in this country. The intelligence operation in place had not been changed much for 50 years. I don't know if there was any reason to believe five Republicans and five Democrats could somehow find common ground and entice the rest of Congress to do the same thing, to work with the President to change in substantial, far-reaching ways the way our intelligence community works in this country. They did, and the 9/11 Commission provides an excellent template, role model, if you will, for how we should, once the first surge of oversight activity and the successive waves of help and aid are out the door, proceed to make sure a couple months from now we are in a position, whether it is five Republicans and five Democrats--it could be a chairman appointed by the committee, a vice chairman appointed by our leadership, but to put in place a commission that might have the kind of success not for us, and not just for them, but for our country. Success would be measured by better ensuring that a lot of the good things that happened this time in response to Katrina happen the next time--and we know there will be a next time--and we reduce the likelihood that some of the same mistakes and foolish choices will be made. The American people would approve of that. It is great the President has asked the Cabinet Secretaries to look at what they did within their departments to make sure what they did was right, it made sense, and was appropriate. It is all well and good to have oversight here, but it would be helpful to have an independent commission that could stand back, not distracted by other issues we are distracted with each day, and impartially--led by people such as Governor Tom Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton--with good staff and only with this issue to focus on, and figure out what went well, what went badly, and how we can do better next time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of our Constitution. In Delaware, we are reminded of that every year, at least once a year, on December 7, because that is Delaware Day. In Delaware, we celebrate on December 7, the day in 1787 when Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution. For one whole week, Delaware was the entire United States of America. After a week or so, we opened it up and let other States in, including South Carolina. For the most part, we have been pleased with the way things turned out. This year, Constitution Day is going to be commemorated not just in Delaware on December 7 but across the country on September 17. That will be Saturday. That is actually the day the Constitution was apparently signed back in 1787, up in Philadelphia. If you visit the Senate today and all this week and you come into one of the galleries, if you walk in, they will give you a copy of the Constitution. Today I was bringing in some visitors, from Dover, DE, and I was given a copy of the Constitution with the amendments thereto. I was reminded that this commemoration of our Constitution for this Saturday was made possible by one of our colleagues in the Senate, Robert Byrd, who carries with him every day a copy of the Constitution a little bit smaller than this one. You have probably seen it, Mr. President. He pulls it out every now and then and waves it in our faces to remind us what it is all about. It is because of his love, really devotion, to the Constitution that we will be having a special commemoration on Saturday. I thank Senator Byrd for doing that. I am a Delawarean who treasures what our Constitution does. It is the basic law of our land, the law on which all the other laws are built. The Constitution which is becoming the longest lived Constitution in the history of the world and the Constitution most replicated by every nation on Earth is the one we celebrate this Saturday. I wish to take a couple of moments to share and remind us again how the Constitution is introduced. It starts off--many of us know these words. In fact, many of us as schoolchildren, and our children as well, had to learn the preamble to the Constitution, which reads as follows: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ``We the people,'' those three words encapsulate the very essence of what makes America so wonderful. By presenting a united front, our Founding Fathers told the world that they stood together when creating this great country. I believe we need to recapture their spirit of reconciliation and to focus our energies on healing the rift that has developed in our current political climate, a rift that goes back to the beginning of this administration, the previous administration, and, frankly, for some time before that. We have seen how powerful America can be when all of our citizens unite to focus on a common goal. During this upcoming weekend, Saturday, September 17, I urge all Americans--not just my children who are in high school; not just other schoolchildren, but I urge all Americans from all walks of life to pause and contemplate principles that form the cornerstone of this great democracy of ours. By understanding our past, I believe we can navigate toward a better future and truly honor the philosophy and spirit of our Founding Fathers. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. They lay out some of the liberties that we take for granted, but people in other places around the world would love to have these liberties. They do not and maybe they never will. I hope they will. But our Constitution has, among other liberties, the freedom to bear arms. It has the right to say what is on our mind. In fact, there are newspapers, television stations, our radio stations--all of us enjoy freedom of speech. People can vote for whomever they want. If they like the job we are doing, they can reelect us; if they don't, they can throw us out and put somebody else in these seats. They can run for the job themselves. They have a right to a jury by their peers. They have a right to be protected from unlawful searches without an order of a judge. There are all kinds of protections in our Constitution. There is one given a little attention here lately, given a decision by a district court judge out in California. The question it raises is in the press of late, in the last 24 or 48 hours--again, I might add-- the question of whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, where we say ``one nation under God,'' is indeed constitutional. I would have us go back to the beginning of our Nation's history, when we were born as a nation. I would have us remember, when the first President, George Washington, was sworn into office and they finished the ceremony--I think it was in New York City--they didn't break up and go off to a bunch of inaugural balls. As I recall, they went to church. Several years before that when they were up in Philadelphia and were trying to hammer out the Constitution itself, whenever they got into an especially difficult place, they would sometimes call a halt to what they were doing and pray about it. They actually began a lot of their sessions with prayers, much as we begin our session in the Senate and over at the House of Representatives. The folks who gathered up in Philadelphia all those years ago did not want to have a State religion. They didn't want to have a ``Church of America.'' They didn't want to have our version of the Church of England. They wrote that in the Constitution, literally in the first amendment. This is the way the first amendment starts: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If we go over the copy of the Constitution that we shared with the folks coming into the Senate today as visitors, we read the language alongside the raw language of the amendment and it says these words: The first amendment protects religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of an official or exclusive church or sect. I am not a lawyer, certainly not a constitutional lawyer. But I think I can read. When I read literally the words of the Constitution, I believe what our Founding Fathers were trying to do is to make sure we don't establish in this country a church that somehow is sanctioned by the Government. They just didn't want to go there. Seeing what happened in some other countries, they didn't want to have any part of that. Having said that, our Founding Fathers were a religious people. They were people of faith, and they drew on their faith, frankly, in drawing up this document and trying to resolve their differences in reaching the core on this Constitution. The Pledge of Allegiance, I don't believe, existed when those folks were working on the Constitution. In fact, the words ``under God'' were only added, I believe, in 1954, some 51 years ago. I would ask, given the reliance on faith and people calling on their faith in 1787 when drafting the Constitution, how would they feel about a Pledge of Allegiance that said, ``one nation under God''? My guess is they would feel pretty good about it. Rather than saying that we ought to strike that language ``under God,'' they would probably say we ought to keep that in, and I would have to agree with them. We will hear more about this issue going forward, I am sure. Hopefully, when we do, we will think back not just about the Constitution and what the words actually say in the first amendment, but we will also think back to the way people comported themselves and how they drew on their faith in 1787 as they wrestled with drafting this document and coming to consensus on this document. I think they would want the words ``one nation, under God'' to be in the Pledge of Allegiance if we were to have one. We have all said it hundreds, probably thousands, of times. I think we got it right in 1954, and I think we ought to leave it that way.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Let me be clear: Similar to everybody else, I want to minimize fuel switching which could drive up the cost of natural gas even further. I, too, want coal to continue to be the backbone of our electricity-generating sector. Adopting a strong mercury rule is not inconsistent with either of those goals. It is consistent with protecting the health of pregnant women and children, among the most vulnerable members of our society. The fears about the impacts of a strong mercury rule on coal and natural gas are unfounded. I am not aware of credible evidence that shows that powerplants will switch from coal to natural gas in order to comply with a more stringent mercury rule. The Energy Information Administration tried to say that fuel switching will occur. But listen to some of the assumptions they adopted to reach that conclusion. First, they had to assume that natural gas prices would fall to $3.50 per thousand cubic feet 5 years from now in order to show that it would make economic sense for powerplants to switch from coal to natural gas. Let me tell you how much natural gas cost last week: $12. The week before Katrina hit, it was $9.50. I don't think there is any way natural gas prices are going to be $3.50 5 years from now. I hope I am wrong, but the odds are I am not. Second, the Energy Information Administration had to assume that technology to control mercury does not exist. It does exist. There are already powerplants in the Northeast that have been reducing their mercury pollution by more than 80 percent for the last 5 years. Last month, Colorado-based ADA-Environmental Solutions was awarded another contract to install new mercury control technologies on two new powerplants being built in the Midwest. The technology has been developed. The technology is being implemented. We can do better than the Bush rule. We can do better than that and we should. We have an obligation to our constituents, and we can do it in a way that balances our needs to preserve coal and to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, others have spoken this evening of the health threat that is posed to our young, the unborn, and to pregnant women. I am not going to belabor those points. They have been well made. Senator Reid mentioned there is a river in his State where you can't eat the fish because of the mercury content. Ironically, last Friday, I was on a river that literally flows through Wilmington, DE. If you ever come up I-95, through Wilmington, up on the train through Wilmington in the Northeast Corridor, you go right by the Christina River. I was out on the Christina River this last weekend with one of our former Governors, Russell Peterson. You can't eat the fish, or at least you shouldn't eat the fish in the Christina River. There are several other rivers in my State which have a similar ban in effect. One of the problems with the fish is they have mercury in them. One of the problems with the rule the President has suggested, a strict cap-and-trade approach with respect to mercury--the problem I have, the concern I have is, let's say you have a high mercury-emitting powerplant here, and you have a lower one here. If the folks who have the higher emitting plant want to continue to emit a lot of mercury, they can do that under the strict cap-and-trade approach. They can say: We will find a way in another part of the country to reduce mercury emissions and use that to trade off the high-emitting utility. The problem, for me at least, with a strict cap-and-trade approach is mercury hot spots. Cap and trade is fine, but I think we would be much smarter to have an approach that almost every utility--which is burning whatever fuel it is, coal or some other, to create electricity--that almost everybody would have to reduce to some extent their mercury emissions. Is it technically feasible? As it turns out, it is. We had in our committee about 2 years ago testimony from companies such as WL Gore that they have the ability to reduce mercury emissions by 40, 50, 60, 70 percent. I just learned from my staff there is an outfit, a Colorado-based company, ADA Environmental, that has been awarded contracts to install new mercury-control technologies in two powerplants being built in the Midwest. I think they are looking for mercury emission reductions by as much as 80 percent. This is not something we will only be able to do in 2018 or 2017 or 2016. These are emission reductions that are achievable in the next couple of years. It is all well and good we want to reduce emissions in 2018 by 70 percent. We can do better than that. We ought to do better than that. There is a balance that is achievable. The balance involves reducing the level of mercury emissions and at the same time not causing further spikes in the price of natural gas. We can do both, and we need to do both. The rule this administration submitted to us and has promulgated does not do both. We can do better than that. My hope is in our committee we will be able to do that before long.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I would also like to talk about the good efforts that are going on in a number of places around our country to support the relief effort to those who have been stricken by Hurricane Katrina. We heard a fair amount of questioning about whether the response was adequate, was timely, what we could have done better, what we needed to do better, and those are all legitimate questions and they need to be answered in time--some of them now, some of them in the course of the next couple of weeks and months. I said to some of my colleagues with whom I was discussing Katrina and our response--we were talking about the role of government in a situation such as this--Lincoln had it right about 150 years ago when he said words to the effect that the role of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. That is our role in this instance as well. Not long ago I was in our church, and the focal point of the sermon was the parable from the New Testament about the Good Samaritan and the question that is asked at the beginning of the parable of the Good Samaritan, Who is my neighbor? We go on to be reminded that our neighbor is not just the people who live across the street from us in Wilmington, DE, or in South Carolina. Our neighbor could just as well be a person who lives in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, or any of the other places affected. I am inspired by outpouring, not just from government and for us to do our jobs--we are paid literally to help people in instances such as this, and that is the expectation of us, but for a lot of people this is not their expectation. People are literally showing their faith by their deeds. In some cases, people are opening up their homes, opening up their military installations, opening up all types of facilities to receive those who have been dislocated, welcoming youngsters to schools far from the schools those kids would normally be attending to make sure their education is not disrupted. I think of the folks from my own State, the doctors and nurses, folks in our medical operation out of our Delaware Air National Guard. They were literally on the scene today providing services and assistance to those who need it. People are collecting food, people are giving blood, people are giving boatloads of money and, frankly, boatloads more are needed. But it is an inspiring outpouring after a difficult and disappointing beginning. Among the questions I hope we will focus on as we try to decide what went well and what did not go well, what was right, what went right, and what we did poorly, is the issue of the levees that surround the city of New Orleans that keep Lake Pontchartrain from pouring into the city of New Orleans. If you look in the dictionary for a definition of ``city at risk'' if there ever was a Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane, you would see New Orleans. That is the poster child for this kind of risk. We knew the threat was there. We knew it was a grave threat. We have been talking about it for years. The people have talked about it for years. The Army Corps of Engineers sought to reinforce the levees. We knew this storm was coming. It is not one that popped up at the last minute. Yet, in spite of that, the work that should have been done on the levees to strengthen them to sustain this kind of onslaught by Mother Nature, someone has dropped the ball. I am not interested in finger-pointing or witch hunts. We have to find out where we went wrong, why we went wrong, and fix that. If New Orleans is ever to rise again--not from the ashes but from the waters that engulf it today-- this is an issue that has to be not only resolved, we have to come up with a solution to make sure we have learned from this very expensive lesson. I fear a storm which could have cost tens of billions may cost more than $100 billion to repair the damage, a lot of it from New Orleans. A storm that could have cost us hundreds of lives will probably cost us thousands of lives. It did not have to be. The last thing I wish to say is I was encouraged in the presentation we had by some of our Cabinet Secretaries who talked about what the Department of Health and Human Services is doing, making sure the folks who need medical assistance and Medicaid eligibility, identification, people who need help getting their food stamp allocations, people need to receive their unemployment checks--all kinds of things were discussed, what the Federal Government can do to help people. It was encouraging. One of the presenters was the Secretary of the Department of Treasury. He talked, as the Presiding Officer may recall, about the work being done to defer the payment of taxes. People who normally would have an estimated tax payment--personal business maybe--on September 15 will be given until the end of October to make that payment. They were looking for ways we, through the Federal Government, could exercise some charity, some consideration for those who were in harm's way and are now in desperate straits to pull their lives back together. I come from a State where we have a lot of banks. We probably have more credit card banks per capita--probably issue half the credit cards issued in America. I am empowered to speak on this point. We have a lot of financial services companies around the world. They extend credit. Most do a great job of extending credit to people through America, the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, and also the Gulf Coast States. Just as the Department of Treasury is trying to find ways to show kindness and a little consideration to those who are affected in the disaster areas on the tax side, my hope is our financial services companies which are going to be benefiting from the implementation of our new bankruptcy law this fall, this might be a good opportunity for some of them to say--and some of them already are doing this, I should point that out. Some financial services companies are saying: We want to help folks in the Southeast United States who have been affected, and here are the variety of ways we will do that. Some are not entirely forgiving indebtedness but are providing payment holidays, extending the dates on which payments are due, and taking away interest and finance charges. That is what we ought to applaud and the behavior we ought to encourage others to undertake. Today, in addition to saying goodbye to our Chief Justice and to saying terrific work by folks from all walks of life to help people in dire straights, well done, we say to our financial services companies around the country that are trying to find their own ways to reach out and help people, God bless you. Good for you. Finally, to say to those who aren't, maybe you would like to join the parade and lend a helping hand as well. (The remarks of Mr. Carper pertaining to the introduction of S. 1627 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take the next 10 minutes to talk about a couple of different items. Not far from where we are today, the body of our late Chief Justice has lain in repose, and a number of us were privileged to go there earlier today just to say goodbye and to thank him for his service to our country--33 years. That is a long time, more than three decades that he has served us. His love for our country, his love for the law and the integrity of our Nation's judiciary system was only surpassed by his love for his family and for those with whom he worked. During his time on the Court, he fostered, among other things, real congeniality among the Justices--something that is not easy to do in that forum or, frankly, in this one. In return, he was held in high esteem by his colleagues who had called him, among other things, ``brilliant,'' ``principled,'' ``generous,'' with ``a good sense of humor,'' something we can never have too much of. He demonstrated great personal strength and courage in leading the Court and this country through difficult and contentious times, continuing his work in the face of ever-daunting health problems that would have set most of us on our backs and far out of the courtroom. There are many judicial hallmarks of his time on the Court. Throughout his tenure on the Court, he staunchly supported the independence of the Federal judiciary and our overall governmental system of checks and balances. We will miss him, but we are grateful that he was here to serve us for as long as he has.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, some folks were looking for a place to go on summer vacation on the Internet. A lot of people go to national parks. A couple of summers ago, my family and I went to Alaska and visited Denali, a national park bigger than my State. We had a wonderful time in Alaska. But if you go to the national park Web site, you can find national parks to visit in 49 States. There is one State that has no national park. It is my State. I am reintroducing legislation Senator Biden and I introduced at the end of the last Congress. We will reintroduce that so we get our State on the road to having our own national park and providing people around the country and the world the opportunity to learn about our coastal heritage, which included the landing of the first Swedes and Finns when they came to America. They landed in Wilmington, DE, to establish the colony of New Sweden. I don't think the Finns called it that, but the Swedes did. We want to have a national park of our own that would include that discovery, commemorate that discovery. Our bill authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a Special Resource Study of Delaware's coastal region. This study is the first step toward establishing the first national park in Delaware. Delaware's coastal region is rich in historical sites, parks, and wildlife areas. This Special Resource Study will trace the various threads that make up the fabric of Delaware, which are an ideal microcosm for the tapestry of America. Together, these sites highlight the threads of history, heritage, commerce, and nature. The result would be a national park highlighting America's history, cultural heritage, commercial progress and natural beauty. The study would be anchored on Fort Christina and the 7th Street Peninsula in Wilmington. It would extend south from there to include old New Castle and points along Delaware's coast in Kent and Sussex Counties, which have been the location of many significant events throughout America's history. This proposed study will help encapsulate the human and natural activity that has occurred along our coast that has helped create the very fabric of our society. I am confident this study will prove that a national park highlighting Delaware's rich coastal heritage would be a very appropriate and fitting addition to the National Park system. Our national park would demonstrate that coastal regions like those found in Delaware are a vital part of America's past, present, and future. Delaware is first in so many ways, but it is the only state without a national park. Every year, millions of Americans plan their vacations around our nation's national park system. They log onto the Park Service web site and search for ideas for their family vacations. Right now, that search will turn up nothing for Delaware. With a national park unit here in Delaware, that will change. In the future, those families will be considering a trip to Delaware to visit our national park. Those trips will be a significant boost to our economy and will teach new generations of Americans about Delaware's rich cultural heritage. I have described to you today a vision resulting from the hard work of many dedicated Delawareans. Today, I take the next step in making their vision a reality. I believe this is an exciting proposal and one that, when incorporated into the National Park System, will become an important element in preserving the wonderful human and natural history presented by our coastal region.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, some folks were looking for a place to go on summer vacation on the Internet. A lot of people go to national parks. A couple of summers ago, my family and I went to Alaska and visited Denali, a national park bigger than my State. We had a wonderful time in Alaska. But if you go to the national park Web site, you can find national parks to visit in 49 States. There is one State that has no national park. It is my State. I am reintroducing legislation Senator Biden and I introduced at the end of the last Congress. We will reintroduce that so we get our State on the road to having our own national park and providing people around the country and the world the opportunity to learn about our coastal heritage, which included the landing of the first Swedes and Finns when they came to America. They landed in Wilmington, DE, to establish the colony of New Sweden. I don't think the Finns called it that, but the Swedes did. We want to have a national park of our own that would include that discovery, commemorate that discovery. Our bill authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a Special Resource Study of Delaware's coastal region. This study is the first step toward establishing the first national park in Delaware. Delaware's coastal region is rich in historical sites, parks, and wildlife areas. This Special Resource Study will trace the various threads that make up the fabric of Delaware, which are an ideal microcosm for the tapestry of America. Together, these sites highlight the threads of history, heritage, commerce, and nature. The result would be a national park highlighting America's history, cultural heritage, commercial progress and natural beauty. The study would be anchored on Fort Christina and the 7th Street Peninsula in Wilmington. It would extend south from there to include old New Castle and points along Delaware's coast in Kent and Sussex Counties, which have been the location of many significant events throughout America's history. This proposed study will help encapsulate the human and natural activity that has occurred along our coast that has helped create the very fabric of our society. I am confident this study will prove that a national park highlighting Delaware's rich coastal heritage would be a very appropriate and fitting addition to the National Park system. Our national park would demonstrate that coastal regions like those found in Delaware are a vital part of America's past, present, and future. Delaware is first in so many ways, but it is the only state without a national park. Every year, millions of Americans plan their vacations around our nation's national park system. They log onto the Park Service web site and search for ideas for their family vacations. Right now, that search will turn up nothing for Delaware. With a national park unit here in Delaware, that will change. In the future, those families will be considering a trip to Delaware to visit our national park. Those trips will be a significant boost to our economy and will teach new generations of Americans about Delaware's rich cultural heritage. I have described to you today a vision resulting from the hard work of many dedicated Delawareans. Today, I take the next step in making their vision a reality. I believe this is an exciting proposal and one that, when incorporated into the National Park System, will become an important element in preserving the wonderful human and natural history presented by our coastal region.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Senate recently passed S. Res. 31, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week of August 7, 2005, be designated as ``National Health Center Week.'' In keeping with this resolution, I rise today to commend the work of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Community Health Centers and of all of the health centers of Delaware for the role they play in delivering quality, affordable health care to the people of Delaware. Community health centers are community-run and open to all Americans regardless of their ability to pay. Delaware has a number of community health centers, including Westside Health in Wilmington and Newark, Henrietta Johnson in Wilmington, Delmarva Kent Community Health Center in Dover, and La Red Health Center in Sussex County. These centers and those across our Nation are extremely valuable, operating in both rural and urban medically underserved areas and providing care that might not otherwise be available to residents. By serving as a point of access for affordable primary and preventive care, health centers also help patients stay healthier or, if they are ill, allow them to receive treatment earlier. This prevents patients from having to seek care in the most expensive setting--the emergency room--and therefore can save money for our health system as a whole. Again, I wish to commend the health centers of Delaware for their dedication. I thank them for the valuable services they provide to all Delawareans.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. H. Wesley Towers Jr. upon his retirement as State Veterinarian after 37 years of dedicated service. He is a man with a kind heart, diverse interests and great abilities. Wesley embodies the best of Delaware. ``Doc,'' as he was fondly known, was born on August 15, 1942 in Wilmington, DE. He spent much of his youth with his grandfather, the farm manager on E.E. du Pont's Greenville, DE, estate, ``Dogwood.'' He loved the country, the farm work, and the animals. When the local veterinarian came to tend the livestock, Doc knew what he wanted to be. Doc graduated high school in 1960 from P.S. Dupont, and went on to study animal and poultry science at the University of Delaware, graduating with honors and distinction in 1964. He spent the next four years at the University of Pennsylvania veterinary school, graduating in 1968, and went on to become Delaware's vet almost by chance. After veterinary school, Doc took a job in Kent County as an apprentice to the State veterinarian. At the same time, Harrington and Georgetown racetracks offered him a temporary night job overseeing racehorses. Several weeks later, the track vet had a stroke, leaving him unable to resume race work. The temporary job became a full-time, second job for Doc. The following year in 1969, the State vet retired and Doc was appointed in his place. Doc has the Nation's fourth largest poultry industry to protect, a rabies epidemic to police, and race courses to regulate. Containing and excluding contagious and infectious animal and poultry diseases is his priority, with public enemy No. 1 being avian flu, a virulent respiratory ailment that devastates poultry. Doc and his team work hard at their jobs to ensure that any outbreaks of avian flu are contained. During his time as State vet, Doc has received the Department of Agriculture's Employee of the Year award, the University of Delaware's Worrilow Award for service to agriculture and Delaware's coveted Award for Excellence and Commitment to State Service. At the University of Delaware, Doc is a part of the Agricultural Alumni Association, the Alumni Association board, the Career Planning and Placement advisory committee, the phone-a-thons, and the ``Alumni in the Classroom'' program. Doc spends much of his free time championing causes in which he believes. He testifies in SPCA cases, including revelations over local ``puppy mills.'' He is involved with the racing commissions, the State Fair Board and the Tri-State Bird Rescue group. In addition, Doc enjoys gardening, traveling, hunting, cooking and taking trips to the beach. Doc is married to his college sweetheart, Sarah. The two met in a chemistry laboratory at the University of Delaware, and were married on June 25, 1966. They have two children, Laura and David, and four grandchildren, Mark, Annie, Matthew and Davey. Sarah describes her husband over almost forty years as a patient, kind and loving man who loves to be around people. He is fortunate to wake up every morning and go to a job that he loves. After retirement, Doc plans to spend his time pursuing his hobbies, volunteering, and most importantly, continuing to raise his beloved Delaware blue hens. I rise today to honor Doc and to thank him for the friendship that we share. Through his tireless efforts, Doc has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands and enhanced the quality of life for an entire State. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for the generations that will follow. I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him and his family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I convey to Senator Chambliss my respect and regards for the way he has handled himself in these negotiations over the last 24 hours. Senator Harkin has done us all a favor. What he has done is reminded us when people make a mistake--and we all make mistakes. God knows I do--we ought to be willing to acknowledge that. There are serious mistakes, as I think Mr. Dorr has made with respect to his comments about diversity and minorities, and things Mr. Dorr has done with respect to his own farming operation regarding minimum payments. He made serious mistakes. There was a period of time when it looked as though he wasn't willing to acknowledge those mistakes, at least to do so in the public forum. If someone makes mistakes of this magnitude, it doesn't mean they are forever denied the opportunity for public service. What it means is when their name comes before this Senate for confirmation for a senior position, in this case in the Department of Agriculture, that person should be held accountable for their mistakes. They should be willing to acknowledge their mistakes and they should be willing, essentially, to ask for forgiveness for those mistakes. It is not always an easy thing to do. Mr. Dorr has made that acknowledgment. He said, I was wrong; what I did was wrong and I hope others learn from my mistakes. It now falls to Senator Harkin who, as we all know, has fought hard against this nomination, as to whether to accept this letter from Mr. Dorr for us to move forward to the actual vote on the nomination. I want to say to Tom Harkin, thank you for the way you handled yourself in the course of this debate over the last 4 years, for the important role you have played, and for your willingness to allow this nomination to come to a vote today. With that having been said, I yield my time and thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. 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. President, I am happy that my colleagues have brought these important amendments to the floor today to provide the necessary funds to secure our inner-city rail, our freight rail, and our transit systems. As someone representing a State, Delaware, that relishes and relies heavily on rail travel, this is certainly a major concern to me and those I am privileged to represent. In the weeks and months after September 11, we took unprecedented steps to secure our Nation's airlines, and for good reason. We all know about the added security--baggage checks, passenger screening--because we have all seen it every time we go to an airport and try to get through an airport onto our planes. But we have not been as diligent when it comes to protecting our Nation's railways and transit systems, which is alarming given the number of people who travel by rail, and it is alarming when we see what has happened in Madrid and London in the last months and, in fact, last days. Today, nearly 25 million passengers ride Amtrak. During the course of the year, that equates to about 3.5 billion rail trips taken annually by people looking to take a vacation, go home for the holidays, or traveling for business. In fact, our railroad network is so busy that every day more people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York than use all of New York's major three airports combined. In 2003, public transportation moved over 8.8 billion--almost 9 billion--passengers, according to the national transit database. Since 1995, public transportation ridership in the United States has grown by over 20 percent--faster than highway, faster than air travel. The American Public Transit Association estimates that more than 14 million people use public transportation every weekday. Yet we have done comparatively little to protect rail travelers and transit travelers from terrorist attacks. Nowhere is that shortfall more evident than in the Homeland Security appropriations bill we are debating today. Under this bill, we would provide a scant 12 cents in security funds for each time a person boards a bus or a subway car or an Amtrak train to get to work--12 cents. Yet what we propose spending every time a person gets on board an airplane is $7.58. Let me repeat that. Every time one of us gets on a Metro bus in Washington or boards a SEPTA train in Wilmington, DE, or southeastern Pennsylvania, the Federal Government is providing 12 cents to protect our safety on that railcar or in that transit station. Yet every time one of us flies out of National Airport, the Federal Government is spending $7.58--12 cents on the one hand, $7.58 on the other hand. That is a whopping disparity. It is one we need to correct. During Senate consideration of legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security, I, along with several of my colleagues, tried to provide funds to Amtrak to secure its trains, station facilities, and its infrastructure, but that language was stripped out of the bill during the wee hours of the night. Some lawmakers were reluctant to give Amtrak any additional funds, while others were too focused on responding to the last disaster to start preparing for the next one. Since then, supplying even modest amounts of rail security funding has been a battle. The danger to our rail and transit system has been repeatedly cited by officials at the Department of Homeland Security. During his confirmation hearing as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge stated: Amtrak and freight rail are at considerable risk to terrorist attack. Secretary Chertoff has also acknowledged the risk facing our Nation's rail and transit systems. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the risk of attacks on surface transportation is as great or greater than that of any aircraft hijacking. Further, the Government Accountability Office has stated: Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible. Despite these warnings, progress has been slow, results have been few. The Department of Homeland Security has established no comprehensive approach to rail and transit security. None. None like we developed for airports in the wake of 9/11, that is for sure. The Transportation Security Agency, meanwhile, has been working on a national transportation security plan since 2003, some 2 years. Yet that plan is still not complete. In the wake of the Madrid bombings in Spain last year that killed nearly 200 people, several of my colleagues and I sponsored legislation to establish rail and transit security programs, just as we created an airport security program after 9/11. This bill, called the Rail Security Act of 2004, was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 4 last year. Although the House did not act on this bill, we did succeed in securing $150 million in funding for rail and transit security in the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill, which is in effect today. However, only a year later, the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security bill reported out of committee cut that figure by a third, down to $100 million for the next fiscal year. Last week, more than 50 people were killed, some 700 people were injured when terrorists bombed the London underground. It is time that we learn from these tragedies and develop a long-term, comprehensive approach to strengthening security of our Nation's rail and transit infrastructure. We cannot continue to ignore our transit systems or Amtrak or their passengers or the need to secure the hazardous material that travels across our freight lines throughout this country. There has been a bipartisan effort to increase funding for rail and transit security. We hear people talking about increases in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars. This may sound like a lot of money, but keep in mind, this bill includes nearly $4.5 billion for airline security. In fact, while Congress has spent almost $20 billion on aviation security since 9/11, only $400 million has been spent on rail security. In other words, we have spent 50 times more money on airline security since 9/11 than we spent on rail and transit security combined. No one is arguing that airline security is not necessary--it is necessary--but is the risk 50 times greater to our airlines and to people who fly on our airlines than to public transportation systems, to the millions of people who ride transit every day and who take inner-city passenger rail across America? I would argue that it is not. We have made some progress securing air travel in the wake of 9/11, although I would argue, and I think most of us would agree, that there is more that we can and should do. The amendments we are considering today, though, call for a similar level of focus and attention to be brought to the security needs of our Nation's rail and our transit systems and to the literally, in the course of a year, billions of people who ride transit and who ride Amtrak. We should be taking a serious look at ways to help railroads, States, cities, and transit agencies do what they can to improve security efforts, such as hiring more police, putting out more bomb-sniffing dogs with those police, improving ventilation, improving lighting, and establishing escape routes in tunnels. Amtrak, freight railroads, and local transit agencies are doing all they can, but the Federal Government, we in Congress, have not done our share. It is time we stand up and take some responsibility in this as well. We need to, and can do so, before the disasters that struck Madrid and London strike us at home. I yield back my time and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally between either side.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to add a comment or two to our colleague from New York. I believe in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, which is currently in effect, there was about $150 million that could be used for improving transit and rail security. I believe, as of last week, none of that money had been allocated. I hope that is not true, but that is what I have been briefed by my staff. None of that $150 million has been allocated. One has to wonder what it takes. I fear that it may take some tragedy to really get our attention, the attention of the executive branch to begin allocating the money and putting it where it can do the most good most promptly. As I understand it, the administration has asked for no appropriation in their budget proposal for fiscal 2006 for rail security and transit security. The committee has put in $100 million for that purpose, and I believe the committee has agreed to raise it to the current level of appropriation of $150 million. But if the administration is not going to spend the money, what good does it do for us to allocate. It is very disappointing. I hope it is not true, but I am afraid it probably is. I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention and join her in saying we can do a lot better and we have to. Some time tomorrow, we are going to have the opportunity to vote on several options for allocating aid to first responders in our 50 States, firefighters, police, paramedics, and others who are first on the scene. When tragedy strikes and that tragedy happens to be a strike launched by terrorists, they will be the first to be there, whether it is Delaware, Missouri, New York, or any other State. I rise to express my strong support for an amendment that is going to be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman. That amendment seeks to streamline the system for distributing first responder aid to States, tries to make the system more fair, and seeks to ensure that every State, large or small, receives the funding that may be needed to respond to terrorist attacks and to other disasters. Senator Collins and I have been working with Senator Lieberman and other members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue for some time. In fact, Senator Collins and I first introduced legislation on this topic more than 2 years ago. That original bill came after a series of hearings we held in our committee, highlighting the fact that the way we help States prepare for disasters simply makes little sense. The application process is lengthy and confusing. More importantly, the funding formula simply isn't getting money to those who need it the most. States, counties, cities, and first responders all told us in one voice that we need to do something about it. Much of what Senator Collins and I and our colleagues did in that initial legislation a couple years ago to respond to the concerns is reflected in the amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman. That amendment mirrors in many respects the bill that Senator Collins and I introduced 2 years ago. For example, the amendment streamlines the grant application process. It creates a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland Security where State officials and others can seek grant information. It also ensures that funds are distributed as quickly as possible and requires States to go through a planning process that would include both localities and first responders. In addition, we take steps in this amendment to give States more flexibility in spending their first responder aid. Not every State is the same. Missouri's needs may be different than Delaware's. This amendment, as with our earlier bill, gives States the ability to ask for a waiver from the Department. If they want to use a little more money for training or equipment or exercises or planning, they can go to the Department and ask for a waiver to do so. One size does not fit all. This amendment, such as our earlier bill, acknowledges that. Funding formulas are akin to what they used to say about beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a funding formula is oftentimes in the eye of the particular State that is eyeing the formula. I believe we have gone a long way toward addressing the concerns that some of our colleagues from more populous States have raised over the years. There were concerns among a number of Senators, both on and off the Homeland Security Committee, that the current program in our original legislation directed too much aid to smaller States, to less populated States, at the expense of larger States or more populated States and high-threat urban areas. I believe we have addressed those concerns. A version of this amendment that was added by a unanimous vote to the intelligence reform bill last year provide additional allocations to the dozen or so largest States in the country. It also allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security to distribute a portion of the funding made available for State grants directly to the most at-risk urban areas. We go even further this year, further than some of the supporters of our original legislation might like to have gone. In an effort to shift even more funding to those parts of the country most at risk, Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and the rest of us who support their amendment have negotiated a new funding formula that actually reduces the baseline allocation or the so-called small State minimum guaranteed to every State. Currently in the bill, it is 0.75-percent minimum for every State. The amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman and myself and others would take that minimum down to 0.55 percent. We have also added language in this amendment that gives the Secretary the discretion to allocate up to half of the available funds to big cities. In total, these efforts have resulted in what I think is a balanced formula that I am told allocates about twice as much aid on risk as we did in last year's appropriations bill. There will be some who will argue that the baseline allocation in this amendment should be even smaller or that it should not exist at all. I respond to that argument by simply pointing out that my own home State of Delaware may be small. We may have a small population--about 800,000 people, in fact. That is more than about six States that are, frankly, bigger than us in size have. But Delaware is home to significant critical infrastructure such as chemical facilities, oil refineries, and one of the most important ports in the country, and those could be unfortunately on a terrorist target list. Right across the Delaware River, about 15 miles from my home, are two nuclear powerplants. Up and down the northeast corridor we have I-95 carrying, each day, hundreds of thousands of cars, trucks and vans, including trucks carrying some dangerous material. We have the northeast rail corridor through which some of our largest freight railroads pass, again carrying all kinds of cargo, goods, including some which are hazardous, potentially a target to terrorists. We have the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay. Every day dozens of ships go up and down the Delaware River, any number of which carry cargo that could be considered hazardous. My staff and I have talked to any number of public safety officials in Delaware. Here is what they tell us. They tell us that they are not getting the resources they need to enable them to respond to incidents that the Department of Homeland Security itself has told us have a real possibility of happening in our State. I am sure many of my colleagues from States large and small could share similar stories with us, and they probably will during the course of this debate. That is one reason why we need to approve this amendment. I urge all of our colleagues to support this compromise amendment. It does the best job of any proposal that I have seen at getting the most at-risk parts of our country the first responder aid that they need without arbitrarily shortchanging smaller States like Delaware that may be small in size but the risk profile belies the modest size in population. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, free trade--when done correctly--can be an important tool in building consumer demand for U.S. products worldwide, encouraging investment and growth in developing markets, and forging new alliances. Today, Congress is considering an agreement to expand trade with Central America and the Dominican Republic. Delaware is already heavily engaged in trade with Central American countries, with $25 million in exports in 2004. In fact, a large amount of the fruit imported through the Port of Wilmington by Chiquita and Dole come from Central America. However, while 75 percent of Central American products enter the United States tariff free, almost all U.S. goods continue to face tariffs in Central America. The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, will level the playing field for U.S. workers and businesses that rely on exports to Central America and the Dominican Republic by providing immediate, duty-free access for more than 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial goods. For Delaware, this will lift tariffs on the fabrics supplied by companies like Invista to sewing operations in Central America, making textiles in the Americas more competitive with China. Delaware's poultry producers will finally gain access to Central American markets under DR-CAFTA. When the agreement goes into effect, some U.S. chicken products will be given immediate duty-free access, and that access will expand annually until duties are eliminated. Free-trade agreements with developing countries also offer an opportunity to encourage reform. Certain reforms were accomplished in DR-CAFTA, such as competitive bidding for government contracts and protection of copyrights, patents and trademarks--very important to Delaware companies such as AstraZeneca and Dupont. However, we have not used the opportunity provided by the negotiation of this agreement to make as much progress as we should have, particularly in improving conditions for workers and protecting the environment. Steady progress was made in the 1990s in the way these important issues were addressed. By the time the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was adopted in 2001, labor and environment provisions were all subject to sanctions through the agreement's dispute resolution process. This was an important advancement, not just for workers in developing nations but also for competing workers and businesses in the United States. The agreements Congress has considered since 2001 have retreated from this strong enforcement standard, and this has unnecessarily weakened the bipartisan support for free trade that we have built over the years. While I am pleased that the administration has agreed to support an increase in funding to support efforts to improve labor and environment conditions in Central America, I am aware of no reason to back off of the strong enforcement of labor and environmental obligations that we have included in several agreements. Let me be clear. The administration must include a greater level of enforcement of labor and environment standards in those trade agreements currently being negotiated in order to be assured of garnering my support in the future. It is particularly important that we enforce the obligation not to backslide or repeal current labor and environmental laws and regulations. I will be watching the negotiations of the Andean and Thailand trade agreements closely. If this administration is serious about getting those approved, they will listen to the concerns that have been expressed in the debate over DR-CAFTA, consult with Democrat and Republican Senators during the course of those negotiations and send the Senate free trade agreements with stronger enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In the months and years ahead.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. The 2003 conference legislation contained incentives for lean-burn diesel vehicles. Is it fair to say that you are interested in this technology and in promoting cleaner diesel cars in the U.S.?

Mr. CARPER. And is it your thought that the Senate conferees should carefully consider the tax incentives provided in the House version of the bill for these types of vehicles?

Mr. CARPER. I thank my friend for taking a moment to discuss this matter with me, and I would encourage my colleagues who will be negotiating the tax provisions of the Energy Bill with the House of Representatives to do just that--to carefully consider the benefits that new clean diesel vehicles have to offer. I think the benefits are substantial, that diesel passenger vehicles are already very clean and will get even cleaner next year when low sulfur fuel becomes available, and that a transition toward this technology will pay big dividends for the country over the next few years. This is something we can do which will have an almost immediate positive effect, and I encourage my colleagues to consider this incentive positively.

Mr CARPER

Mr CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss with my friend, the Senator from Montana, a tax incentive which I believe is very important to our efforts to reduce fuel consumption in America. As you know, Senator Baucus is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and has a great understanding of our nation's tax policy, as well as a great institutional memory of tax legislation through the years. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, provide us with advice and counsel concerning tax policy and do a superb job in that role. The specific incentive I would like to discuss with my friend from Montana is a provision included in the House energy bill to encourage the use of clean diesel passenger vehicles. It is called the ``diesel advanced lean-burn'' tax credit, and it would give consumers a credit on their income taxes when they purchase a clean diesel vehicle meeting stated fuel efficiency and environmental requirements. I am very supportive of this provision and want to encourage my colleagues to consider it when the Senate energy bill is conferenced with the House bill. Why is that? Why do I think this provision is so important to our energy policy? For these reasons. Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline, resulting in fuel economy increases of more than 40 percent compared to equivalent gas powered autos. In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that 30 percent diesel penetration in the U.S. passenger vehicle market by 2020 would reduce net crude oil imports by 350,000 barrels per day. So why aren't diesel vehicles more common on U.S. highways? Because until recently, they have been considered significantly dirtier in terms of air pollution. But the technology has changed. Today, you will have a difficult time telling a new diesel car from its gasoline counterpart. New diesels are clean, quiet, and powerful. And they will get even cleaner with the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel in the United States late next year as the result of new regulations. Diesel engines have become increasingly popular in Europe over the last 20 years to the extent that market penetration now exceeds 40 percent. The situation is very different in the U.S. where diesel accounts for only 1 percent of light vehicles. Clean diesel engines provide the perfect platform for the use of BioDiesel which comes from products grown here at home by American farmers. The more diesel engines on the road, the greater demand for this renewable product, and the less petroleum imports from overseas to meet our fuel needs. We now have the opportunity to take advantage of the advances in clean diesel technology and to do what we can to get more of these fuel efficient vehicles on the road. In the 2003 Energy Bill there was a tax incentive for ``new advanced lean burn motor vehicles,'' and the House recently passed an Energy Bill containing essentially the same provision. So with that background, I wanted to ask my friend from Montana whether it is correct that high efficiency diesel vehicles would be considered ``lean burning'' vehicles?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. There is good news and bad news in all this. On the one hand, you have all these cities and States taking their own course. While that is encouraging, on the other hand, for businesses that need some certainty and a national game plan, there is a problem with that. We don't need a patchwork quilt. What we need is the Federal Government to provide some leadership and certainty for our businesses. On Social Security, the President says we are going to have a big problem 20, 30, 40 years down the road. And in order to avoid a big problem, a big train wreck, we need to take some small steps now. Frankly, the same argument applies to global warming. Thirty, 40, 50 years down the road, we are going to have a huge problem. It could be averted if we take some small, measured, reasonable steps today. The sooner we get started, the better off we will be and the less likely that a train wreck will occur 30 or 40 years later in this century. I yield back my time, and I thank my colleagues for their leadership and for the extra time.

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair. I also want to quote a Republican friend of mine who recently pledged to cut California's carbon dioxide emissions by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years: I say, the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now. I want to ask, what does the chief executive of California know that the chief executive of our country may not yet know? Our country is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The Governator knows that. He knows we account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse emissions. He also knows we account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. The bottom line is, the United States has a responsibility to lead on this issue.