Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I don't know that Winston Churchill, one of the great leaders of Britain, ever said anything about Thanksgiving or turkeys. He is somebody we like to quote a lot. He used to say there are two things people should not see made: One of them is sausages and the other is laws. That could be said of the process we have gone through to modernize Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit. It has been a difficult debate and a difficult process. Churchill also said democracy is the worst form of government devised by wit of man, except for all the rest. That is also something I would have us keep in mind today as we reflect on this bill. Mr. President, 38 years ago a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, signed into law legislation creating Medicare. At the time it was hailed as a milestone. It was hailed as a landmark in providing a benefit to millions of our senior citizens who did not have access to health care, did not have access to hospitals, did not have access to doctors and nursing care. With the signing of that bill by then- President Johnson, the whole world changed for millions of Americans. Today it continues to change for tens of millions more. Initially, Medicare, when it was fashioned, was designed to provide access to hospitals for people who needed to get hospitalized to get well. They would have that under Medicare if they were old enough. Similarly, if folks were in need of access to a doctor's care or nurse's care, they would have it under that legislation he signed 38 years ago. There are a number of things that bill did not provide. It did not provide for home health care. It did not provide for outpatient care. It did not provide for access to prescription medicines or enable senior citizens, those Medicare eligible, to obtain help buying prescription medicine. Over time Medicare has evolved, as we know. Over time we have learned. Today we are a lot smarter. We can keep people out of hospitals and treat them on an outpatient basis. We are far wiser about keeping elderly people out of hospitals and, where it makes sense, treating them in their homes. We also know today, in 2003, we can prevent a lot of illnesses and we can cure a lot of illnesses. We can enhance the quality of life for senior citizens by making sure they have access to prescription medicines we did not have in 1965, and frankly we did not dream about in 1965. If we were creating Medicare anew today, this week or this month, it would be a no-brainer. We would have home health care. They would provide for outpatient services and care. It would also include a prescription medicine component. When I was Governor of Delaware and running for the Senate in 2000, I talked a fair amount about prescription drug programs that were proposed in the Congress, principally one proposed by Senator Graham of Florida. I thought and still think it is a better alternative than what we have adopted here today. Adopting this legislation today is an example of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are a number of principles I have said for some time we should attempt to adhere to when putting in place a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Foremost among these is that the program should be voluntary. If senior citizens want to participate, they can. If they choose not to participate, then they will not have to. Second, I suggested that among the principles we adhere to is the prescription drug plan we adopt be one that would provide help where the help was most needed--for folks who do not have any kind of coverage, those whose incomes were very low, and those whose need for prescription drugs is exorbitantly high. A third principle I have suggested is that middle-income senior citizens should find some help, some benefit from this legislation. A fourth principle is we should do our very best to harness competition and market forces, to use those market forces to help contain the dramatic increase in the cost of prescription medicines. A fifth principle is there should be no gaps and no caps in coverage. We violated that principle in this legislation. We violated one other principle that I have talked about as well, and that is this prescription drug plan should be consistent with a balanced budget. The unfortunate reality is that a plan with no gaps or caps has become inconsistent with a balanced budget. We find ourselves today as a country in a huge hole, a fiscal hole, because of unwise tax cuts, a war on terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, and a slumbering economy that is slow to revive. Because of the size of that budget deficit, we are unable to pass the kind of prescription drug program many of us would like, one that has no gaps and one that has no caps. I have listened with some fascination to the debate here in the Senate and raging across Capitol Hill and across the country. On the one hand, my friends on the left say the bill we have just adopted here is the end of Medicare as we know it. They say that it is not just the nose of the camel under the tent, it is the camel under the tent. On the other hand, I have heard folks from the far right, who oppose this with equal vehemence, say there are no changes of consequence to Medicare, that it will be more of the same, that we have adopted a new entitlement program with scarce efforts at serious cost containment. Both those sides cannot be right. My own view is neither of them are right. For folks old enough to participate in this program, they will have a choice. If they want to participate, they can. If they want to pay $35 a month for a premium, they can participate in this program. If they are poor, that $35 per month premium is forgiven. There is a $250 annual deductible that must be satisfied before the Medicare benefit kicks in. For people who are poor, that $250 deductible will be essentially eased or eliminated. Between $250 and roughly $2,250, Medicare will pay 75 percent of drug costs for most seniors who participate in this program. Medicare will pay more for those who have low-incomes. I am told the average cost of prescription medicines for people 65 and older in this country is roughly $2,200. That would suggest to me that many who elect to participate in this benefit, including middle-income seniors, will benefit from it. Between $2,250 and $5100 in drug costs, Medicare continues to provide comprehensive coverage for low-income seniors. However, for middle- class seniors, the benefit does not provide any coverage at all for spending in this range. That is the gap in coverage. I wish it was not there. I hope we can eliminate this gap in coverage as we get our fiscal house in order. Seniors will have a drug discount card as part of this program. The discounts they will receive may be worth 10 to 20 percent. If someone's prescription use is $4,000 or $5,000 a year, they will fall in the coverage gap, but the benefits from that discount card I think will equal or exceed the cost of their premium. But that is still a very modest benefit for those whose drug needs are between $2,250 and $5,000 a year. On the other hand, for people who have very large prescription drug needs, whose costs exceed $5,000, the catastrophic benefit is generous. Medicare pays for 95 percent of those costs that exceed $5,000. I have heard any number of concerns about this legislation, raised not just by my colleagues but by folks back home in my State of Delaware. They have raised questions and legitimate concerns that we need to address. First of all, with respect to cost containment, is there enough in this bill? I don't think so. There are those who suggest we ought to consider the approach adopted by the VA, whereby the Veterans' Administration negotiates with the pharmaceutical industry in order to buy pharmaceuticals for veterans at lower prices. I think that is worth exploring. We made it easier as part of this legislation for generic drugs to be introduced, to come to market. That will increase competition and push down prices. It is a modest effort. We need to do more in this respect. But what we have with this bill is an opportunity. I sometimes talk about the glass being half full or half empty. I think we have an opportunity--certainly in my State, and I suspect in other States as well--to take this basic Medicare drug benefit and to build on it. Since I know my State best, I will talk about Delaware. We have a number of employers who provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees. Roughly 40 percent of our employers in Delaware today still provide that benefit. Some of those benefits are provided as a result of collective bargaining agreements. I hope we are smart enough-- employers, labor unions, and individuals--to find a way to take those same dollars to provide first dollar of coverage for pensioners. I hope we are smart enough to take those same dollars and perhaps use them to pay the $35 monthly Medicare prescription drug premium for retirees; to pay for the $250 deductible; to pay for some of the costs Medicare will not cover between $2,250 and $5,000. Similarly, I hope we are smart enough in States such as my State, and in cities and counties and those units of government that have in many cases prescription drug benefits for their pensioners, to have the wherewithal and farsightedness to modify the kind of coverage we now provide to build on the basic Medicare prescription plan offered as part of this legislation--maybe to pay for the monthly premium, or all the deductible, or maybe to reduce the size of that donut hole between $2,250 and $5,000. But we don't just have to hope that will happen. The legislation includes substantial incentives for employers and States to do just what I have described. For every dollar that a private sector employer provides in qualified prescription drug benefits for their pensioners-- benefits that will supplement and enhance the Medicare benefit in this bill--they will realize, as a result of the incentives in this legislation, an after-tax benefit of 50 to 70 cents on that dollar. Is that going to keep all those employers and all those State and local governments in the game? No, it is not. But in the absence of that kind of incentive, what has happened? Well, go back in time. In 1988, roughly two-thirds of the large companies in America provided health benefits for their pensioners and provided a prescription drug benefit for their pensioners--roughly two-thirds, 15 years ago. Today, in 2003, that two-thirds is no longer two-thirds. Today, roughly one-third of the larger employers in this country provide a prescription drug benefit for their pensioners. Without this legislation we are adopting today, we have seen a reduction almost by half of those employers that provided a benefit 15 years ago. They have stopped doing so today. If you run it out over the next 15 years, if this trend continues, by the time 2018 rolls around you may have no private sector employers providing benefits. That would be an awful thing. We need to do something about it. We need to provide the kind of incentives to employers we have provided in this legislation. We desperately need private sector employers to continue to provide a prescription drug benefit for their pensioners. We desperately need States and local governments to do the same with respect to their pensioners. There is another source of prescription drug benefits I want to talk about. When I was privileged to serve as Governor, I signed into law legislation to create the Prescription Assistance Program in our State. For pensioners whose incomes go up to 200 percent of poverty, they are eligible for a benefit each year that is worth about $2,500. We also have in our State a wonderful program called the Nemours Program, funded by a trust left by a wealthy family a long time ago. They provide help to children in my State and they also provide assistance to senior citizens in my State. The DuPont Children's Hospital in Delaware is funded by that trust. It is a wonderful institution. It helps kids all over the country and literally all over the world. The Nemours Plan also provides a prescription drug plan for senior citizens whose income runs from 0 to 135 percent of poverty. They also provide eyeglasses and dentures. We have to be smart enough in our little State of Delaware to make sure the dollars being spent for prescription medicines under the Nemours Plan continue to be spent on prescription assistance for Delaware seniors. It does not need to be spent in the same way it is today, because the Medicare plan will cover literally all of the needs for very low income seniors that Nemours currently assists with. But those same dollars can now be used to help fill in the gaps and make more generous the basic Medicare plan, which will be, at best, modest. Similarly, the millions of dollars the State of Delaware is spending on the prescription assistance plan that we put in place roughly 4 years ago covers between 135 percent and 200 percent of poverty. If we are smart in our State, we will take those same dollars and redirect them--not necessarily to cover the same people; we will not need to. Some of those people who will be advantaged by virtue of the Medicare plan won't need the kind of help they get under the Delaware Prescription Assistance Plan. But we should take those dollars now being spent through that program and redirect them to fill the gaps, to wrap around and supplement the basic Medicare plan. Similarly, the dollars spent by private sector employers and by public sector employers should no longer, starting in 2006, be spent exactly in the same way, but to the extent that we are smart and wise and farsighted, we can redistribute those dollars to build around the basic Medicare plan, to fill the gaps that obviously are there that need to be filled, and be able to provide in the end a benefit that we can all feel good about and be proud of. I close by going back to where I started. If we had gathered here this year and had no Medicare Program, and we said let us start from scratch, we would include a prescription drug plan. In 1965, we didn't have the ability to provide prescription medicines for the sort of things we do today. If we had, a lot of people would have lived a lot longer and healthier and better lives. A couple of days from now, I will be with my own mother. I look forward to being with her, probably the day after Thanksgiving. She is alive today in part because of the love that surrounds her. She is also alive today, I am convinced, because of prescription medicines to which she has access. She has heart failure and takes medicine for that. She has arthritis. She is able to take medicine for the arthritis that afflicts her. My mom suffers from Alzheimer's disease. She and literally hundreds of thousands of Alzheimer's victims around the country today have access to medicines that are beginning to show great promise in making sure that many of us do not end up living the last years of our lives in a state of dementia. She has a better quality of life today because of prescription medicine. She gets a fair amount of help through the employer that my dad used to work for. They provide a prescription benefit and hopefully will continue to do that. We are thankful for the assistance that she gets. For a lot of people in our country who do not have anything at all, who do not have any kind of prescription benefit, who are elderly and need that help, a lot of them will get this help as a result of the legislation we have adopted here today. Is this legislation all we would like it to be? No. Is this the end of the road? No. Is this a decent beginning? It is. It is incumbent upon Congress to make it a beginning, a good beginning, but not the end. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Hollings, Collins, Specter, Jeffords and Lautenberg in introducing ``ARRIVE 21,'' the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century. ARRIVE 21 is a comprehensive proposal that creates a new public/private partnership to fund rail infrastructure development, reauthorizes and improves Amtrak, and enhances Federal and State rail policy and planning efforts. As our Nation faces a mobility crisis of staggering proportions, with freight movements expected to double and our highways and airways already overburdened with congestion, ARRIVE 21 will give our States a new and powerful tool to unlock the potential of intercity passenger rail, bringing high-speed rail to viable corridors across the country while providing capital funding for freight rail projects that deliver public benefits. Today's passenger and freight railroads are already essential components of our surface transportation system and I believe that greater use of rail offers one of the best opportunities to augment the capacity of our existing transportation network, while benefiting the environment and reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Historically, railroads have been built, maintained and operated outside of the publicly funded programs that finance our other transportation modes, relying almost exclusively on the private sector to fund their infrastructure. However, today's railroads face restricted access to capital and capacity constraints that limit service quality and expansion, all the while facing ever-growing modal competition financed by federally funded trust funds. If rail is to remain viable or increase its share of the intercity passenger and freight markets--necessary developments if we are to reach other transportation and public policy goals including highway infrastructure preservation, highway and air congestion relief, energy efficiency, environmental stewardship and smart growth development--then the pubic sector, through arm's length voluntary partnerships with private railroads, must play a more active role in financing the development of freight and passenger rail infrastructure, as it has with all other modes. Today, America's freight railroads carry 16 percent of the nation's freight by tonnage and intercity passenger rail carriers roughly 23 million passenger annually. But, the ability of our passenger and freight rail systems to generate the sufficient investment capital needed to maintain this market share, or expand it to handle the expected increases in passenger and freight traffic over the next 20 years, is limited or in jeopardy. According to the America Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (ASSHTO) ``Freight Rail Bottom Line Report,'' the nation's freight railroads will need an additional $2.65 billion of public sector annual capital investment over the next 20 years above and beyond what they can finance themselves just to maintain their current share of the freight tonnage. Without this additional investment, freight traffic is likely to shift from rail to our highways, resulting in an additional 450 million tons of freight and 15 billion truck VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) on our roads and $162 billion in increased shipper costs, $238 billion in increased highway user costs, and approximately $20 billion in direct additional highway infrastructure costs. Alternatively, ASSHTO has concluded that with a public investment of $4 billion annually in freight rail infrastructure over the next 20 years, freight rail's tonnage share would increase 1 percentage point to 17 percent. This shift would thereby relieve our highways of an estimated 600 million tons of freight traffic and 25 billion VMT, while saving shippers $239 billion and highways users $397 billion, and reducing direct highway infrastructure costs by $17 billion. For intercity passenger rail, ASSHTO similarly concludes that roughly $3 billion in annual public sector investment over the next 20 years is needed to expand intercity passenger rail services and advance the many viable high speed rail corridors that could reduce highway and aviation congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute's ``2003 Urban Mobility Report,'' which looks at transportation mobility in 75 cities of varying sizes, concludes that the average annual transportation delay time per person climbed from ``16 hours in 1982 to 60 hours in 2001'' due to the congestion of our surface system. High-quality and high-speed intercity passenger service, especially in intercity corridors of 500 miles or less where rail can offer competitive trip times, offers a tremendous opportunity to relieve such congestion by shifting travelers who current drive and fly onto trains. Today, roughly 80 percent off all trips of more than 100 miles are less than 500 miles in length. Successful rail corridors in California, the Pacific Northwest, and in the Northeast have shown that rail can be viable option for travelers in such markets, capturing significant market share and in same cases becoming the dominate mode when frequent and high-quality service is offered. Where intercity passenger rail is successful, congestion in our airports and on our highways is reduced, smart development is induced, jobs are created and citizens' safety and quality of life are improved. Theses facts lead to the obvious conclusion that leveraging modest public investment in our rail system will reap benefits to our entire surface transportation system and to our Nation as a whole. In my State of Delaware, we have clearly seen the value that high-quality passenger and freight rail service brings and we have made significant investments to upgrade both Amtrak facilities and infrastructure and enhance freight capacity for the railroads that serve Delaware industries. But despite of all the good reasons to invest in our railroad infrastructure, Delaware and other States are limited in what they can do on there own without the benefit of the financing partnership that our Federal Government provides the State for all other transportation investments. ARRIVE 21 is designed to change that. ARRIVE 21 will empower our States to make rational investments in our rail system when such investments provide significant pubic benefits. Through the creation of the Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO) a non-profit, non-Federal, congressionally-chartered corporation that can issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over 6 years, States will have a new partner to assist them in undertaking rail capital projects. RIFCO will award, using a portion of the proceeds from the bond issuance, discretionary capital matching grants to States and Amtrak for high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail projects and State formula matching grants for freight capital projects. Prior to issuing grants, a portion of the bond proceeds will be deposited in a secure and continually monitored repayment fund managed by the RIFCO investment trust to retire the debt over the life of the bonds. Passenger and freight rail projects eligible for funding through RIFCO include planning and environmental review, rail line rehabilitation, upgrades and development, safety and security projects, passenger equipment acquisition, station improvements, and intermodal facilities development. In order to receive grants, States must prepare a State rail plan and provide a 20 percent non-Federal match to RIFCO, thereby replicating the cost sharing relationship our States currently have for investments in other modes. ARRIVE 21 will promote jobs and economic growth through the rehabilitation and expansion of rail infrastructure, the manufacture and procurement of new rail equipment and the enhancement of mobility and development in and around or cities and towns. Our bill provides a total $42 billion investment in U.S. rail infrastructure and service to expand high-speed passenger rail in congested corridors, strengthen Amtrak, and improve freight mobility. Such investment will revitalize the U.S. rail supply industry and create thousands of jobs. According to U.S. Transportation Secretary Mineta, every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates roughly 47,500 jobs. That means ARRIVE 21 stands to create roughly 2 million jobs, if enacted. ARRIVE 21 reauthorizes and reforms Amtrak. Designed to improve upon Amtrak's current congressional and State funding processes, our bill authorizes approximately $1.5 billion annually for 6 years to Amtrak for the basic capital and operating needs required to run and maintain the current system. In addition to these funds, the States and Amtrak can pursue major capital improvements and equipment acquisition through RIFCO, with reductions in Amtrak's capital authorizations for projects funded through RIFCO capital grants. Through this process, the amount needed for annual Amtrak appropriation for capital will be reduced over the life of the reauthorization, as RIFCO begins to finance a growing share of Amtrak's capital needs. As is the case today, operating costs on long distance trains will be covered by Amtrak's annual appropriation, while States will share the costs with Amtrak for operations of short distance corridors. For such shot distance corridors, ARRIVE 21 infuse fairness into the current system by requiring parity between Amtrak and all States for cost sharing, putting an end to disparate treatment among the States that contract with Amtrak to provide corridor service. Furthermore, it authorizes a study of new methodologies to determine Amtrak routes and services while defining the national passenger rail system based on existing service and high-speed rail corridors. ARRIVE 21 also requires a whole host of new reforms including accounting transparency measures, the establishment of a quarterly grant process for Amtrak through the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure accountability, and the creation of new service metrics that will improve the monitoring and quantification of Amtrak service performance and quality. ARRIVE 21 helps to coordinate rail-planning efforts across the U.S. at the national and State level and increases the Federal Railroad Administration's advocacy role in promoting a safe, secure, efficient, environmentally sound rail transportation system nationwide. The bill directs the Federal Government to develop a national rail plan in coordination with State rail plans and creates a rail cooperative research program through the National Academies of Sciences. It also authorizes additional funds for planning of high-speed rail projects through the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and addresses rail safety needs by authorizing funding for emergency passenger safety improvement projects. In light of the security risks facing our railroads, ARRIVE 21 authorizes $515 million in 2004 for rail security threat assessments and grants through the Department of Homeland Security. In total, ARRIVE 21 provides the needed funding for the more than $5 billion annual shortfall in U.S. rail infrastructure investment cited by AASHTO Bottom Line Report without involving the Highway Trust Fund or sapping funds away from other important transportation priorities. This bill will provide our States and the Nation with a fiscally responsible and innovative opportunity to enhance our entire transportation system. We owe it to the American people to support this bill and move towards the type of high-quality, high-speed intercity passenger rail service that Americans desire and deserve, while meeting the ever-growing demands that trade and our economy are placing on our freight system. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting ARRIVE 21.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Hollings, Collins, Specter, Jeffords and Lautenberg in introducing ``ARRIVE 21,'' the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century. ARRIVE 21 is a comprehensive proposal that creates a new public/private partnership to fund rail infrastructure development, reauthorizes and improves Amtrak, and enhances Federal and State rail policy and planning efforts. As our Nation faces a mobility crisis of staggering proportions, with freight movements expected to double and our highways and airways already overburdened with congestion, ARRIVE 21 will give our States a new and powerful tool to unlock the potential of intercity passenger rail, bringing high-speed rail to viable corridors across the country while providing capital funding for freight rail projects that deliver public benefits. Today's passenger and freight railroads are already essential components of our surface transportation system and I believe that greater use of rail offers one of the best opportunities to augment the capacity of our existing transportation network, while benefiting the environment and reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Historically, railroads have been built, maintained and operated outside of the publicly funded programs that finance our other transportation modes, relying almost exclusively on the private sector to fund their infrastructure. However, today's railroads face restricted access to capital and capacity constraints that limit service quality and expansion, all the while facing ever-growing modal competition financed by federally funded trust funds. If rail is to remain viable or increase its share of the intercity passenger and freight markets--necessary developments if we are to reach other transportation and public policy goals including highway infrastructure preservation, highway and air congestion relief, energy efficiency, environmental stewardship and smart growth development--then the pubic sector, through arm's length voluntary partnerships with private railroads, must play a more active role in financing the development of freight and passenger rail infrastructure, as it has with all other modes. Today, America's freight railroads carry 16 percent of the nation's freight by tonnage and intercity passenger rail carriers roughly 23 million passenger annually. But, the ability of our passenger and freight rail systems to generate the sufficient investment capital needed to maintain this market share, or expand it to handle the expected increases in passenger and freight traffic over the next 20 years, is limited or in jeopardy. According to the America Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (ASSHTO) ``Freight Rail Bottom Line Report,'' the nation's freight railroads will need an additional $2.65 billion of public sector annual capital investment over the next 20 years above and beyond what they can finance themselves just to maintain their current share of the freight tonnage. Without this additional investment, freight traffic is likely to shift from rail to our highways, resulting in an additional 450 million tons of freight and 15 billion truck VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) on our roads and $162 billion in increased shipper costs, $238 billion in increased highway user costs, and approximately $20 billion in direct additional highway infrastructure costs. Alternatively, ASSHTO has concluded that with a public investment of $4 billion annually in freight rail infrastructure over the next 20 years, freight rail's tonnage share would increase 1 percentage point to 17 percent. This shift would thereby relieve our highways of an estimated 600 million tons of freight traffic and 25 billion VMT, while saving shippers $239 billion and highways users $397 billion, and reducing direct highway infrastructure costs by $17 billion. For intercity passenger rail, ASSHTO similarly concludes that roughly $3 billion in annual public sector investment over the next 20 years is needed to expand intercity passenger rail services and advance the many viable high speed rail corridors that could reduce highway and aviation congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute's ``2003 Urban Mobility Report,'' which looks at transportation mobility in 75 cities of varying sizes, concludes that the average annual transportation delay time per person climbed from ``16 hours in 1982 to 60 hours in 2001'' due to the congestion of our surface system. High-quality and high-speed intercity passenger service, especially in intercity corridors of 500 miles or less where rail can offer competitive trip times, offers a tremendous opportunity to relieve such congestion by shifting travelers who current drive and fly onto trains. Today, roughly 80 percent off all trips of more than 100 miles are less than 500 miles in length. Successful rail corridors in California, the Pacific Northwest, and in the Northeast have shown that rail can be viable option for travelers in such markets, capturing significant market share and in same cases becoming the dominate mode when frequent and high-quality service is offered. Where intercity passenger rail is successful, congestion in our airports and on our highways is reduced, smart development is induced, jobs are created and citizens' safety and quality of life are improved. Theses facts lead to the obvious conclusion that leveraging modest public investment in our rail system will reap benefits to our entire surface transportation system and to our Nation as a whole. In my State of Delaware, we have clearly seen the value that high-quality passenger and freight rail service brings and we have made significant investments to upgrade both Amtrak facilities and infrastructure and enhance freight capacity for the railroads that serve Delaware industries. But despite of all the good reasons to invest in our railroad infrastructure, Delaware and other States are limited in what they can do on there own without the benefit of the financing partnership that our Federal Government provides the State for all other transportation investments. ARRIVE 21 is designed to change that. ARRIVE 21 will empower our States to make rational investments in our rail system when such investments provide significant pubic benefits. Through the creation of the Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO) a non-profit, non-Federal, congressionally-chartered corporation that can issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over 6 years, States will have a new partner to assist them in undertaking rail capital projects. RIFCO will award, using a portion of the proceeds from the bond issuance, discretionary capital matching grants to States and Amtrak for high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail projects and State formula matching grants for freight capital projects. Prior to issuing grants, a portion of the bond proceeds will be deposited in a secure and continually monitored repayment fund managed by the RIFCO investment trust to retire the debt over the life of the bonds. Passenger and freight rail projects eligible for funding through RIFCO include planning and environmental review, rail line rehabilitation, upgrades and development, safety and security projects, passenger equipment acquisition, station improvements, and intermodal facilities development. In order to receive grants, States must prepare a State rail plan and provide a 20 percent non-Federal match to RIFCO, thereby replicating the cost sharing relationship our States currently have for investments in other modes. ARRIVE 21 will promote jobs and economic growth through the rehabilitation and expansion of rail infrastructure, the manufacture and procurement of new rail equipment and the enhancement of mobility and development in and around or cities and towns. Our bill provides a total $42 billion investment in U.S. rail infrastructure and service to expand high-speed passenger rail in congested corridors, strengthen Amtrak, and improve freight mobility. Such investment will revitalize the U.S. rail supply industry and create thousands of jobs. According to U.S. Transportation Secretary Mineta, every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates roughly 47,500 jobs. That means ARRIVE 21 stands to create roughly 2 million jobs, if enacted. ARRIVE 21 reauthorizes and reforms Amtrak. Designed to improve upon Amtrak's current congressional and State funding processes, our bill authorizes approximately $1.5 billion annually for 6 years to Amtrak for the basic capital and operating needs required to run and maintain the current system. In addition to these funds, the States and Amtrak can pursue major capital improvements and equipment acquisition through RIFCO, with reductions in Amtrak's capital authorizations for projects funded through RIFCO capital grants. Through this process, the amount needed for annual Amtrak appropriation for capital will be reduced over the life of the reauthorization, as RIFCO begins to finance a growing share of Amtrak's capital needs. As is the case today, operating costs on long distance trains will be covered by Amtrak's annual appropriation, while States will share the costs with Amtrak for operations of short distance corridors. For such shot distance corridors, ARRIVE 21 infuse fairness into the current system by requiring parity between Amtrak and all States for cost sharing, putting an end to disparate treatment among the States that contract with Amtrak to provide corridor service. Furthermore, it authorizes a study of new methodologies to determine Amtrak routes and services while defining the national passenger rail system based on existing service and high-speed rail corridors. ARRIVE 21 also requires a whole host of new reforms including accounting transparency measures, the establishment of a quarterly grant process for Amtrak through the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure accountability, and the creation of new service metrics that will improve the monitoring and quantification of Amtrak service performance and quality. ARRIVE 21 helps to coordinate rail-planning efforts across the U.S. at the national and State level and increases the Federal Railroad Administration's advocacy role in promoting a safe, secure, efficient, environmentally sound rail transportation system nationwide. The bill directs the Federal Government to develop a national rail plan in coordination with State rail plans and creates a rail cooperative research program through the National Academies of Sciences. It also authorizes additional funds for planning of high-speed rail projects through the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and addresses rail safety needs by authorizing funding for emergency passenger safety improvement projects. In light of the security risks facing our railroads, ARRIVE 21 authorizes $515 million in 2004 for rail security threat assessments and grants through the Department of Homeland Security. In total, ARRIVE 21 provides the needed funding for the more than $5 billion annual shortfall in U.S. rail infrastructure investment cited by AASHTO Bottom Line Report without involving the Highway Trust Fund or sapping funds away from other important transportation priorities. This bill will provide our States and the Nation with a fiscally responsible and innovative opportunity to enhance our entire transportation system. We owe it to the American people to support this bill and move towards the type of high-quality, high-speed intercity passenger rail service that Americans desire and deserve, while meeting the ever-growing demands that trade and our economy are placing on our freight system. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting ARRIVE 21.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. G. Timothy Kavel upon his retirement as vice president of Delaware Technical & Community College and Campus Director of the Jack F. Owens Campus in Georgetown, DE, serving all of Sussex County. His leadership over the years has won him the respect of faculty and students alike, along with the gratitude of our entire State. He has been, and remains, a trusted friend. Delaware Technical and Community College was created in 1966 when the Delaware General Assembly approved House Bill 529. The Southern Campus, near Georgetown, opened in September 1967 with 367 enrolled students. The name was changed to the Jack F. Owens Campus in May, 1995. Today, the college has four campuses, the Owens Campus, the Terry Campus in Dover, and two northern locations, in Stanton and Wilmington. In 1999, Delaware Technical and Community College was named the Community College of the Year by the National Alliance of Business. In his position as vice president, Tim has contributed to the overall policymaking, planning and development of the college system. As director of the Owens Campus, he assumed the responsibility of the total campus operation on a day-to-day basis. During his time at Delaware Technical and Community College, he has made many improvements to the campus, student and faculty life and school programs. The college houses the Carter Partnership Center, where several other postsecondary institutions, including the University of Delaware, Wilmington College and Delaware State University, utilize the classrooms for their own bachelor's, master's and doctorate classes. Another of Tim's major contributions to the Owens Campus has been improving the campus. He has helped expand and beautify the physical plan of the college. Through Tim's leadership, the new Student Services Center was built to be a consolidated services center for students. It houses various service facilities, including a dining hall, meeting places for student activities, financial aid offices, and counselors' offices. This center is a fitting tribute to Tim's focus on students. Tim has also aided in upgrading and renovating various buildings on the Owens campus, including the Jason Technology Center, which is currently undergoing a complete refurbishment. This center, considered the birthplace of Delaware Technical and Community College, was built in the 1940s. It originally was a high school for Black students, and later became the start of the Community College. Tim made a case for the need of a new classroom facility, and after 8 years of construction, the final wing of this building will be completed by the end of this fiscal year. The new, state-of-the-art center houses new classrooms, science labs and a computer lab. This renovation serves as a testament to Tim's commitment to bring the college into the information age. Tim also has a passion for maintaining the grounds of the campus. He has helped raised private funds for the enhancement of the grounds, a new entrance to the college, and outdoor furniture. His passion for keeping the campus clean has spread to faculty and students alike. Campus pride is so abundant that students and faculty will pick up trash voluntarily off the ground in an effort to keep the campus clean. Tim's 38 years of experience as an educator includes teaching at both secondary and postsecondary school levels, counseling, fund raising, personnel and a wide variety of management activities. He has also consulted with other nations who are developing community colleges, offering them his perspective, and has participated in projects in Panama, Peru, Guatemala, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Indonesia. Tim has also been an active member of the community beyond his role at Delaware Technical and Community College. He has served as president and board member of various community and civic organizations, including Children and Families First, Partners of the Americans-- Delaware Chapter, Kiwanis Club, Sussex Tech School District, Western Boys & Girls Club, Seaford School District, and Morning Star Publications. Tim has been married to his high school sweetheart, Deanna, for 40 years. The two met when Deanna was in 10th grade and Tim was in 11th grade. They began dating, and the rest is history. The Kavel's only child Christopher and his wife Rebecca have a 3-year-old daughter, Jenna. Tim is a loving husband, father and grandfather, who enjoys spending time with his family, golfing, and reading nonfiction. He and his wife also have a home in St. Simon, GA, where they like to spend time vacationing and relaxing. Through Tim's tireless efforts, he has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of students 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 thank him for the friendship that we share, and 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 am honored to follow the Senator from Virginia. I want to return to the Constitutional Convention that he spoke of from 216 years ago. Among the last issues resolved at the Constitutional Convention was the question of whose job it is to select the members of this third branch of Government that was to be created. We have an executive branch, the legislative branch with the House and Senate, and a judicial branch. At that time in this country there was a great concern on the part of those framing the Constitution and trying to craft a framework of our Government. Foremost among the concerns they had was the concern that somehow we would unintentionally invest too much power, too much authority in one person. Having dealt with the King of England and not wanting to have to deal with another figure of authority with the kind of powers of a monarch, there was a great debate over what would the powers be for this new President and how would we constrain those powers. Among the last issues resolved at the Constitutional Convention was the question of who selects the judges, who selects the members of that third branch of the judiciary. There were plenty at the Convention who thought that in order to make sure we didn't end up with another monarch in this country, a king, the power of selecting the judiciary should lie with the legislative branch. There were those who thought the Senate or the House or some combination thereof should select who the judges would be. There was another school of thought that said, no, maybe we should give the President, our Chief Executive, the power to select who our judges would be. As we all know, the compromise that was struck was one that says the President may nominate with the advice and the consent of the Senate. Yesterday, as our youngest son came home from school, he shared with his mom and me some good news. He shared with us that while he won't get his report card for another week or so, he had learned the results of his scores, his grade in English language arts. He is in the eighth grade. He came home and he said: I got a 94 for English language arts in this grading period, dad. I get an A. I get an A. We were delighted. He has a tough teacher. He has worked real hard, and he earned a 94. He is going to get an A. We hope he does as well in his other courses. On the scorekeeping for how this President is doing with respect to getting his nominees confirmed, I think of the 172 we voted on so far; 168 have been confirmed, 4 have not. That is 98 percent. In my book, in my son's book, that is an A. That ain't bad. Before I came here to serve in the Senate with my colleagues, I was a Governor. I know some people get tired of hearing me talk about that. But it was a great privilege to be Governor of my State. In our State, Governors nominate people to serve on the bench. The Senate can confirm. Whether it was a judge, supreme court, magistrate court, any commission, I would like to have had every single nominee confirmed. I suspect that most other Governors who similarly make nominations for appointments in their States would like to have all their nominations confirmed as well. Not all of my nominations were confirmed. There is a give and take with the Senate in my State, just as there is a give and take with the Senate in this city for our National Government. I don't often quote Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, but there was an old song from my youth they used to sing: ``You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you get what you need.'' We need from this President good nominees. I expect they are going to be Republicans. I expect they are going to be conservative. My guess is that of the 98 percent who have been confirmed, they were all Republicans. For the most part they were all conservative. I don't think it is realistic of this President to expect that we are going to confirm 100 percent of his nominees. It sure wasn't the expectation of his predecessor, Bill Clinton. He got a majority of his nominees confirmed but not 100 percent, not 95 percent, not 90 percent, not 85 percent, but about 80 percent were actually nominated, had hearings, and their names actually ended up on the floor for a confirmation vote. That is a B-minus. Compared to the A-plus that this President is getting with respect to confirmations, I am not sure I understand fully the great dissent and the great disappointment and the great frustration our friends on the other side have shared. Here is my frustration. I didn't come here to be about partisan politics. I didn't come here to be about gridlock. I didn't come here to pursue that agenda. I came here as one who wants to work with people on the other side of the aisle. I want to get things done. I have voted with this President more than 75 percent of the time. I am told that only 7 Democrats have voted with this President more than I have in the last 2 years. I have tried to provide leadership on issues that both of my colleagues are concerned with, Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch: class action, asbestos reform, bankruptcy, welfare, a comprehensive energy policy. Meanwhile, while we are standing here tonight debating on whether or not 98 percent is good enough, we don't have an energy policy. Over half the energy we get that we use in America comes from foreign sources, a lot of it controlled by people who don't like us. We don't have an energy policy. We should be debating an energy policy and adopting it. Standing here tonight we have a legal system that has lost its sense of balance, whether the issue is class action litigation that is being heard in small, remote courthouses around the country or whether the issue is asbestos and folks sick and dying getting the help they need. Meanwhile, the people who will never be sick will get money from those who need it. We should be debating those issues here tonight. We have too much sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide and mercury in our air, putting out too much carbon dioxide, causing global warming. We should be addressing those issues. We had a trade deficit last year that exceeded $400 billion. It is getting worse. We have a budget deficit that this year will approach $500 billion in 1 year alone. We are paying today on our national debt, just today, $800 million--plus just in interest on the debt. We ought to be debating how we rein in those budget deficits and trade deficits, not deciding is 98 percent enough or is 97 percent high enough in terms of success in nominations. As former Governor and someone who was once privileged to chair the National Governors Association, we looked at the States as laboratories of democracy. We looked at the States to provide best practices, whether it was moving people off welfare, helping to make sure people coming out of prison didn't recidivate and go back to prison, what could we do to raise student achievement. I want to talk about one model that works real well with respect to judicial nominations, and one I know the most about is my State of Delaware. Since 1897, the constitution of my State has called for balance with respect to our judiciary. We have year after year a legal climate and a judiciary that is acknowledged by some of the foremost attorneys who practice in this country as the best--the best legal climate, the fairest of any State in America. We are proud of our judiciary. In the 8 years I was Governor, I nominated as many Republicans to the bench as I did Democrats. Mike Castle, my predecessor, now a Congressman, when he was Governor, he nominated as many Democrats to the bench as he did Republicans. In our State, there has to be a symmetry. Essentially, for every Democrat you nominate, the next one has to be a Republican. We have done that for over 100 years and have ended up with a terrific judiciary, widely respected at home, across the country, and even beyond our borders. There is a saying, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' That is not what we ought to say. We should say if it is not perfect, make it better. The way we nominate judges in our National Capital for our Federal Government is broken and it needs to be fixed. Whether George Bush is President or Bill Clinton is President, we waste more and more time on judicial nominations. We are bogged down in that. We still haven't passed our spending plan for the new fiscal year, which started a month and a half ago. We are still wrestling with our appropriations bills. This system is broken. My friends, the solution may be in Delaware, it may be in Vermont, or it may be how they nominate judges in Georgia or in Iowa. There is a better way to do it than what we are doing here. We have to find it and we have to come to some kind of closure around a better plan. When we do, instead of facing the prospect of leaving here without action on class action legislation, action on asbestos, or action on an energy bill, or without action on transportation policy, or early childhood programs, maybe we can do our jobs and even pass appropriations bills on time instead of the kind of mindless--oftentimes mindless debate we devote to judicial nominations. That having been said, I yield to the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy, with my thanks.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Two minutes.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the chairman, and I thank Senator Levin and my other colleagues who graciously have given me a few moments. We have been reminded during the course of the Afghanistan war and the conflict in Iraq of the need for our ability to deliver large numbers of personnel, equipment, and weaponry to the front. We deliver a lot of those items by sealift, and we deliver a good deal of it by air. Some 30 percent of the equipment going into Iraq comes through Dover Air Force Base. The aircraft that fly a lot of that equipment are C-5As and C-5Bs. Several of us on the floor this evening have facilities that either have C-5s already operating out of them or will. There is a provision that has been agreed to in this conference report which I think is worth touching on because I think it is of critical importance. The issue is how do we best provide for cost-effective airlift in the 21st century. We have created an air bridge between this country and other fronts, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The air bridge includes C-5As and B's, it includes C-17s, and it includes C-130s in the theater. C-5As were built in the 1970s. C-5Bs were built in the 1980s, and the C-17s are literally being built today. The C-130s, some are old and some actually quite new. The C-5As that were built in the 1970s are believed to have a useful life on their wings and their fuselages for probably another 40 years. The same is true of the C-5Bs which are somewhat newer than the C-5As. The House of Representatives had language that said that before we retire indiscriminately, prematurely, C-5As, we should allow a process to go forward which was agreed to in the earlier Defense authorization bills. In those earlier Defense authorization bills, we said we wanted the Air Force to install avionics modernization packages in three C-5s, along with reengining three C-5s, the hydraulic systems, new landing gear systems, new engines in one C-5A and two C-5Bs, and before we retire prematurely any more C-5As we should first go through that process on those three planes and flight test them in order to find out if those changes to the aircraft actually raise the aircraft readiness performance of C-5As and C-5Bs. I thank the chairman and Senator Levin for agreeing to the House language, so that now we will go forward. The Air Force will have the opportunity to install both the avionics modernization package and the reengining package in one C-5A and two C-5Bs. The Air Force will have a chance to fully test those packages before we retire any additional C- 5As. There is report language in the Senate version of this bill that also says we need to update our estimate for what we need for airlift going forward in this 21st century. I think when we take that language and put it with the provision that says we are not going to prematurely retire any C-5As beyond the initial 14 that have been earmarked for early retirement, that gives us a very good package and one that I think enables us to better determine how do we cost-effectively provide airlift in the 21st century. Again, I express my thanks to the committee and to our friends in the House for agreeing to this compromise. I think it is a good position for us, for the Air Force. I think it is a very good position for us who are interested in trying to find out how do we provide cost- effective airlift in the 21st century. Again, I thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Allard, for yielding and the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to speak these words.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Five years ago when this legislation was written on the moratorium, I don't believe DSL existed. The idea of people accessing the Internet over broadband was not something people thought much of. The idea of accessing the Internet over wireless I don't think is something we thought we had the capability of doing. The world has changed.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I say in response, that is the way States and competition--friendly competition--have worked over the years, and if it worked in the last century, it is going to work out that way in this century as well.

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CARPER. Let me just say if I have provided leadership, I know the Senator from Tennessee has. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work closely with the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Voinovich, Senator Graham of Florida, and others on this issue. I reflect on the role we as Senators are trying to play in this and the disadvantage some of us operate from. The Presiding Officer and I serve on the Banking Committee together. If the issue before us is like the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we have a fairly good idea, using our background and experience, as to what is fair and reasonable; what makes sense and what is good public policy. If the issue is energy policy, I think our background prepares us to make reasonably good judgments there. When we come to issues with respect to the Internet and the transmission of information over the Internet, for a lot of our colleagues--certainly this one--it doesn't take long to get in over our heads. If we are honest, I think most will say that. In order to help us through a difficult issue like the one we have now, whether there should be a continuation of a moratorium on Internet taxes and in what form, and should it be extended, we have bright people who work on our staffs, and we speak to people from the outside, whether they happen to be from the industry or State and local governments, to round out our knowledge. But it is still a different result. For this Senator--I suspect I speak for the other Senators here at this moment--what I think we can maybe best do is figure out the fair thing to do. I always like to talk about the Golden Rule, to treat others like I want to be treated. I try to apply that even in this instance. If you look back to the 1995 law Senator Alexander talked about, the genesis of that law was Governors like he and I used to be, and even mayors in places like Gillette, WY, who didn't want the Federal Government to tell them what to do and not give them the money to do it. Similarly, whether you are a Governor or mayor, we didn't much appreciate the Federal Government coming in and saying we are going to take away your ability to raise revenues as you see fit and not make up for the shortfall. That sense of outrage sort of grew out of State and local officials, and eventually came here and compelled the Congress to take steps to enact the 1995 legislation, banning unfunded mandates both under spending and on the revenue side. Today you cannot do that. For the most part, Congress and the President since have done a good job adhering to that law. What is before us now is how do we be true to the spirit of the unfunded mandates law, not taking away the revenue base of the States and, at the same time, trying to be fair to consumers. People want to have access to the Internet, whether residential consumers or businesses, and how do we manage to be fair to the businesses that are providing these services? I am not going to suggest any of that either. If I could, we would have finished before this week and we would all be in Wyoming, Tennessee, or Delaware, doing other things. But we are not there yet. The hangup is, as the Senator suggested, the moratorium that has been in effect for the last 5 years says you cannot access the Internet and add a tax to somebody who has a monthly internet bill. It says if two States or more want to tax in that transaction, you cannot do that. Multiple taxes are something you cannot do. The same legislation has said if there is a discriminatory tax somebody wants to impose on Internet transactions, you cannot do it. For example, Delaware has no sales tax. To say for a person who goes to the local book store and buys a book in Delaware that you don't have a sales tax, but if you buy that same book over the Internet, you have a tax imposed, that is a discriminatory tax. The law in effect for 5 years said you cannot do that. What Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, Senator Graham, Senator Enzi, and a number of others are seeking to do is to simply say the law in effect for the last 5 years, which prohibits those kinds of activities, stays in effect. Because the world is changing in the way people access the Internet, through broadband and DSL, which a couple of months ago I could not even spell, today turned out to be a key component of this debate. But how do we change the old 5-year moratorium in a way that is fair, for instance, to the baby bells, to their business interests? What can we do that is fair and will enable them to be competitive, level the competitive playing field for them. They have suggested that whether you are getting your Internet service from a cable provider or a telephone company, State and local governments should not be allowed to tax that access to the Internet, at least for the end user. Here is where our divide is with our friends, Senator Allen of Virginia and Senator Wyden from Oregon. The question is: Where do we prohibit the imposition of the tax? At what point? Starting with the consumer in his or her home, the business in its operation, all the way back up to the ISP, through the infrastructure to the backbone--where does access to the Internet begin? We argue in our definition in our proposal the access begins between the provider, ISP, and the consumer, whether a business or an individual. Other colleagues, who have a different view, have a much broader vision of where the Internet access comes from--much more expansive, and by their expanded definition, they expand the prohibition dramatically on what State and local governments can tax to raise revenues. I think there is an honest disagreement here. We believe we should focus on what I call the last mile. There are others who believe we should focus on the first mile, all the way through the last mile. When we do that, we take for the States potentially a fair amount of revenue generation capability off of the table at a time when obviously they are hurting and they need every dime they can raise. I don't know if we can resolve this difference. I think we had a good honest go of it today. Senator McCain is trying very hard to broker some kind of agreement. We may be successful or we may not. Ultimately, we may have to just vote. I say this to our friends who have a different view than Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, the Presiding Officer, and myself: We in Delaware have learned over the years to make our State a real attractive place to do business. If other States want to impose fees or taxes on services, and we are smart enough in my State to not do that and then go to the businesses that are maybe being mistreated by regulatory or tax policies in another State, and say, Come to Delaware; you won't have to put up with any of that frankly, it has a good argument. In a variety of ways, financial services and other sections of our economy are stronger today because we have chosen not to impose certain taxes or fees. We have gone to sections of the economy and said: Look what we have in our State. I say to those who have a different view than Senator Alexander, Senator Enzi, and myself: Don't discount the competitive nature of States and how some of us will elect not to impose a tax on any of this business in an effort to be far more attractive to those kinds of businesses as we go down the road. I thank my colleague for the good work he is doing and say to him how much I have enjoyed working with him on this issue, clean air issues, and others. I hope this is a harbinger of things to come.

Mr. CARPER. I think the Senator has that right.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, like my friend from Virginia, I am a former Governor, as were Senator Alexander, Senator Graham, and Senator Voinovich. We served as chief executives of our States. I loved being Governor. I have never talked to anybody who didn't like the job. As a matter of fact, I enjoy being here and working with my friends John McCain, Ron Wyden, and others. When I was privileged to be Governor of Delaware, we actually cut taxes 7 out of 8 years. We also balanced our budget 8 years in a row. Among the things I didn't like as Governor was when the Federal Government came in and tried to tell us in Delaware we had to spend money for some purpose but never provided the revenues to pay for that expenditure. Similarly, I never liked it when the Federal Government came in and unilaterally reduced our revenue base for programs we needed in our State to educate our kids, to provide health care, child care, environmental protection, and transportation. I never liked it when the Federal Government came in and tried to undercut our ability to raise revenues for those purposes and never provided an offset to make up the difference in the revenue that was taken away by the Federal action. I remember as Governor coming here and testifying in the early to mid 1990s. I believe Governor Voinovich did as well. We called on the Federal Government to stop placing unfunded mandates on State and local governments. The message is pretty simple. Don't tell us to spend money for things and expect us to use our revenues. Don't come in and restrict our ability to collect revenues without providing something to make up for it. Our voices were heard. In 1995, legislation was adopted to stop unfunded mandates and dictates by the Federal Government which had an adverse effect on my State and other States. I believe--correct me if I am wrong--that 91 Senators voted in 1995 for the unfunded mandates bill. Sixty-three of the 91 Senators who voted for that bill in 1995 are still here in the Senate. In 1998, when Congress adopted an Internet tax moratorium, it was in essence on an unfunded mandate. The Congress agreed to restrict the ability of State and local governments to raise revenues in three areas. The moratorium which was adopted in 1998 said State and local governments could not tax access to the Internet. For the monthly bills we receive from AOL and other Internet providers, State and local governments cannot add a tax to that Internet access bill. Similarly, if there was an Internet transaction multiple States would like to tax or multiple counties within a State would like to tax, those multiple taxes were essentially stopped by the 1998 moratorium. Thirdly, discriminatory taxes against transactions over the Internet were banned as well. For example, we don't have a sales tax in our State, but in my State you could, of course, buy from a local merchant a good or a product and not pay a sales tax or tax of any kind. If any State were to pass a law that said if we were to make the purchase of the same good over the Internet we would have to pay a tax, that would be a discriminatory tax. That is not permitted under the 1998 Internet tax moratorium. The Internet tax moratorium which was adopted 5 years ago was adopted in order to give Internet commerce a chance to grow and to mature. States didn't like having their ability to raise revenues as they saw fit restricted by the Federal Government. But they excepted 11 States that were actually doing that kind of thing, and their ability to raise revenues was grandfathered in. For the last 5 years--initially the Internet tax moratorium was for, I think, 2 or maybe 3 years--when it was about to expire, the question was, should we renew it? I believe it was in 2001 when it was about to expire that Congress renewed it for an additional 2 years. It did not broaden the kind of three principal activities that were covered in the initial moratorium that said the same three applied. State and local governments, unless they are grandfathered in, can't begin taxing access to the Internet. State and local governments could not have multiple taxes on the same transactions over the Internet. Further, this ban on discriminatory taxes was upheld for another 2 years. Last Friday that 5-year ban expired, as I think most of us know. Certainly Senators Voinovich and Alexander and I would like to see the moratorium, the ban, on the Internet tax access, multiple taxes, and the ban on discriminatory taxes extended. This is not an argument about taxes on access to the Internet. I think we actually agree on that. There should not be taxes imposed by State and local governments unless they are already grandfathered in on access to the Internet. That is not what this is all about. This is not about whether or not we are going to tax anybody's e-mail. We are not going to do that. We are not interested in that. One of our colleagues, Senator Voinovich, will have more to say about that later. He may offer a sense of the Senate to make it absolutely clear that nobody around here is interested in taxing access to the Internet. But as we look to nurture our economy and economic activity that is driven in part by commerce over the Internet, let us remember there is another set of voices that need to be heard. They are the voices of the people who are running our State governments, the folks who are running our cities and our counties and trying to do so in an environment where their revenue base continues to diminish. Their responsibilities to educate our kids don't diminish. In fact, those responsibilities are getting tougher as we impose academic standards and raise our expectations in our schools. We need to provide some kind of health care for people, young and old. Those needs are not diminishing. In fact, the burden through Medicaid on State and local governments, if anything, is increasing, not diminishing. I was Governor during good times. I don't know if it was easy to be Governor from 1992 to 2000, but it was a heck of a lot easier than today. Today, instead of dealing with budget surpluses and figuring out how to invest or use the budget surpluses or how to cut taxes in order to return a portion of the surpluses, State and local governments are scraping for every dime to try to meet the needs of their States. The question to consider today and tomorrow and perhaps next week is, What right do we have as a Federal legislature, as a Congress, to step in and mandate the reduction in the tax base, the revenue base, of State and local governments? What right do we have to do that? What right do we have to do that in the face of the Constitution? What right do we have to do that in light of the legislation adopted in 1995 banning unfunded mandates? We have heard from Governors and mayors from every corner, county council men and women, commissioners, we heard from folks from every corner of this country saying, Abide by the law you voted for in 1995 banning unfunded mandates. I close with where I started. I have not talked to one Senator who says he or she is for taxing access to the Internet. We are not. I have not heard from any Senator, Democrat or Republican, from any part of this country, who says they are for taxing any person's e-mails. We are not. By the same token, my friends, I don't believe we should be for stepping in, beyond a very narrow moratorium on which we already spoke in those three areas, to broaden that moratorium to further undermine the revenue base of our State and local governments, during very difficult times for all of them, without giving that action in this proposal a whole lot more thought and debate and discussion. We will have that opportunity today and tomorrow. I say to Senator Voinovich, Senator Graham, Senator Alexander, and others who have joined and will join in offering an amendment tomorrow, including Senator Hollings, Senator Stevens, Senator Dorgan, Senator Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, and others, I am proud to join in this initiative. It is possible in the end, I believe, to come up with a policy that is fair to State and local governments and is fair to those who would seek to expand our economy and to do so through Internet commerce. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment offered by Senator Alexander, Senator Graham, Senator Voinovich, and myself to do just that. I look forward to further debate on that amendment and the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on that amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me say that I agree with everything the Senator has said about the importance of the Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program. In addition to your comments, I would only add a request to our colleagues who have been working on this Agriculture appropriations bill that they be made aware that the 2002 Farm bill included specific language that authorized the Secretary to develop this program with the intent that it would provide a benefit not just to the three states of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, but also to other programs being considered throughout the country. The lessons learned from work on the Delmarva Conservation Corridor will improve similar efforts elsewhere. Conferees should also be made aware that their colleagues in the House agree that the intent of the provision was to allow the Secretary of Agriculture and the States appropriate flexibility in using the resources of existing agricultural conservation and forestry programs. In supporting this program during the farm bill, it was not our intent, nor is it today, to require new or earmarked funding. The USDA has not yet implemented this program because of what I believe is a misunderstanding regarding the concept of the program and the congressional intent contained within the farm bill. This confusion should be resolved so that this example of effective conservation policy can be realized.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, as we approach the end of actually a rather short, abbreviated debate on this legislation, I want to say a few words encouraging my colleagues to join the Presiding Officer, myself, and our respective Republican and Democratic floor managers in supporting this measure. Let me begin by saying to Chairman Shelby and our ranking Democrat, Senator Sarbanes, that I think it is rather remarkable that we have come through the deliberations of the past year. We had extensive, balanced hearings on this legislation that gave people from all sides of the issue the chance to comment on what they would like to see us do with respect to reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This is the way the process is supposed to work. We have a deadline, and that deadline is to act by December 31. Our chairman and ranking Democrat have orchestrated a series of hearings, as I said earlier, which allowed financial institutions to come in, allowed consumer groups to come in, and other folks--rank-and-file citizens--to share with all of us on the Banking Committee how they think we ought to proceed. We did not have one hearing; we have had a whole series of hearings. I think what emerged from those hearings is a consensus that we aspire to have, but all too rarely see. I am proud to be part of this process, and I suspect the Presiding Officer feels the same way. Our national credit granting standards that are created under the Fair Credit Reporting Act allow all Americans quick and easy access to credit, whether it is to purchase a home, to purchase a car, or any number of other consumer goods. There is compelling evidence that failure to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act would have significant economic consequences, and not very positive ones. I am pleased to say that the legislation before us today extends these uniform standards. It makes them permanent. We avoid any adverse impact on our national credit granting system, and we avoid any negative impact on our national economy. The legislation before us also makes a number of improvements to current law. I think this is an important point. It is one made by others, but I want to make it again. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission released a survey indicating that millions of consumers have been victimized by the crime of identity theft. My own family understands how disruptive and devastating this crime can be, as one of our relatives in your State, Madam President, was victimized over a period of several years by identity theft. It was an awful experience for her and not a pleasant one for her family. The bill before us responds to this increasing trend by requiring the creation of a system of fraud alerts. This system of fraud alerts allows the victims of identity theft and also allows active duty military personnel to flag their credit reports for potential fraud. For example, if a consumer believes they have been the victim of identity theft, then that consumer can make one call and have a fraud alert put on his or her credit report. The alert will notify users of that report that this consumer could be the victim of a fraud. This alert, in turn, requires the users of this report to take extra steps before establishing new credit or establishing a credit limit. In the year after the fraud alert is placed in the file, a consumer will be able to receive not one, but two free credit reports to make sure the information in their credit report is correct. In addition, consumers will have the ability to block information on their credit report that is the result of identity theft. Importantly, the bill increases the maximum penalty for those who commit the crime of identity theft. This legislation also gives consumers more control over the information that is contained in their credit reports. First of all, consumers will have easy access to a free credit report on an annual basis. This is a significant right that will allow consumers to review the information contained in their credit report and to make corrections to it. To ensure consumers are aware of these rights, the Federal Trade Commission must actively publicize how consumers may obtain a free credit report and how to dispute information contained in that report. I oftentimes use the analogy of if a tree falls in a forest, there is nobody there to hear it. My colleagues have probably heard that; probably used it a time or two. In this case, if a consumer has the ability to obtain a free copy of their credit report annually, but they don't know they have that right, is there a benefit that inures from this legislation? In the legislation, we put the onus on others and the Federal Trade Commission to publicize how consumers can obtain a free credit report. In addition, the bill gives consumers important protection for their medical information. One of our colleagues on the floor today was asking if they deal with a particular financial institution, a company that has access to some of the medical data, can they then share medical data with other affiliates of that company? The answer is no; that is protected and prevented by this legislation. This bill prohibits the use of medical information in the credit granting process. In addition, as I just said, the legislation creates a system for consumer reporting agencies to code medical information so that someone looking at a credit report cannot discover a consumer's medical history. Finally, the bill before us establishes the Financial Literacy and Education Commission. I believe this is an essential part of the legislation--it may not have gotten a lot of credit, but it is an important part of this bill--because a lot of consumers in this country have no knowledge or at least limited knowledge of how our credit system works. This new commission will be charged with reviewing financial literacy efforts throughout the Government to eliminate duplicative efforts. Importantly, the Commission will also coordinate the promotion of Federal financial literacy efforts, including outreach among State, and local governments, nonprofit organizations, as well as private enterprises. This legislation creates many new tools for consumers. I have mentioned some of them. But if consumers lack basic financial literacy, they may not be able to use these tools with the kind of effectiveness that is intended. Again, let me go back to where I started. We have seen this year a number of occasions when legislation has come to the floor without going through committee. We have seen legislation come to the floor for our consideration, sometimes rather complex legislation, and it has not had the benefit of the hearings it should have. The system has worked in this case: excellent hearings, the ability for us as Democrats and Republicans to work together to receive a whole lot of input from a broad cross-section of people and interest groups in this country, the ability to bring a bill out of committee on a unanimous voice vote. This is legislation that I think is going to be disposed of today. I am proud to at least have been a small part of that process and pleased to lend my support. I urge my colleagues to do the same for this legislation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARPER. The Senator from Nevada has again heaped praise on our chairman and our ranking Democrat, as others of us have done, and that is important. I failed to mention this in my remarks and I want to atone for that omission now, that we are blessed with wonderful staff, as we all know, on both the Republican and the Democratic sides, and on the subcommittee and the full committee. I want to take a moment to also express my thanks to them and say to my own counsel, Margaret Simmons, who has done great work on this bill, a special thank you. None of us do this stuff by ourselves, as we all know. In this case, we have been greatly assisted by their efforts. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for just a moment?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain and others who brought this legislation to the floor. I stand today as a cosponsor of the amended version of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act and I will vote for it today. I do so because I believe it is a sensible first step toward addressing the real problem of increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming about which Senator Byrd and others have spoken. Senator Byrd, Senator McCain, and others have spoken about the convincing science which shows that not only greenhouse gas emissions are increasing but also that those emissions are linked to human activity and are having a negative impact on the climate in which we live. Ten years ago I would not have stood here. Ten years ago I would not have been arguing that we should take mandatory steps toward addressing greenhouse gas emissions. But over the past decade or so as I learned more about the issue and had the opportunity to speak with people on both sides of this debate, and as Senator McCain said, to see with my own eyes the changes that are occurring in this world, I have become convinced there is a real problem. It is not going away. We can do something about it. We can do something about it now. We should. Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain should be commended for their work on this bill and for their willingness to make a significant modification to their original proposal. I don't know that I would have been so supportive of the original bill because of reductions that were required in that bill. Having said that, the modified version before the Senate today which seeks to turn over the balance of this decade greenhouse emissions to levels of the year 2000 has my strong support. The fact is, if the Federal Government does not act in a meaningful way, and do so soon, the problem will get worse and the solution, when it comes, will be even more difficult and more disruptive of our economy and our way of living. Addressing greenhouse gasses is a proper role for the Federal Government. In yesterday's New York Times, a reporter, Jennifer Lee, wrote about the increasing number of States fed up with a lack of certainty from the Federal Government with regard to climate change policy. Half the States, according to the article, have taken steps to address global warming. On the one hand, I view the States' efforts as a positive development. However, regulating greenhouse gasses via 50 different laws is not, my friends, the best way to proceed on this issue. It is best for both the industries that will have to comply with these laws and the ecological benefits we expect from the passage that we adopt a uniform Federal standard. The Climate Stewardship Act does just that. My own State of Delaware is proud to be the home of the DuPont Company, a global company with products touching each of us every day. DuPont is a major producer of greenhouse gasses. One might think they would be opposed to this legislation, but as it turns out they are not. They view this bill as a significant and serious contribution to the congressional debate on how to address climate change. They think it is particularly noteworthy for three reasons, and I will mention those: No. 1, the measure includes market-based systems to achieve reductions efficiency; No. 2, it covers more than one sector of the economy; No. 3, it provides credit incentives for early action and includes flexibility mechanisms to allow companies to seek lower cost solutions that achieve the desired results. DuPont is just one example of a company that has stepped forward and taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not because they have to but because they believe it is the right thing to do. DuPont kept its energy use flat between 1990 and 2000, while at the same time increasing production by 35 percent. That means they found ways to become more efficient and thereby avoid increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If a company such as DuPont can find a way to meet the requirements of this bill, I suspect that just about any company can do the same. In closing, today's vote is one of the more important votes we will take during our time in the Senate, certainly one of the more important votes of this year. In my mind, the issue it addresses is as important as the vote to authorize the President to use force in Iraq or whether we will make major changes in Medicare prescription drugs. What we decide today will have a significant impact for our future. While we will not see noticeable, positive or negative effects before next year's Presidential election, or before next year's Senate elections, within our lifetime, as sure as we are gathered here today, it will be clear that we have made the right choice or, I might add, if we have made the wrong one. I urge my colleagues to join me in what I believe is the right choice and that is a ``yes'' vote for the Climate Stewardship Act.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Robert and Margaret Scott, better known as Bob and Muff, who will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary on November 6, 2003. As they celebrate this milestone in their lives, they will surely reflect on the many changes, successes and accomplishments they have experienced together over the last sixty years. Theirs is a journey of which they can be proud. Bob is the son of the late Chester and Evangeline Scott. Bob attended Miami University of Ohio for his undergraduate degree and received his master's and PhD in Organic Chemistry from Northwestern University. His wife, Muff, is the daughter of the late Benjamin and Ann Penix. She received her bachelor's and master's degrees in English from the University of Kentucky. Bob and Muff met and began dating in college. Although their respective schools were over sixty miles apart, a college weekend brought them together. They were married on November 6, 1943 in Morehead, KY. The Scotts moved to Delaware in 1950, when Bob took a position with Hercules. Over his 35-year career at Hercules, Bob moved from being a bench chemist to a plant chemist, to eventually becoming the Director of Research and Development. Muff divided between raising a family, community service and substitute teaching at area schools. They are blessed with three children, Bob, Ann and Tom, and six grandchildren, Lee, Rob, Joshua, Clarissa, Clay and Lex. Bob and Muff are active members of the community. Bob is Warden to Delaware's Episcopal Bishop, Wayne Wright, and has been Warden for the last four Bishops in Delaware. The Scott's are also members of Christ Church in Greenville, DE where Bob has often been a vestry member. Bob was also a delegate to the National Episcopal Church Triennial Convention for more than 20 years, during the contentious times when the Episcopal Church first accepted the ordination of women as clergy members and bishops. Reverend John Martiner of Christ Church describes Bob and Muff as a real team. Whether folding church bulletins or volunteering at community events, they are always working together. They are devoted to each other and to their families. Bob and Muff are also dedicated to St. Michael's School and Nursery, a non-profit institution that provides affordable, high-quality early childhood education and childcare to the community. Both Bob and Muff are on the board of directors. They have served on the board alternately for over 30 years. Helen Riley, the executive director of St. Michael's, describes the Scott's as representing the true spirit of philanthropy. Muff is known as the ``Board Builder'' at St. Michael's. She brings in next generations of families to support the organization. She has involved young children in philanthropy by teaching them to donate their own toys and books, and by showing them the value in volunteering their own time. Bob serves as an advisor to the school and has proven to be reliable and dependable for expert advice from a business standpoint. They often sell books at their church and collect money in tin cans for scholarships and faculty training and advancement. Today, I rise to congratulate Bob and Muff on their 60th wedding anniversary. Both have shown great service and commitment to their family and 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. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be given 1 additional minute and he yield it to me.

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from Utah yield briefly?

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am less familiar with Governor Leavitt's environmental record in Utah than is our colleague Senator Hatch. I have known him for more than a decade. We became Governors together in the same year. We were elected in 1992. We know him. We know his family. I know him to be a thoughtful, decent, caring human being. He is a good manager and a good leader of his State. He has also been a great leader of our Nation's Governors. I was privileged to serve as Chair of the National Association of Governors at the time he was Vice Chair. He succeeded me as Chair. He is very bright and surrounds himself with excellent people. But what I like best is he is very good at bringing together people with diverse points of view, trying to build consensus. We need that in a lot of areas in our Nation's Capitol these days, and we especially need it with respect to environmental issues. I look forward to voting for his nomination and working with him if he is confirmed. I thank the Senator for yielding.

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, I thank the Senator for yielding. This is an important vote. I think in some ways this may be the most important vote we have cast in the 2\1/2\ years I have been here. I want to speak to Democrats first and then to Republicans. I suggest to my colleagues, my Democrat friends, why it is important for us to vote for the motion to proceed to take up this bill and to improve this legislation before we end up voting for it and sending it to conference. First, I say to my Democrat colleagues, the status quo is not acceptable. We cannot feel good about the system of justice which exists today. There are many who disparage the trial bar, but I will say a kind word toward the efforts of many members of the trial bar. They do important work. They make sure when the little people are damaged or hurt that there is a way for them to have their grievances addressed, and when people are harmed to be compensated. That is important. It is important we preserve that right. The system that has evolved over the last 200 years with the class actions, and what I think everyone regards as venue shopping too often between different State courts and the Federal courts, is a system that is just out of balance today. We can do better than this. It is important that we do better than this. I want to go back and talk about the evolution of the legislation. When this bill was first introduced and talked about in the 105th Congress, there were a lot of people who thought that class action reform ought to be tort reform; that we ought to put caps on attorney's fees, caps on pain and suffering, caps on punitive damages, dismember joint and several liability. That is what a lot of people thought we ought to do 6, 7, 8 years ago. This legislation does not look like that at all. This is a modest, measured approach to fixing what I believe is a real problem. I am not going to get into the weeds and talk about one aspect of the bill or the other. Some concerns have been raised about it. Some are legitimate, some are not. I say to my colleagues, particularly Democrats, the bill is not perfect. This bill can be improved. If it is not perfect, make it better. We can make this bill better. In the end, in order for us to have the opportunity to make this bill better, we have to move to the bill. We have to vote affirmatively for the motion to proceed. If we do that, we will have the opportunity for me to offer amendments, as well as other colleagues to whom I have talked on our side. A number of our colleagues have very good ideas for amendments. And I invite not only Democrats to support them but our Republican friends as well. Republican leadership has indicated in a number of these instances they will support the amendments that are being prepared to be offered. Back to my Democrats, as the minority we have three bites out of this apple to protect our position as the minority. One, we can filibuster and not vote for the motion to proceed. That is one protection. The second protection comes when we reach cloture on the bill and the decision comes do we actually vote on the bill, do we go to cloture. That is a second bite out of the apple. The third bite out of the apple is if there is a conference report between the House and the Senate, and the conference report comes back, and the Republicans have not acted in good faith, the majority has not acted in good faith, we have a third bite out of the apple. I believe we have those protections down the road and especially the second, on the motion to proceed. I say straight out to our Republican friends, if we approve the motion to proceed today, we actually get to the bill today, and have the opportunity in the next days and week to offer amendments, if my Republican friends do not act in good faith--and I believe they will-- but if they do not act in good faith, not only will I oppose cloture on the bill, I will help lead a fight against cloture. I want us to be able to offer our amendments. I want to see a lot of those amendments adopted. If that happens, we can improve this bill further and then go to conference further down the line. The last thing I want to say, in my view, there is more at stake than the motion to proceed, and I have suggested this to Majority Leader Frist. What is at stake is whether we are going to be able to work together on a difficult and contentious issue; whether or not in this instance we are going to be able to maybe take what could be a very good experience, very positive experience of walking together across party lines on a tough issue, and maybe apply that on other difficult issues we face. So there is a responsibility on both sides: for us as Democrats to offer reasonable amendments, to join in good faith in the debate, but also for our Republican colleagues to support those good amendments and act in good faith on their own. If they and we act in good faith, we could end up with good policy, which is what makes good politics. That is the potential. It is important we all realize that.