Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I thank Senator Grassley for what he said. I understand Senator Grassley may need to do some wrap-up here. I am not sure. If he does, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CARPER. I do.

Mr. CARPER. I want to thank the chairman, as the prime sponsor of this bill, for his willingness to entertain changes and ideas from our side of the aisle, from Democrats who had what we thought were ideas to improve this legislation. I think as the bill has gone through its introduction, its markup and debate in the Judiciary Committee, been reported out of the Judiciary Committee--the bill was sort of rereported out of the Judiciary Committee with some further changes, there was the adoption of the changes and incorporation of the changes that were negotiated with a number of us, including Senators Schumer, Dodd, Landrieu, Kohl, and myself--I think one of the reasons why we are here tonight with a bill we can go forward with, that is going to get pretty good bipartisan support, has been your willingness to not only listen to some other ideas but to incorporate them into this bill. As I listened to the Senator go through the bill and talk about it, particularly to talk about the changes that have been made in it, I was struck how far we have come in the course of the last year or two. I want, while you are still here, to express my thanks for the way you approached this subject and the openminded way you have enabled us to move forward.

Mr. CARPER. I would appreciate it. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a comment.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, I express my thanks to both leaders for that colloquy and this brief discussion we have had. As both leaders know, the movement of this legislation is a priority for a number of us, certainly for me, and I am gratified that once we have disposed of the Defense appropriations bill, the next bill we will turn to is class action. I express my thanks to the majority leader for making that clear, and to the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his steadfast position, realizing this is not legislation that is at the top of his list of priorities.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I pay tribute today to Alan Milbauer upon his retirement as vice president of public affairs for AstraZeneca. His dedication has won him the respect of coworkers and friends alike, along with the gratitude of many in our State. He has been, and remains, a trusted friend. A native of Brooklyn, NY, Alan was born on August 30, 1943, to Francis and Irving Milbauer. He received his early education in Brooklyn and went on to earn degrees in pharmacy and law at the University of Connecticut in 1965 and 1968, respectively. Alan has spent most of his career in the pharmaceutical industry, except for a brief experience in the field of consumer marketing research. He began his industry experience as attorney for the Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, before coming to Delaware and joining Zeneca Pharmaceuticals--then Atlas Chemicals--in 1969. In 1976, he was appointed director of regulatory affairs. He became vice president of planning in 1985 and vice president of marketing in 1991. Prior to the merger of Astra and Zeneca, Alan served as vice president of external affairs for Zeneca Pharmaceuticals. As a member of the U.S. AstraZeneca leadership team, Alan's responsibilities include Federal and State government affairs, corporate external communications, public relations and ally development, corporate and community affairs, and public policy. As a major international healthcare business engaged in the research, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals and healthcare services, Alan has provided strong leadership and served as a role model to many. According to friends, he has been described as the ``conscience'' for the company. He has long sought to ensure that AstraZeneca was mindful of its corporate responsibility to the community. Alan brought the human side to the corporate world. He also played a role in helping bring AstraZeneca's United States headquarters to Delaware during my years as Governor. Alan serves as a board director for the Delaware Theatre Company, Delaware Public Policy Institute, and is a trustee of the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Vox Medical Center for Patient Education and Health Literacy, and is a member of the Connecticut Bar. Alan's leisure interests include travel, theater, reading, and playing golf. Alan and his wife of 37 years, Nancy, live in Wilmington, DE. They have three children, Karen, Stephen and Jennifer, and two grandchildren, twins Jacob and Rachel. Through Alan's efforts, he has made a real difference in the lives of thousands of individuals and enhanced the quality of life for our State. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for others to follow. I thank him for the friendship that we share, and I congratulate him on a 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today and this week, as we pause to reflect on the life of Ronald Reagan and his role in leading our Nation and the State in which I lived when I was in the Navy, I was thinking back and talking with my children this week about my first recollection of Ronald Reagan. My first recollection was when I was about their age, early in my teenage years, seeing him on television. I may have seen him earlier than that as a kid in the movies, but I do not remember. I remember fully--and the Presiding Officer is probably too young to remember this--a television show called ``Death Valley Days'' and watched later, I remember, a television show called ``GE Theater.'' He was the host and introduced each week's segment. My family would watch those shows, not religiously, but regularly. I enjoyed them as a kid growing up in Danville, VA. At the time, Ronald Reagan, who, I guess, was maybe in his fifties at that time, or maybe forties, had a reasonably successful career in motion pictures, certainly a lot more successful than any of us, except for former Senator Fred Thompson. But he had a reasonably successful career. We were in this in-between place where television was coming of age and playing a role with respect to ``Death Valley Days'' and ``GE Theater.'' I remember my first thoughts of him were that he was a nice-looking guy, a handsome kind of rugged fellow. He seemed to be amiable. He came across as amiable and exuded a certain warmth and also a sense of sincerity that came across clearly on that small television screen that we owned back in those days. I remember being surprised in 1964. I think I was 17 years old. I was about to enroll in Ohio State University. I was going to be a Navy ROTC midshipman. I was at the age of 17 a young Republican for Barry Goldwater. I do not know how I ended up on this side of the aisle. Churchill said: If you are young and not liberal, you don't have a heart; if you are old and not conservative, you don't have a brain. Somehow I ended up as a 17-year-old supporting Barry Goldwater. I remember watching the convention which was in San Francisco at the Cow Palace. Ironically, another one of our colleagues was there as a Goldwater supporter, too. She was there as a ``golden girl.'' Her seat is right behind me. It is ironic we both ended up where we are in the U.S. Senate. I remember watching on television the 1964 Republican Convention and actually watching the Democratic Convention that year. I remember being surprised to see Ronald Reagan speak and address the convention. I knew he had been a film star. I knew he played a role on these two television shows I watched as a kid growing up, but I had no idea. I heard he had been involved in the Actors Guild, sort of a labor union for actors, but I had no idea he was involved in politics to any extent and that he would end up with a major role at that convention speaking on behalf of Barry Goldwater. He came across in this speech a bit differently than he did in his other roles on television, but he did project a great deal of sincerity, a lot of conviction. He also suggested a good-naturedness and a certain warmth I have always found refreshing and enduring about him. We learned that evening, as we watched that speech, that this was a man who had some strong convictions and gave a powerful speech and one who got a lot of people to think about him as a future leader. Not long after that, he was elected Governor of California, served there for the most part with distinction and then ran against Gerald Ford for President, lost and came back a couple of years later, ran against Jimmy Carter and won. It is interesting, conventions were different then. The first convention I ever remember paying much attention to was in 1964. It was a convention with serious questions about who was going to be the President. We had the Republicans. Conservatives were supporting Barry Goldwater and we had the Rockefeller Republicans. There was a lot of give and take, and real primaries. It was hard fought right up until the convention. I remember in 1968 I was a supporter for Eugene McCarthy who was running for President. I respected both McCarthy and Goldwater because they were standup guys. They were willing to take tough positions and not mince their words. I respected them both for that. Conventions were different than they are today. Although I was impressed by the speech that then-citizen Ronald Reagan gave, I never imagined he would be Governor of California, and I certainly never imagined he would be President of the United States. I never imagined I would be a Congressman, Governor, or Senator, either. I am probably more surprised by that than I am about him ending up as Governor and President. As luck would have it, he ended up as President of the United States and I ended up here serving with our Presiding Officer, and that is something I enjoy very much. Before I was Governor, I served in the House of Representatives for 10 years. Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980; I was elected to the House in 1982. I had a chance to interact with him from time to time during limited opportunities as a Democratic Congressman. He had qualities I admired all those years ago when he was hosting those television shows. His warmth, his sincerity, his good humor, those were qualities he possessed in the real world off the TV screen. Sometimes the folks we see or admire on television and film or other venues do not turn out to be quite the same when we meet them in person. He was very much the same. While I did not always see eye to eye with him on environmental issues, for example, and I had concerns about the budget deficits we were starting to rack up, and questions about deploying space weapons, star wars, and the way we conducted our business in Central America, there was a lot he wanted to do and sought to do with which I did agree. He was an early proponent of welfare reform. He was a guy who believed work should pay more than welfare. We have all heard of the earned income tax credit. He was a major proponent of the earned income tax credit because he felt people who worked ought to be better off than folks who were on welfare. He presided over big tax cuts in the early 1980s, 1981, and later on, faced with ever-growing tax deficits, he presided over some of the largest tax increases that were adopted in our Nation's history. He was a staunch opponent of communism, but a fellow who could reach out not just across the aisle but across the world to Gorbachev to become friends, and they embraced one another at the end of their tenures as they together helped to change the world in a better way. I find in Ronald Reagan that he was someone who would stake out a position; he would adhere to that position with his convictions for as long as he could, and at the end, if he had to change, he would. He was willing to do that, but he did not back off easily or readily. He was willing in the end to compromise. In reacting to folks in my own State in Delaware this week who asked me for my reaction to what he was like, I said, well, whether or not you liked the man's policies, it was hard not to like the man. Since his death, there has been a fair amount of conjecture about what we should do to pay tribute to him and his memory. Some people have suggested we ought to rework Mount Rushmore and find a way to put his image on Mount Rushmore. We have had a few people suggest maybe Ronald Reagan's picture should be on the $10 bill instead of Alexander Hamilton. I heard our Republican leader suggest yesterday that maybe we should rename the Pentagon in honor of Ronald Reagan. I do not know that those are good or bad ideas. I have not given those a lot of thought. I ask we consider a couple of other legacies that might even be more important and more enduring. One of those deals with the disease that dogged him for the last years of his life, Alzheimer's disease, a disease my mom also suffers from. She lives in Kentucky. I visited her over the weekend. She does not remember much. Actually, she remembers a few things that happened a long time ago, but she does not have any recollection of Ronald Reagan and all of those years we watched him on television when I was a kid growing up. My mom is going to be 82 years this August and my hope is she will live to be as old as Ronald Reagan. I do not think that is likely, but that would be wonderful if it happened. My mom is one of 4 million people in the world today who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. It was something we saw the first signs of 5, 6, 7 years ago, and we knew where it was leading. Her mom suffered the same fate. Her grandmother had suffered the same fate as well. While there are roughly 4 million Americans today who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, by the year 2020 we are told there could be as many as 14 million Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. It is a tough disease not so much for the person who suffers from it but certainly for their families and those who love them and who are unable to have the kind of relationship we once did. I know Senator Mikulski is going to be leading the effort, I think with Senator Bond, for us to focus anew as a Congress, as a Senate, on providing meaningful increases in funding to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease; not simply a way to treat the symptoms, but a way to stop it dead in its tracks. I commend them for their actions and I stand fully ready to support them. I hope others will as well. The other legacy I suggest that may be as important or we may be inspired to address and do something about other than dealing with Alzheimer's disease is civility. I am not the first person who has noticed this of late, but there has been a huge loss of civility not only in Washington, DC, but shortly after I heard of President Reagan's death I was flipping through the radio channels in my car and I came across one of these right-wing talk shows. There was pure vitriol coming out of the speaker on my radio. I find it hard to listen to that stuff so I turned it off. I find it hard to watch the television shows anymore because it seems there is no meaningful discourse; they are really shouting matches. Ronald Reagan, for whatever faults he may have had, was a civil person, he was a gentleman, and at a time when that kind of behavior characterizes too little of what not only goes on here but what takes place in politics throughout our country, he is a good role model in that the way he treated people was the way he would like to have been treated. It is a lesson that was good and meaningful then and it is one we can certainly take again today. I have heard our own leader, Tom Daschle, begin to speak of late of a new civility, and we need a new civility. We need some civility, not going through the formalities, but treating one another the way we would want to be treated; not just in this Chamber, not just in this Capitol, but throughout this country, even in a Presidential election year. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Army SSG Joseph Garyantes. Joe epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who are fighting to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life--and how we remember him--Joe reminds each of us how good we can be. Joe was born in Wilmington, DE, to Geraldine and the late James Garyantes. When he was 5 years old, his family moved to the Rehoboth Beach area. Joe attended Rehoboth Elementary School and Epworth Christian School. At Epworth, Joe was remembered was a man with a dynamic personality and a good sense of humor. He always was loyal to his fellow friends and teammates and won the most valuable player award in 10th grade for basketball. His family later moved to Florida. When Joe was 18, he seriously considered spending life in the ministry helping people. Ultimately, though, this Delaware native enlisted in the Army and became a soldier at the young age of 20. His mission always remained the same though--helping people. When Joe was stationed in Kosovo before going to Iraq, he asked his family to send care packages. These packages were not for him. They were meant for needy kids in the area. During the holiday season, Joe would bring over single soldiers for Christmas dinners and make them feel as though they were part of the family. Joe spent the last several years in Germany, where he lived with his wife, Monika, and their two sons, Tevin, 6, and Ryan, 4. He was killed by a sniper in Muqdadiyah, Iraq. Joe was assigned to B Company, 1st Battalion, 63rd Armor Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany. I rise today to commemorate Joe, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss. Our country is deeply grateful for his noble service to others, his idealism and for the example that he provided to all Americans by the way he led his life.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, as Senator Domenici prepares to leave the Senate floor, I thank him for his tenacity and his earnest desire to lead us to a balanced energy policy. I think he knows there are plenty of us on this side who do want to reach the right balance, and I have enjoyed trying to provide a little bit of that balance.

Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I yield.

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator. Madam President, on a brighter note, with respect to energy policy, a week or so ago we passed a major bill called FSC/ETI. Some people call it the JOBS bill or a trade bill. But provisions of the Energy bill were incorporated in that legislation, important provisions that include incentives for renewable forms of energy--solar, wind, geothermal--and incentives to encourage people to buy more energy- efficient vehicles, hybrids, fuel-cell vehicles, to make them more affordable, to get more of them out on the road, and using less gasoline and diesel fuel, and also incentives for us to begin converting to a greater use of what I call biofuels--ethanol--and something we do in Delaware a lot on the Delmarva Peninsula where we take soybean oil and mix it with diesel fuel. They were able to do something good for the environment and actually reduce significantly our use of diesel-powered vehicles. While it is still mid-May, we have a fair amount of time to go before we finish here. Before we finish, I hope we will find common ground on the rest of the energy policy, and that it is also respective of our environment and the clean air concerns we have, and gives the States the ability to recover damages for their drinking supply that has been damaged by MTBE.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I express to Senator Biden my appreciation for his inviting a wonderful woman, a rabbi from Delaware, to come here to be our guest Chaplain, and to say how pleased we are, all of us, to welcome Ellen Bernhardt. She gave the invocation about 40 minutes ago. I told her it was one of the best invocations I have heard in the 3 years I have been privileged to be a Senator. It was as good as any I have heard. We thank you for not only coming to bring the blessing of that invocation, but to remind us about what really matters. I also thank her for just what she does in Delaware. She has been a rabbi, I think, about 17 years. She is a native of Philadelphia. For the last 11 years or so, she has run a school in Delaware which is, I believe, the only Jewish day school in our State. We have a lot of schools, but only one Jewish day school--Albert Einstein Academy. There are youngsters in kindergarten, from age 5, up to the sixth grade. While it is a Jewish day school, it is nondenominational because whether the students happen to be Jewish or not, they can attend that school. I was kidding earlier about how most of them are Baptists. Actually, I don't think that is the case. That gives you the flavor of the nondenominational school. I have been privileged to know a number of the kids who go there. They get a wonderful education and start for their lives and go on to do great work. We have been joined today not only by Rabbi Bernhardt, but also by three of her children and her husband. We are so privileged that she lives in Delaware and that she provides great leadership on the educational side, and also for a lot of us on the spiritual side, whether we happen to be Jewish or not. Welcome. Again, to my friend, Joe Biden, I thank him for making it possible for her to be here today.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mary Connelly Kegelman, recipient of the Delaware Mother of the Year and the National Mother of the Year awards. Mary has dedicated her life to raising her 10 children and to the thousands of school children whose lives she has touched. Mary was born in Massachusetts in 1930. She received her Bachelor's degree in chemistry from Elms College in Massachusetts and went on to Fordham University in New York for her Master's degree in physical chemistry. It was during graduate school that she met her husband, Matthew. The two were married on October 12, 1953, in Massachusetts in front of their loved ones. Shortly after graduation, Matthew was offered a job at the DuPont Company. The newlyweds moved to Delaware and have lived here for over 50 years. They have 10 children--John, Matthew, Jerry, Joseph, Thomas, Mary, Christine, Bernadette, James and Daniel, and 18 grandchildren. Mary began teaching algebra part time at Ursuline Academy in Wilmington, DE in 1973. While her children were in middle school at Immaculate Heart of Mary, she saw a great need for algebra education. Two of her children were in seventh and eighth grade, and were not being taught algebra. Mary knew they were capable of learning it. She talked to the school, and began volunteering one day a week to teach algebra to the top students in the class. One day turned into two days, and soon thereafter, the school asked her to come aboard full time to teach and to start the advanced math program at Immaculate Heart of Mary. With the help and cooperation of students, teachers, administrators and faculty, the curriculum developed into a top-notch program, with each of the top 15 students in grades 6, 7 and 8 participating. It was after a lifetime of dedication to her family and students that Mary was recognized for her selfless devotion. American Mothers Inc., a nonprofit group that promotes motherhood and family, awarded Mary with the Delaware Mother of the Year and the National Mother of the Year honors. The State award was presented to Mary in April, and the national award was announced in early May. Mary was honored for reading favorite bedtime stories, helping with homework and offering friendship when it was needed most. Those who know Mary describe her as embodying the spirit of what motherhood is supposed to be--nurturing, but strong. Mary is an amazing woman. She has been committed to her family, her students, and her community. Even to this day, she spends several hours a week tutoring students who need help in math. She has helped shape the lives of thousands in the halls of the institutions she served, and in the hearts of those who have been lucky enough to call her their friend. I rise today to honor and thank Mary for her selfless dedication to the betterment of others. She is a remarkable woman and a testament to the community she represents.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, as a former Governor for Delaware and chairman of the National Governors Association, for a long time I have supported full funding for IDEA. In fact, when Senator Gregg was Congressman Gregg, we served together in the House, and we talked about full funding for IDEA. We talked about the Government's commitment to 40 percent of the funding for special education and that we weren't coming close to it. Today, we are actually making progress in getting closer to that number. We are about halfway there. We have a good way to go. Senator Harkin's and Senator Hagel's amendment will take us where we need to go. I rise to say I would like to be able to offer an amendment to the Harkin-Hagel amendment, but I cannot do it. Under the unanimous consent agreement, this pay-go amendment is precluded. Since I cannot offer it, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I printed this amendment for Senator Chafee, myself, and Senator Feingold, who have been among the champions for the pay-go principle. I think if things are worth doing, we ought to pay for them. If it is worth investing more money in our efforts in Iraq, we ought to pay for it. If it is worth funding special education, we ought to pay for that. I think that argument goes for both meritorious causes. The thing about pay-go is that it calls for a 60-vote margin in order to bust the budget and the caps. We used to operate under these guidelines throughout the 1990s, when we went from huge deficits to balancing the budget. Pay-go lapsed in 2001. We need to restore it. One of the issues being discussed and debated now in the conference on the budget resolution is whether to reestablish the pay-go principle. It ought to be restored and reestablished. Today, rather than being denied the opportunity to offer this amendment because of the procedures we are operating under, we would be able to cite the Budget Act pay-go principles and automatically have a 60-vote procedure before us. Having said that, we are operating under a rule that will--in this instance at least--require 60 votes, so that threshold of a 60-vote supermajority will apply even without pay-go. I will vote for this amendment. I just wish we had the pay-as-you-go principle in place so we would not be denied the opportunity to offer this amendment and we could offer it routinely. That is what I wanted to say today. I especially thank Senator Baucus who was in line ahead of me. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask to be recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator for yielding me 3 minutes 22 seconds. Mr. President, as we gather for this debate, about 60 percent of the oil we use in this country comes from other places. We are importing all that oil. It adds to a huge trade deficit, about $500 billion and growing. About a third of that trade deficit is related to the importation of oil. We have the opportunity with the energy provisions that are part of this bill to do some good things with respect to energy independence in this country. We have the opportunity to urge people to buy more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and vans. We have the opportunity to nurture an automotive industry which will provide fuel-cell-powered vehicles that will provide for vehicles that are powered by a combination of electric and internal combustion--maybe a combination of diesel and electric. We have the opportunity to provide incentives for people to use solar energy more frequently and more effectively, to use geothermal energy more effectively, more broadly. We have the opportunity to encourage people to use wind power as a source of electricity, and other forms of energy, through this bill. Some would say we ought to have a comprehensive energy bill, and these elements ought to be part of the comprehensive energy bill. I will tell you I don't know if we are going to have a chance to debate a comprehensive energy bill. We do have the opportunity today to encourage solar energy, wind power, fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, and we have a chance to do this today. About 100 miles from here there are fields on the Delmarva Peninsula--in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia--where we are growing soybeans. We use soybeans in my part of America to feed the chickens. We take the hull and we feed the chickens and raise more chickens in Delaware, I think, than anyplace in the country. We use the corn we raise to feed the chickens. We have a lot of soybean oil we don't know what to do with, and one of the things we figured out to do is take soybean oil and mix it with diesel fuel--80-percent diesel, 20-percent soybean oil--and we use it to power our DelDOT vehicles in the State of Delaware. We use it to power more farm equipment in the State of Delaware that is diesel power. It works, it is energy efficient, and it is environmentally friendly. People tell me it smells like french fries. That is one of the things we are more likely do with this bill. The intent and encouragement of this bill is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move to biofuels, including soy diesel. Good results come out of using soybeans for this purpose. It reduces our reliance on foreign oil, it is environmentally friendly, and it gives the folks who are raising soybeans--whether it is Delaware, Idaho, or any other place--the opportunity to have another market for their commodity. That is good for farmers, actually paying them to grow a commodity rather than paying them not to do that. This makes a whole lot of sense. I wish the Senator from Arizona in offering his amendment had focused on section 29. That is a more narrowly crafted amendment. My hope is this will be defeated and we may reconsider it and come back to address that. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I recognize Meghan Pasricha and Andrew Bell for being selected as two of the Nation's top youth volunteers in the ninth annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. This is an extraordinary honor. More than 24,000 young people across the country were considered for this recognition each year. The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards, created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP, constitutes America's largest youth recognition program based exclusively on volunteerism. The awards are designed to emphasize the importance that our Nation places on service to others and to encourage young Americans of all backgrounds to contribute to their communities. Meghan Pasricha was named as one of America's top 10 youth volunteers for 2004. Selected from more than 2,000 applicants, she received $5,000, an engraved gold medallion and a crystal trophy from her school, Sanford School. In addition, she will have $25,000 in toys, clothing and other juvenile products donated in her name to needy children in the area by Kids in Distressed Situations, Inc. Meghan Pasricha, 18, of Hockessin, is a senior at Sanford School. Meghan started an antitobacco club at her school that has since developed into a full-blown campaign to educate young people across the country and overseas about the hazards of smoking. When Meghan heard that her State legislature was considering a ban on indoor smoking, she paid close attention. After learning that most smokers start before they turn 18, Meghan founded the Anti-Tobacco Action Club at her school. With a grant from the American Lung Association and the Delaware Health Fund, she recruited a core team of volunteers, led meetings, planned a year-long series of antitobacco activities, created training and presentation materials, and conducted 12 tobacco awareness workshops for school and youth groups. She also set up a tobacco education booth at a school health fair, published a newsletter and helped other Delaware schools start tobacco education programs. And by writing newspaper articles and speaking publicly, she helped mobilize youth support for the enactment of one of the Nation's toughest indoor smoking bans. On a visit to India, Meghan observed how young people there are targeted by tobacco sellers, so she trained a group of youth advocates to raise awareness in a number of villages. Later, Meghan presented her project at the World Conference on Tobacco in Finland, and worked with youth advocates from nine other nations to prepare a World Health Organization Youth Action Guide and video. ``I am convinced that a single person, even if young and inexperienced, can become a catalyst for change,'' she said. ``Young people are often told that they are `leaders of tomorrow.' I urge young people to become leaders today.'' Andrew Bell of Seaford was selected as one of Delaware's top youth volunteers for 2004. He received a $1,000 award and was congratulated by Academy Award winning actress and comedian, Whoopi Goldberg. He also received an engraved silver medallion and a trip to Washington, DC, for the program's national recognition events. Twelve-year-old Andrew, a sixth grader at Sussex Academy of Arts and Sciences, helped collect shoes, socks, and shoelaces for needy orphans around the world. Andrew started the project by writing letters to the four elementary school principals in his hometown of Seaford, asking them for permission to collect donations in their schools. He wrote articles for his school newsletters, created handouts and brochures explaining the purpose of his project, decorated collection boxes for each of the four schools, and solicited donations from local department stores. Some 300 pairs of shoes, 83 pairs of socks and 15 pairs of shoelaces were collected for this effort. From there, the items were sent to the Buckner Orphan Care facility in Texas. The items were then distributed worldwide to orphans in need. Andrew felt that this project was important because ``many children on Earth are poor, and not very many people are trying to help them.'' Today, I rise to congratulate Meghan and Andrew. These youngsters inspire examples of community spirit and leadership. They serve as role models not only to their peers, but to all of us, as well as to the people they have touched through community service. They represent the State of Delaware at its very best.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Jim and Sophia Tarabicos, who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on February 28, 2004. As Jim and Sophia celebrate this milestone in their lives, they will surely reflect on the many changes, successes and accomplishments they have experienced together over the last fifty years. Theirs is a journey of which they can be proud. Jim is the son of the late Harilaos and Alexandra Tarabicos. Jim attended high school in his hometown of Nafpaktos, Greece. He came to Wilmington, DE at the young age of 19 to work at his uncle's restaurant, Presto, located at 817 Market Street in downtown Wilmington. His wife, Sophia, is the daughter of the late Louis and Georgia Liarakos. She is a native Delawarean who graduated from P.S. DuPont High School and studied at the University of Delaware. Jim and Sophia met at a church event when they were 19 and 17 respectively. They married two years later on February 28, 1954 at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Wilmington in front of their friends and family. For over 40 years, Jim and Sophia dedicated their lives to one another and to their businesses. They opened their first store, a luncheonette named Jim's Place at 8th and Orange Streets in Wilmington in the mid 1950s. Several years later, they bought Presto Restaurant from their uncle. They later changed the name to Tarabicos. Jim and Sophia were committed to the success of their restaurant. Owning their own business allowed them to spend valuable time with each other, while at the same time being devoted parents, and major contributors to their neighbors, community, and church. They retired a decade ago, and continue to remain active members of their community. Jim and Sophia consider their church to be like a second family. Jim was the president of the parish council for Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church from 1971 to 1973. While Jim was president, plans were made to move forward with approving the construction of the community center and the design, financing and use thereof. Sophia is a member of the Philoptochos Greek Ladies Society and served as president from 1981 to 1983. In addition to the restaurants and church activities, Jim and Sophia were also quite involved with political activities, committees, and fundraisers in the City of Wilmington and were active with the city's merchants association. In their spare time, they enjoy taking walks together at Bellevue State Park, and traveling, especially taking cruises. They are blessed with three children, Larry, Alexandra, and Georgiean, and six grandchildren, Kristin, Sophia Alyssa, Maria, Sophia Elaina, Michael and Dimitri. They are devoted to each other and to their families. Jim and Sophia are active in their children's and grandchildren's lives, often traveling to visit family members and spending meaningful time with their grandchildren and passing on to them valuable life lessons. They enjoy attending all of their various school functions Today, I rise to congratulate Jim and Sophia on their 50th wedding anniversary. Both have shown great service and commitment to their family and to their community. They serve as true role models. I know that their years together hold many beautiful memories. It is my hope that those ahead will be filled with continued joy. I wish them both the very best in all that lies ahead.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the question here today is not whether we want to tax people's access to the Internet. We don't. None of us want to do that. That is not the issue. The question is, are we going to say to State and local governments that have collected a portion of their taxes for years from telecommunications, from telephone services, are we going to take away their ability to do that? We are going to reduce their ability to do that? We are going to reduce their revenue base but at the same time, whatever shortfall they realize, we are not going to make up for it? Ever since the time of Alexander Graham Bell, State and local governments have been collecting taxes on traditional telephone services. What is at issue here is whether we are going to empty the State and local treasuries to the tune of as much as $20 billion in the years ahead, at a time when they are facing the greatest fiscal crisis they have faced since World War II. Are we going to empty the treasury of California by another $836 million? It is already empty. Do we want to empty the treasury of the State of Connecticut by some $170 million, or $265 million out of Kentucky's treasury, or $110 million out of Louisiana's Treasury, or $225 million out of Massachusetts' treasury, or $360 million out of Michigan's treasury, or $285 million out of Minnesota's treasury, or $600 million out of New Jersey's treasury, or $370 million out of North Carolina's treasury, or $358 million out of Tennessee's treasury, or $200 million out of Wisconsin's treasury? The list goes on. I have said on the Senate floor before and I will say it again: If we want to do something good for the telecommunications industry--I do, and I am supportive of a number of other initiatives for the industry-- if we are supportive of tax credits or allowing companies to expense their investments, we should pay for it as Federal legislators. It is wrong for us to say we are going to give a break to the telecommunications industry, or any other industry, and say not only are we not going to pay for it, but we will tell the State and local governments they have to pay for it. In my view, that is wrong. That is not treating other people the way we want to be treated, and it is something we shouldn't countenance today. We are going to vote on cloture in a short while with respect to the McCain amendment. Let me say this: There is a reasonable compromise between where Senator Alexander and I stand and where Senator McCain stands. There is a reasonable compromise. We will get to that compromise with a ``no'' vote on cloture. I am convinced that we will get it. I stood here last week and urged people to vote no on the cloture on the Frist bill on asbestos. I said if we do it, we will create a dynamic where real compromise and consensus can be built around asbestos--a very difficult issue. We voted no on cloture, and as we gather here right now, over in SH-216 in Hart there are serious meetings going on to get us to a real settlement on asbestos. We need real negotiation. A ``no'' vote on cloture on McCain does not end prospects for consensus, but it actually creates it. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have listened, and I understand we are debating--actually embracing--the McCain amendment to modify the language that would ensure States which have traditionally been able to derive revenue from telephone communications would continue to be able to do that. As we go forward in time--and those communications are expected to migrate to the Internet--we want to make sure we don't undercut the ability of States to continue to derive some revenues from this. We had a good exchange an hour or so ago among Senators Alexander, Voinovich, myself, and our friends who have different views on the overall bill. I am pleased we were able to come to an agreement, not just in spirit but in letter as well. We all said we were interested in the same thing. We don't want to undercut the bill. The language in the original amendment did not appear to do that--at least to us. We would rather not have ambiguity going forward. At a future date, if there is a court hearing and a judge is looking at the language, trying to figure out what we meant, we want the judge to understand very clearly that this body, the Congress, has no interest in taking away the ability of States to raise revenue from a longstanding traditional source--some say it goes back to the time when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. I don't know if the tax has been around that long, but I think this preserves that for the States, and that is important, as telephone communications migrate to the Internet. I thank my colleagues, Senators McCain, Allen, and Wyden, for working with us. In fact, our staffs helped thread the needle in a very constructive and tough way.

Mr. CARPER. I thank Senator Feinstein for yielding time and particularly for offering this amendment. I would say to my colleagues, I believe we have made pretty good progress, not just today but over the last several weeks, maybe the last several months, in terms of narrowing our differences. I am encouraged by that. I hope others of us are as well. One of the great concerns some of us had was a moratorium on the ability of State and local governments to collect certain kinds of revenues that lasted forever. I am pleased that is not the case anymore. We have a moratorium of a finite duration, and the duration of the moratorium will be 4 years. I am encouraged that we entered into a healthy negotiation on just how can we make sure State and local governments which traditionally derive revenue from telephone operations continue to do that. We had a good-faith negotiation, and that led to an amendment offered by Senator McCain that was accepted unanimously. That was a very important provision. There is one more issue I believe needs to be addressed. It is addressed in the Feinstein amendment. If somehow the Feinstein amendment could be adopted, I believe we would have a bill--in fact, we would have a bill I would vote for. I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Alexander, with whom I have worked very hard on these issues, indicated he would very likely do the same thing. For us to come from sort of how far apart we were to the point where we could actually vote for this bill were this change enacted is no small amount of progress. Some of my colleagues have said to me that this is a complex issue. It is. Some have said to me I don't really understand most of these issues. I have studied hard. I confess there is still a good deal I don't know. But I would share with my colleagues, whether you understand the intricacies of the backbone of the Internet and what DSL means, I think we understand this and I hope we could agree on this: If we are going to say that on the one hand we are going to extend the moratorium for 4 years, and we are going to say to State and local governments there are certain things you can't do during those 4 years, I think there is a great virtue in saying to those States that are legally collecting revenues that they can continue to do that. They have not violated the law. In fact, the old moratorium enacted in 1998 explicitly said the moratorium did not apply to telecommunications services. That is what it said. DSL has a telecom component in it. As such, States are not prohibited from taxing DSL. Around 17 States currently do. All we are asking in this amendment is that the grandfather clause, both for dial-up and for DSL, run coterminously with the term in the McCain compromise, and that is 4 years. If we have a 4-year moratorium, why shouldn't we have a 4-year grandfather in States that are not doing anything illegal but, frankly, exercising their rights as sovereign States? I like that symmetry and balance. What I like maybe even more is it enables those of us who fought very hard over these issues in recent weeks and months to actually come together in the end and vote for this package. So I say to my colleagues, if you voted earlier today, maybe, for cloture, and you thought in voting for cloture you were voting for a 4- year grandfather for State and local governments, you did not. What you thought you were voting for and what you thought you were getting, you did not get. You have the opportunity now to make amends for that, and I hope you will do that by voting for the Feinstein amendment: 4-year moratorium, 4-year grandfather. It is a good symmetry, and, frankly, it is a very good compromise and one that will enable us to go ahead and proceed on this bill and pass it and ultimately to enact it. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague for yielding. I join Senator Alexander in congratulating Senator Wyden, Senator Allen, and Senator McCain for the vote on the cloture. All week I had a different point of view on how we wanted to approach this matter. Now that is behind us. We want to approach this in the spirit of comity and see if we cannot find a consensus. I said yesterday and I reiterate again today, there are four areas of contention, as I see them. We are discussing going from a very narrow moratorium to a very broad moratorium and the issue of what is defined as exempt under the moratorium. It is a good deal broader than what we faced in recent years. That is a matter of concern. Going well beyond access fees and discriminatory taxes is a matter of second concern. I appreciate Senator McCain's offer to go from a permanent moratorium down to 4 years. We were interested in 2 years. I don't know if there is a similar area there for compromise. I think there is a number between 2 and 4 that might work. That would be consistent with the third area of contention where the duration of the grandfather clause for State and local governments is 3 years. They are protected for 3 years, and the length of the moratorium is 4. If we could put those two together, 3 and 3--3 years for the moratorium and stick with the 3 years for the grandfather clause--I think that actually addresses that concern. In conversation with Senator Wyden, Senator Allen, Senator McCain, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Alexander, everyone says nobody wants to deny State and local governments the opportunity to collect taxes from telephone services that they have collected for decades. I have not talked to anybody who wants to deny State and local governments that have been collecting taxes on telephone services almost since the day Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Everyone says they do not want to deny the ability to collect that for State and local governments. The concern is, as telephone service and commerce communication migrate to the Internet, we want to make sure that as that happens State and local governments do not see those they traditionally rely on cut out. Those are four areas, and I think there is middle ground--at least on three of them. I don't know if we can ever agree on the breadth and depth of the definition. We will approach it in a good spirit. I thank Senator Dodd for yielding.