Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we have just concluded what for many of us was a tough vote. I simply want to express my thanks to the 58 other Democrats and Republicans who joined me--59 in all--in voting for the motion to proceed and to take up for debate and amendment legislation that would reform the way we handle class action lawsuits in this country. I am disappointed with the vote, that we fell one vote short, but I am encouraged by some of the conversation that took place immediately following the vote by the leaders of both sides and a number of my colleagues, including Senator Dodd and Senator Landrieu. I sense there is a genuine willingness on the part of Democrats and Republicans and that one Independent not to give up on this issue. It is one that we need to address and we can address satisfactorily. My own belief is it is one we can address this year. I have talked to any number of Senators on our side of the aisle who are prepared to offer what I think are constructive perfecting amendments that would make a good bill much better. I hope what we will do in the days ahead is to reach across the aisle--Republicans to Democrats and Democrats to Republicans--to find a common ground that I think will exist with respect to many of these amendments and to then move forward together and, hopefully, to get to the end of the day when we can vote on a bill and not have to worry about the kind of partisan divide that in some cases characterized this vote and, frankly, characterizes too many votes we cast here. I was approached by one of my colleagues following the vote who asked if we lost the war. I said: No, no, maybe today the battle was lost but not the war. There is a realization that the way we handle class action litigation in this country is broken. It can be fixed. As we like to say in Delaware, ``If it isn't perfect, make it better.'' This bill that came out of committee is not perfect. It can be made better. That is what we are going to do. I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I have observed that she has been diligent in continuing to focus on health care issues, including our need to somehow effect and moderate the growing cost of health care in this country. She has seen an exodus of manufacturers out of her State and millions of manufacturing jobs from the United States. Among the reasons why they are leaving is the extraordinary cost of health care. Companies also tell us they are considering other places to locate and do business because of litigation costs, legal costs that flow out of the costs of doing business in our country. Those costs could deal with asbestos litigation, which has taken down now over 60 companies that have gone bankrupt. Unfortunately, a lot of people who have been hurt or exposed to asbestos haven't gotten the kind of money their families deserve, and people who haven't been sick have taken away money from those who need it. Another area with respect to legal costs that will get a lot of attention on this floor this week is the cost of class action litigation and whether or not the way our class action system works in this country is appropriate or needs to be changed. Let me say from the outset that I think when a person is hurt or damaged in some way by the acts of another person or a company, that person should be compensated. They should be made whole. When a number of people, or a class of people, are hurt or damaged in some way by the actions of a company or business, that class of people should be compensated and made whole as well. I submit to my colleagues today that our sense of balance, though, has been lost. We are seeing national class action litigation not taking place in Federal courts but in many instances taking place in local courts with locally elected judges against defendants from other States. When the Framers of our Constitution provided for a Federal judiciary, one of the reasons they did so was to say when you have plaintiffs in one State and you have defendants in another State, just to make sure there is an objective legal system, we need a Federal judiciary to help provide for that leveling of the playing field. All too often today national class action litigation pits plaintiffs in one State and defendants in another State in a local court where you have a locally elected judge whose election or reelection depends in no small part on their ability to satisfy the plaintiffs within their State. We've just lost our sense of balance. There have been efforts for five years now to try to make changes with respect to class action litigation. It started out far different than where it has ended up. The current bill is much more moderate than those that came before it. Also, there is no effort with this bill to cap noneconomic or attorneys' fees. There is no effort to limit joint and several liability. I want to talk about the bill that will come to the Senate floor if we agree to the motion to proceed tomorrow. First of all, the legislation that will come to us is not perfect. It might need to be amended or changed further. It is certainly not the final product, but it is a good starting point. If we agree to the motion to proceed tomorrow--it takes 60 votes--we will have the opportunity for those of us on our side, the Democratic side, and the Republican side, to offer amendments, to have a full and open debate and decide whether or not we are going to change the bill. It can be improved, and I certainly will support amendments. I may talk about those later today or tomorrow. Let me take a minute to describe the legislation that may come to the floor. The issue we are trying to get at is venue shopping, where you have, in some cases, litigation that is being brought and litigation of national scope that ought to be in a Federal court, where the attorneys who brought the lawsuit are looking for a venue where they can get a friendly judge and friendly jury. In some places, it is almost a cottage industry, whether it is Madison County, IL; Jefferson County, TX; and other places, such as Alabama and Mississippi. There is a perception that a defendant is not going to get a fair shake in a national class action litigation in those venues.

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair. I will have more to say about this later today.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I express my thanks to the Senator from Alabama for his kind words. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him on these and other issues. Tomorrow morning around 11 o'clock, an important vote will occur in the Senate. At the heart of this vote, for me, is to determine whether or not we go forward, Democrats and Republicans, to actually take up and debate the way we allow people who are harmed, hurt, or injured--in many cases, by business--to be compensated. Most would agree that if you or I, as individuals, are damaged by the actions of another or by the actions of a business, we should be made whole. I believe the same protection should inure to a group of people or a class of people who may be harmed or damaged in some way by the actions or products of some business. Over time we seem to have lost our sense of balance in the way we litigate class actions. When our Founding Fathers came up with our Federal courts, we did not have class actions. We did not have mass actions. We did not have private attorneys general actions. We did not have any of that. We had a concern on the part of our Founding Fathers that if a group of people in one State were harmed by a business or person in another State, maybe we ought to have a Federal court system, to ensure that the case is not heard by the potentially biased judges in the injured party's home state. The trial bar gets a bad rap in a lot of quarters, but I believe they play a very helpful and constructive role in this country. They sometimes do not get credit for that. One of the things they do is try to make sure, where people are harmed, they get compensated. Our system has lost the right kind of balance. Too often today--not always but too often--we end up debating national class action not in a Federal court but in a local court--in some cases, in a court where the judges are locally elected and the defendant is placed at a real disadvantage. I will give an example because this does not make much sense to me. Say I were poisoned by food we bought from a fast food restaurant. Say I decided to sue. If the amount in dispute were less than $75,000, my case could be heard in State court. If I sue for more than $75,000; it would be heard in a Federal court. On the other hand, if thousands of people, or tens of thousands of people, bring a class action against that same restaurant for some alleged sin they have committed--and it may involve tens of millions of dollars--it may well end up in a State court, not in a Federal court. That does not seem right to me. There has been an effort to try to establish or reestablish the sense of balance in these kinds of cases. It started about 5 years ago, in the 105th Congress. Over time, I believe a more thoughtful approach has evolved and has led to the introduction of a bill this year, S. 274, called the Class Action Fairness Act. That bill has gone through hearings, I think in the last Congress, and hearings in this Congress. It has been through regular order. The Senate Judiciary Committee has had an opportunity to hold hearings, to debate the bill, to vote on amendments to the bill and ultimately to report the bill out. There are a number of aspects of the legislation that recommend it to me. I am a cosponsor of the legislation, and it enjoys bipartisan support. Among the original cosponsors are Senator Grassley and Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. The bill was reported out on a bipartisan vote. More Republicans voted for it than Democrats, but it had some bipartisan support. I will discuss how the class action system will work in our country if this legislation or something akin to it becomes law. First, it is not a perfect bill. I have an amendment or two that I want to offer to perfect the legislation. I noticed Senator Lieberman does as well. I have talked to other colleagues, including Senator Landrieu, who have ideas for amendments they want to offer. It is a work in progress. It is one that can be improved and should be improved. In order for us to be able to offer our amendments to the bill to perfect and improve it, we have to go through a vote tomorrow at 11 o'clock on the motion to proceed, which, understandably but unfortunately, is opposed by leadership on my side. The fear, the concern, is we will get on to the bill and the opportunity for those who would like to offer amendments may not end up to be realized; the opportunity for us to offer amendments, to be fairly heard and vote will not occur. Therefore, they are reluctant to go to the bill without some further assurance. In the end, the only way we know for sure if our amendments are going to get a fair hearing, and have the opportunity to be debated and adopted, is to go to the bill, to take it up. I hope tomorrow, when we vote, that is what we will vote to do. Let me talk briefly about how I understand our legal system would work a little differently if this were to become the law of the land. First, the question is, Is this litigation going to be heard in State court or Federal court? Under the legislation, for a matter to be heard in Federal court or for the defendant in the case to be able to argue successfully that a case ought to be in Federal court as opposed to a State court, there would have to be a certain dollar amount at stake, and it would be $5 million. If it is under $5 million, it will be in State court. Second is the number of people in the plaintiff class. If you have less than 100 people in your plaintiff class, this litigation is going to be heard in a State court. Third, if a case is filed in a State court, and the defendant says, no, this ought to be in a Federal court, and they go to Federal court to try to get it removed to the Federal court, and the Federal court says, no, this remains in the State court, then it goes back to the State court. And unless the plaintiffs change the plaintiff class, or unless the plaintiffs somehow change their complaint, it is going to stay in State court. There are no caps on pain and suffering, no caps on punitive damages, no caps on noneconomic damages, no caps on attorney fees. We leave joint and several alone. In some States they apparently do not have class actions; they have mass actions--a few States such as West Virginia, Mississippi--where they aggregate a number of individual claims. The question is whether those are more properly heard in a Federal court or a State court. I think Senator Specter has negotiated a pretty good compromise in those instances. In some cases, if it were a major incident, such as an explosion or a fire or a catastrophic incident that involves people in one State, then it would basically be handled in State court; if not, it would be in a Federal court. Senator Feinstein had an issue on these private attorneys general cases, which apparently you or I could stand up or any citizen can stand up and say they represent a group of people on a particular wrong that has been committed. In some cases that is the way they really go about class action. Her amendment was adopted as part of the final agreement. If the bill comes to the floor, the private attorneys general agreement would be within the purview of State courts, not the Federal court. Senator Feinstein also offered I think quite a thoughtful amendment and one that addresses a concern raised by the Judicial Conference that we heard discussed earlier. My colleagues will recall the Judicial Conference is actually headed up by the Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice Rehnquist. But they, from time to time, will opine on things that are before us and maybe share their opinions with us. They suggested, when asked back in March, that there were some real concerns that they had with S. 274, and that it would cause a lot of cases that are now heard in State courts to end up flooding the Federal courts. They suggested that we ought to do something about it, that the Judiciary Committee ought to do something about it. Well, the Judiciary Committee did something about it. What they did is they adopted the Feinstein amendment in their markup back in April. The Feinstein amendment says basically this. It says: The plaintiff class, the people who are bringing the grievance, if two-thirds or more are from the same State of the defendant, automatically that case is heard in the State court. It says, if fewer than one-third of the plaintiff class are from the same State as the defendant, automatically it is heard in a Federal court. If the percentage of the plaintiff class is somewhere between one-third and two-thirds who are from the same State as the defendant, then it is up to a Federal judge in that area to make the final decision based on criteria. There are five pieces of criteria spelled out in the bill. So, again, if there are more than two-thirds of the plaintiff class in the same State as the defendant, it is a State matter; if fewer than a third of the plaintiffs from the same State as the defendant, it is in the Federal court; and between one-third and two-thirds are from the same State as the defendant, it is kind of a jump ball. The Federal judge in the area is asked to make the decision based on the criteria spelled out in the bill. Interestingly, the Judicial Conference came back after this amendment was adopted and the legislation was about to be reported out and they seemed to suggest, in a letter that they sent to the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, that their earlier concerns had been addressed. I think the Judicial Conference sent a similar letter to the folks in the House of Representatives suggesting the same thing in the month of May. A concern has been raised, a legitimate concern, about what percentage of cases are now going to end up in Federal court as opposed to State court under this bill. Some pretty smart people actually took the data from the last 5 years in States where they collected this data to look to see--in States such as New York, Massachusetts, Maine, where data is available--what percentage of cases in those States over the last 5 years would have ended up in a Federal court as opposed to a State court. Sixty percent or more of the cases in those states in the last 5 years would still have ended up in a State court. I think that is a good point to be mindful of. I do not know if any of us going forward could say what the future is going to be, but we should sure look back over the last 5 years and say if this were the law of the land, again, 60 percent or more of the cases would have stayed in State court. Let me close with this thought, if I could. Senator Lieberman is prepared to offer an amendment, I think a real good amendment, to the bill that addresses an issue for Connecticut. It is similar to an issued raised for Indiana, and similar to an issue I have heard raised, I think, for New Mexico. This is the issue that was raised. Let's say in Connecticut you have a river that has been polluted by a plant that damages people in Connecticut under Connecticut law. The plant is in Connecticut but owned by a company in another State. Again, the people who are damaged, the plaintiff class, if you will, are in Connecticut. The damage was in Connecticut and there are two defendants, one in Connecticut--the plant that did the pollution--and the owner of the plant that is in another State. What Senator Lieberman has come forth with and said is, in a case such as that, it ought to really be in a Connecticut court. I think he is right. Senator Lieberman will offer an amendment that says in those cases State law should prevail. They should not be moved someplace else. State law should prevail. He will offer that amendment if we have the opportunity--if we have the opportunity--to actually go to the bill, take it up, and debate it. In order to do that, we have to vote tomorrow for the motion to proceed. There is a real test that is going to take place here. If we actually vote for the motion to proceed and go to the bill, there is a burden of proof that rests on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They need to act in good faith. We need to actually have the opportunity to offer our amendments. We need to have the opportunity for a fair and open debate on reasonable perfecting amendments. If we do, then I think it may act as a confidence builder and maybe establish a measure of trust around here where, frankly, there is not too much. On the other hand, if our Republican colleagues take a different course and seek to cut off debate and reasonable amendments and not support reasonable amendments, perfecting amendments, then that sends a different message. I think there is more at stake for this body than just whether or not we are going to take up a class action bill. There is a whole lot more at stake. My hope is tomorrow, when we vote, if we vote to proceed, that our colleagues on the other side will keep that in mind and that their actions in the days or week or so ahead will reflect as much.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden and myself, I congratulate Coaches Joe Mascelli, Bob Waters and H.J. Lopes, and the Naamans Little League team. Their accomplishment of becoming the first Delaware team to reach the Little League World Series demonstrates the success that comes from hard work, perseverance, dedicated coaching, and the support of parents and fans. The Little League World Series, held during the month of August in Williamsport, PA, ended a dramatic, record-breaking season for the Naamans Little League team. The Delaware State champions and Mid- Atlantic regional champions final overall record through district, state, regional, and world series play was 14-3. They finished their world series experience at 1-2, with a win over Iowa and losses to Arizona and Texas. This year, the Mid-Atlantic Regional championship team consisted of 12 players: Jarad Carney, Kevin Czachorowski, Scott Dougherty, Cory Firmani, Constantine Fournaris, Danny Frate, Michael Julian, Zack Lopes, Tim Marcin, Dave Mastro, Vince Russomagno, and Kip Skibicki. Coach Mascelli said his team gained a lot from this experience, both on the field and off the field. One of the highlights was the tremendous outpouring of fan support, not just from residents of Delaware, but also from people around the nation and the world. They were flooded with letters and emails from states across the nation, including California, and countries as far away as Germany. Coach Mascelli also said his players received an education beyond baseball. They all handled their celebrity status with the public and the media with a maturity well beyond their years. The team's objective at the Little League World Series was to represent the state of Delaware with class and dignity. We are proud to say that the Naamans team accomplished just that. Today, we congratulate the Naamans Little League and coaches Mascelli, Lopes, and Waters. They accomplished something that no other Delaware team has done, and they made each one of us proud.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I follow up on the comments of the Senator from New York with respect to sacrifice. Our State is a small State. We only have about 800,000 people. We have reservists who serve in all the branches of our military. We have the Delaware National Guard unit. When I was Governor, I was privileged to be their commander in chief. I know many of them personally, as well as their families. When guard and reservists are called to be deployed to active duty, usually our Governor is there to send them off and tries to be there to receive them when they come home. Similarly, when it is a unit of another branch of the service--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--we like to be there to welcome them home, too. I will mention two units, one Marine Reserve unit, the second a unit of the Delaware National Guard, folks who fly and maintain the C-130 cargo aircraft, part of the air bridge between this country and other parts around the world. About 2 weeks ago, I was invited to be part of a welcome home ceremony for a number of Marine reservists. They had been called to active duty. They served in Iraq. They were able to come home to their families. They came home largely to their spouses--mostly to wives-- they came home to their children, came home to brothers and sisters, moms and dads in many cases, they came home to their neighbors, and they came home to their jobs. I don't think it is overstating it to say they are thrilled to be home--proud of their service, thrilled to be home. I had another unit in the Delaware National Air Guard 166. The people who fly and maintain the C-130 cargo aircraft were activated earlier this year and spent 4 months on active duty and then were released to come home to a great homecoming ceremony, a lot of joy. Then they were reactivated roughly a month ago and headed back on the other side of the world. I am not sure when they are coming home. They missed the return of their children to school, will probably not be around to take the kids out to trick or treat this year. When their families sit around and eat at the Thanksgiving table and carve up the turkey, they probably won't be there. When presents are opened around Christmastime, God only knows where they will be. Those families know what it means to sacrifice, not just the ones who are overseas--whether they are Delaware National Guard, any National Guard, any Reserve unit, or anyone on active duty. It is one thing to ask the sacrifice of those who serve. As one who once served, that is your job description. You are expected to be prepared to go and serve when needed. It is always toughest on those who stay behind because they give up their loved one, they give up someone who is helping to hold the family together in many cases; in some cases they give up a breadwinner who has gone off to earn a far lower salary. They know what sacrifice is. What the Biden amendment says is, for those who are blessed with great financial well-being, whose income exceeds $300,000 per year adjusted gross income, maybe we can do something, too. We may not have a child, a son or a daughter; we may not have a brother or sister. And I know Senator Johnson has a son who I believe still serves over there, but for the most part we do not. For the most part, people with those incomes do not. But we have the ability to do something to help out in this case. I don't think it is asking too much for those who happen to make that kind of income to be willing to defer maybe $2,000 a year to help make sure that our children and our grandchildren do not inherit an even greater mountain of debt. Let me close with one comment. Sometimes you talk to people about the amount of debt and the numbers are almost numbing. Let me leave you with this number: Today, on this day of October 2, we will make an interest payment on our national debt--imagine a credit card--an interest payment on our national debt. The interest payment is $882 million. We can bemoan that fact and say that is terrible, why don't we do something about it, or we can, with our vote today, do something about it and make sure we do not add further to that debt. A fellow who used to be the British Chancellor of the Exchequer had a theory of holes. That theory was as follows: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We are in a hole, and it is time to stop digging.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Biden amendment.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the selection of Phillip C. Showell Elementary School as a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Award recipient. This prestigious honor is awarded to schools that meet one of two criteria. The nominated school must have at least 40 percent of their student population from disadvantaged backgrounds and have each segment--including whites, blacks, Hispanics, low-income and special education students--show scholastic improvement, or the school must score in the top 10 percent on State assessment tests in reading, writing, math, social studies and the sciences. Phillip C. Showell Elementary School was successful in meeting both of these criteria. Not only did each segment show adequate yearly progress, but the scores of students from Phillip C. Showell's have shown steady improvement on State assessment tests over the past several years. This is a remarkable honor for Phillip C. Showell Elementary School, attesting to the many achievements and the commitment this school, as well as the First State, has for educating our youth. Located in the small town of Selbyville, DE, Phillip C. Showell Elementary School is home to many low-income and disadvantaged students. Approximately 47 percent of Phillip C. Showell Elementary School students come from a disadvantaged socio-economic background. Many students come to the school with English as a second language. To many teachers and faculty, these factors can be extremely frustrating. However, the dedicated staff at Phillip C. Showell Elementary School prides themselves on their commitment to successfully educating and impacting the lives of these underprivileged children. Known as ``The little school that's big on learning,'' Phillip C. Showell Elementary School provides an environment that allows its faculty to work closely with students. As one of the smallest elementary schools in the State, Phillip C. Showell Elementary is described as a close-knit family. The welcoming atmosphere makes students feel accepted and special. As a title 1 school, Phillip C. Showell Elementary is able to receive funding and resources which allow them to provide for students. A teacher who specializes in writing and reading provides Early Success and Soar to Success programs for additional support to students. There are after school opportunities for identified students who can benefit from extra reading and math help. In addition, a reading specialist coordinates with other faculty members to identify kindergarten and new students who are in need of extended kindergarten. This extra half-day of learning provides language, arts and reading skills that will be essential to these students throughout their academic career. These programs were created to identify and assist students in need of extra help. The committed faculty, staff, and administrators offer students the chance to fulfill their potential. These children are inspired not only to reach their potential, but to strive for excellence. Delaware is a small State, but we are building a growing record of achievement in public school education. The students at Phillip C. Showell Elementary School set the standard for elementary school students across the country. They truly are an inspiration to other schools and communities throughout the Nation.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I am encouraged that the Secretary has promulgated a letter. I don't know to what extent it also bears an imprimatur of OMB and the senior folks in the White House. I am encouraged by the letter. The point I am trying to make is that we are uneasy in the first place about entering into some kind of agreement on the Senate floor, and then just seeing that dissipate in conference. In the administration's statement they don't even mention the $13 million for public and charter schools, which just further exacerbates our uneasiness. Let me yield, if I may, to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, during the course of our debate last Thursday, we had the opportunity to share a number of thoughts about the President's proposed voucher demonstration for the District of Columbia. I have appreciated the opportunity this last week to engage in discussions and negotiations, if you will, with my friend, Senator DeWine from Ohio, Senator Landrieu, and others. I know there has been some discussion today. I just arrived moments ago. I want to revisit it a little bit. I think we have a vote in about 20 minutes, but I want to take the next few minutes to review some of that conversation. I said on Thursday and say it again today, I think the measure as it is being amended on the Senate floor is a significant improvement over what was offered in the House and approved by the House. It was a very close partisan vote. I think it passed by one vote. I appreciate the willingness of the other side to at least engage in what I think were good-faith discussions and negotiations. Among the problems we found with the legislation that came out of committee to the floor was that eligible participating students need not take the same tests that other District of Columbia students take. Most States around the country have adopted academic standards. Once academic standards are adopted, most States are developing tests to understand the students' progress in math or science or English or social studies or other subjects. I understand the District of Columbia has been involved in the process of developing their own academic standards for their own students. I believe they are in the process of developing tests which would reveal student progress. In the meantime, I think they use a proxy test. If one of my colleagues wants to correct me, feel free, but I think the District of Columbia uses as a proxy test the Standard of Achievement Test to measure how students are doing with respect to reading, writing, and math. In the State of Delaware, we adopted our standard in 1995 and began giving Delaware State tests in 1998. We actually use the Stanford 9. We actually embed the Stanford 9 achievement test within the Delaware State test so we have some idea how Delaware students are doing with respect to progress against Delaware standards on math, science, and social studies, and also because of the Stanford Achievement Test we have an idea how we are doing with regard to the rest of the country, at least as it relates to reading and mathematics. But I believe the District of Columbia uses only the Standard of Achievement Test at this time. They are developing a standard of achievement test that will find out how local students are doing against the standards that have been adopted. They will now begin using it. The reason it is important to make sure all our students are taking the same test, whether they happen to be in a traditional public school or a public charter school or in a private or parochial school, that at least once a year they take the same test, is we want to have some way of objectively measuring whether students are making progress and know we are measuring apples and apples and oranges and oranges, and not apples and oranges. I believe that with the adoption by voice vote of the Feinstein amendment last week, this measure has been amended so now students in parochial, private, traditional public schools and in charter schools here in the District will all be at least taking the same test. That is an important step. The next step, though, is for us to figure out what we do with the results from that test. That is critically important. What do we do with the results of those tests? We measure the students' progress toward the District of Columbia's academic standards. It is all well and good if they take the same test, but what if we don't act on those tests or use those tests as most States, including mine, are using the test to help make sure we hold everybody accountable, hold schools accountable, school districts accountable, students accountable, educators accountable? I used the example last week. I will use something similar to it today to try to make clear we are not interested in creating an administrative nightmare for the parochial schools or the private schools. I don't know how difficult it would be for them 1 or 2 days a year, a couple of days a year, for those schools to ensure the students attending those schools with vouchers take the District's test. On top of that, we are not interested in imposing on a private school or parochial school the accountability system that we find in No Child Left Behind. There is going to be an independent entity created here in the District of Columbia if this voucher demonstration program is actually adopted and implemented. There would be an entity created called an Eligible Entity. That is what it is actually called. As I understand it, that Eligible Entity would be responsible for, among other things, negotiating with the private and parochial schools, making sure the students who receive these vouchers--actually, I understand the voucher funding would come from the Federal Government through the Eligible Entity to the parents of the students. Then they would choose from among a variety of schools. The schools, if they were oversubscribed, would have a lottery system. We are not interested in seeing that the parochial and private schools that participate have to go through the No Child Left Behind rules. That is not what we are interested in doing. We do want to know, however, if there are 2,000 kids in this voucher demonstration program, how they are doing relative to the District of Columbia's academic standards. We want to know if we are making good progress with respect to those standards. We want to know if the various subgroups that we are responsible for tracking are doing well, just as we would similar subgroups that are still in traditional public schools in DC or in charter schools here in the District of Columbia. The data for those students enrolled in private or parochial schools, how well they do on their test scores, can fairly easily be aggregated and pulled out either by the Eligible Entity, collected by the Eligible Entity, or by some appropriate entity in the District of Columbia, and they will know how kids are doing in the sixth grade and the seventh grade to the eighth grade. They will know how they are doing with respect to reading and how they are doing with respect to mathematics, if those kids were receiving their education on a voucher. Again, we are not trying to make things unduly complicated or difficult for the parochial or private schools. But if this is going to happen, if we are going to try this experiment, I think it is in the interest of everybody, including the kids, including us as decisionmakers, to not impede the ability of students to enroll in a private or parochial school that is interested in participating. The key, though, for us is to make sure that at the end of the day we have data that we can look at as decisionmakers, and the folks in the District of Columbia can look at, and they will actually know with some certainty whether or not the students using those vouchers are making academic progress using the same standards, the same kind of accountability that we are imposing on all the public schools, including the charter schools. I don't think that is too much to ask. I cited last Thursday a quote from the President. I don't have it with me here, but this is what he announced when he rolled out this proposal last July here in the District of Columbia and talked about these kids. I will paraphrase him: These kids have to operate under the same system of accountability that other kids here in the District would be expected to operate under, to which I would say terrific; I couldn't agree more. In talking with one of the President's top senior people over in the White House last week, I was concerned to hear that one of the reasons we couldn't have expectations for accountability for progress for kids using these vouchers to go to private or parochial schools is because there is kind of an expectation that given their backgrounds and the problems and academic difficulties they bring to the school, we probably couldn't reasonably expect them to make the kind of progress kids in traditional public schools or public charter schools would be making. It reminded me that the President is fond of talking about the soft bigotry of low expectations. Boy, as soon as I heard those words, I couldn't help but think that strikes of something akin to soft bigotry of low expectations. We say we expect kids who are in some of these deplorable schools in the District--we are going to take kids out of those miserably failing public schools and put them in a parochial school or a private school and not expect them to perform in those schools or at least match or exceed the scores in the schools from which they came. Something is wrong here. Maybe I misinterpreted or misunderstood what was being said on the phone. I hope I was. But the scores of those kids who get out of the environment they are studying in should soar. The last point I want to make is, if you have 2,000 vouchers to hand out to a pool of kids, where do you find the students to give them to? How do you make that determination? As far as I know, we still haven't bridged our differences here. Senator Landrieu and I, along with others on both sides--but more Democrats and some Republicans--have contended that we ought to make every effort to ensure that those vouchers, whether it is 2,000 or however many we have, go to kids in schools that are failing. There is a question about whether we have enough failing schools in the District of Columbia in order to make sure that those vouchers are fully implemented and exercised and used. I am at a loss as to what to say on that. If the schools in this District are half as bad as we have all heard, there are more than enough kids in schools that any of us would deem failing to use those 2,000 vouchers for, and argue for more. There are 15 public schools in the District of Columbia that are deemed to be failing by the standards that are currently being used. I think that is going to change as this District of Columbia test is developed and implemented in the next couple of years. In my State, we have been making great progress academically for the last year or so. We have several times the number of failing schools as the District of Columbia has. I know in talking with Senator Landrieu in the last week or so that the State of Louisiana has a whole lot more--just in New Orleans alone many times more than 15--failing schools. There are going to be plenty of kids in failing schools here a year or so from now when it is up and running, if it is ever up and running--more than enough kids in these failing schools. I would suggest to our friends on the other side of the aisle and to the administration that we shouldn't get bogged down on this point. Let us just give the vouchers to kids in failing schools, be done with it, and move on. The last piece that is troubling--and it was troubling to us before but even more so now--is when legislation comes to the Senate, whoever the President is, whether it is a former President, President Bush, President Clinton, the former President Bush, President Reagan, there is a statement of administration policy that comes with regard to the legislation. Senator Landrieu and I were trying to obtain from our Republican colleagues and from the administration an agreement that what emerges from conference would actually be the language and the principles that were laid out that we and our friends talked about a whole lot last week. We are asking for assurances from the administration and our Republican colleagues that regardless of what we vote on or agree to on the Senate floor--and the whole package could be agreed to on the Senate floor, but when we go to conference with the House of Representatives, you just never know what is going to come out of the conference. We didn't want to be hoodwinked. We didn't want to enjoy a period of victory on the Senate floor only to find that what emerges from the conference of the House of Representatives is something that looks quite different. Our concerns were underlined, maybe with an exclamation point at the end, when we saw the statement of administration policy. I don't have it before me. Does Senator Landrieu happen to have a statement of administration policy?

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nevada wishes to say something before we vote at 5:30. I don't want to impede him.

Mr. CARPER. Yes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for yielding. Before I was elected, I served as Governor of Delaware for 8 years, following Mike Castle, who launched near the end of his second term education reform. What we began in his last term and I tried to do in the 8 years I was privileged to serve as Governor was to focus more on raising student achievement than on anything else. We were willing to experiment rather boldly to try to accomplish that. We established rigorous academic standards, not standards in math, science, English, and social studies that the politicians thought were important, but we gathered the best teachers in the State, the best scientists, to develop academic standards of what we expected kids to know at different grade levels in their academic careers. We wanted to test students objectively, measure whether they were making academic progress to the standards. We wanted to be objective. And, finally, we wanted to make sure we held everyone accountable-- students, schools, school districts, even the educators. Trying to hold parents accountable would be the hardest part of all. During the course of those reforms, we sought to identify what was working to raise student achievement. Did smaller class sizes work? If so, the idea was to replicate that and do that in other schools. We eventually found that smaller class sizes in kindergarten and classes for age 7 had the most impact. We learned investment in early childhood paid huge dividends and concluded that in the first 6 years of our life, by the time we are age 6 and in first grade, we have learned about half of what we are going to learn in our lives. If we waste the first 6 years, it is hard to catch up later on. We learned that if we can harness technology, we can help equalize the playing field for a whole lot of kids. We learned that it is not just enough to hook up classrooms to the Internet. It is not enough to have even decent computers. If you do not have teachers comfortable in using the technology to bring the outside world into the classroom and making the learning come alive and using it effectively as a tool, the money for all the wiring and the computers is money that is not well spent. Teachers have the professional development and the familiarity of using this technology lining up with the curriculum, the lesson plan, and making the learning come alive. We learned in the course of our experiments in Delaware that all kids can learn. Some learn more quickly than others. Mary might learn faster than Tom, but Tom could learn. He just might need extra time or be taught in different ways. We learned maybe longer school days are helpful for doing that, afterschool programs, and maybe summer schools. We have schools, for example, for kids who are entering ninth grade. We can bring those kids in for a month or so in the summer before they go into ninth grade, put them in a summer academy, and they have a better chance of helping the kids to meet the standards they need in ninth grade. We did all this in an effort to try to learn what worked to raise student achievement. We did so because we wanted to be able to invest the limited dollars that we had in programs that would raise student achievement. Of all the things we did in my State during the time that I served as its Governor, preparing the workforce for the 21st century was most important. If we are going to be successful as a nation, it will be because we prepare and create a workforce that is able to beat any workforce in the world. What does that have to do with what we are talking about? The schools in the District of Columbia are not doing the job for many of the kids who live there. The public schools in this District are not doing the job for many of the kids who live there. And a good deal is being done to try to turn that around. This District has begun to experiment rather boldly with charter schools, some of the things I talked about earlier--extra learning time, technology, and professional development--in order to raise student achievement. They have a long way to go. As we dealt with the issue and tackled the issue of leaving no child behind in a failing school, we did not say that the Federal Government would go out there and establish academic standards. We said, we will let the States establish their own academic standards. Let them figure it out and know what they should be doing. We said the same thing about the District of Columbia. They develop their academic standards in the District of Columbia. We do not do that. No Child Left Behind also says we expect kids to make progress every year. We expect all kids can learn, and over a period of a decade or so we expect virtually all children to be able to reach the academic standards, whether it is the District of Columbia, Delaware, Ohio, Louisiana, or Alabama. Of the public schools in the District of Columbia, or Minnesota or Delaware, under No Child Left Behind, if a school does not meet adequate yearly progress for 1 year, that school is essentially put on notice that they are deficient. If they continue to not meet the adequate yearly progress for a second or a third year, there are consequences for the failure to do so. By the fourth year, if a public school--4 years in a row, in any of our States or in the District of Columbia--fails to meet adequate yearly progress, there are consequences that can be rather severe. The school can be closed and restructured, the faculty changed, leadership changed. The school can be transformed into a charter school. Public school choice can be demanded, required, including the funding of transportation to other public schools. But the consequences are severe. If a charter school in Minnesota, where I think charter schools may have originated, or in any of the other States that are represented here is deficient, and the students there--for 1 year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years--do not demonstrate adequate yearly progress, or those schools do not show progress year after year, then there are consequences as well. There is also help. We try to provide extra help: extra money, tutorial assistance, that kind of thing. But in the end, if there is not progress, we do not want to continue to throw good money after bad. I want to talk about an area we got hung up on, and it is a little complicated; but I want to take a minute to talk about it anyway. I said earlier, if you have kids in public schools in this District of Columbia who are not making adequate yearly progress, there are consequences for those schools. There are efforts to help them, but there are also consequences. For charter schools here, if kids are not making progress, if you continue year after year to fall short, there are consequences for that school, and in the end fairly severe ones. If instead of taking this $13 million and distributing it in vouchers to send the kids to, let's say, 80 different schools--instead of doing that, with maybe 25 kids to a school--instead, we are going to take that $13 million and fund one new school for 2,000 kids, and maybe have 80 classrooms, with 25 kids in a classroom, if we use the $13 million in that way, we would expect that school and those students under No Child Left Behind to make progress and to make adequate yearly progress. And if they did not, under No Child Left Behind, that school would get help. And eventually, if they continue to fail, they would face dire consequences. Stick with me on this, if you will. What we propose to do with this voucher demonstration is to take $13 million, and instead of creating one school with 80 classrooms, we might take the $13 million and give it to kids who will go to 80 different private schools somewhere here in the District; and it might be roughly 25 kids in each of those schools, but they add up to 2,000. Some will go to schools, and they are going to be tested, and they will do pretty well. Some will go to schools, and they will be tested, under the District's test, and they are not going to do so well; and they may not do so well next year and the year after that and the year after that. I wish it were possible somehow to take the results of those 2,000 kids who are going to be spread, in this example, in 80 schools across the District to actually bring back, to aggregate, and to see how well they did in making adequate yearly progress. And as it turns out, we could actually do that. We would not have to impose No Child Left Behind on the individual private schools. I would not want to do that. But we can certainly find out how those kids are doing in those private or parochial schools, and see if they are making, collectively, adequate yearly progress. Earlier this year--I wish I could find the quotation--President Bush was talking--I think it was maybe in July--about this experiment with vouchers in the District of Columbia. If you bear with me, I want to see if I can find that quotation. At the very least, I will give you part of it. He said words to this effect: It is the taxpayers' money. We want to know. We want to know in a public school or in a private school whether or not the children are learning. Bear with me just for one moment. The quote is too good to miss. I will find it, and then I will be able to read it in its entirety. Here is what the President said. And again, this is from July of this year. I am going to read it because I think he has it right. This is absolutely on the money talking about his vision for a DC voucher program. This is what he said: The same accountability system applies to the recipient school as it does the public schools in Washington. After all, it's taxpayers' money. We want to know. We want to know in a public school or a private school whether or not the children are learning. I could not have said it better myself. The negotiations we have had with our friends on the other side--and I just want to say to Senator DeWine, I said this privately, and I will say it publicly, I very much admire the way he and Senator Landrieu work together as the chairman of the subcommittee and as ranking member. I thank them very much for the good faith that I think they and their staff demonstrated in trying to find a middle ground on some of these complex and admittedly difficult issues. While I believe it is important that the kids who will use these vouchers in this experimental program come out of schools that are failing--not everyone thinks that; I think so--I think it is important that the voucher actually offsets the cost of the tuition fully. Not everyone agrees with that. I certainly think so. I think the teachers in those private and parochial schools have to meet certain standards or credentialing qualifications. We could probably work through most of that. We fell apart in our negotiations on three points. One was this idea of: Is there some way we can fairly reasonably make sure we hold those who are using public dollars, Federal dollars--for the first time, I think, for vouchers--can we hold them accountable under No Child Left Behind, and in a way somewhat as we hold charter schools and other public school kids accountable? I had a conversation with an administration official this afternoon, and I thought it was a telling conversation. She said to me--words to this effect--we can't agree with doing what you and Senator Landrieu want because the kids who are coming from these schools, who will be using these vouchers--falling under certain income limits; 185 percent of poverty--they are going to be some of our toughest kids to help raise student achievement and to demonstrate adequate yearly progress. And there was just a reluctance and a fear they were setting themselves up for failure under this demonstration program. What the President said is the same accountability system applies to recipient schools as it does to the public schools of Washington, DC. We have to be smart enough to figure out a way to put that kind of accountability plan in place in a voucher program so that it does not discourage private or parochial schools from joining in this experiment. And if the kids who use those vouchers and go to the public and private schools don't make adequate yearly progress, we should not continue to fund those programs. One of the great frustrations for me with what we are setting up here, without the kind of provisions Senator Landrieu and I are talking about, is we will end up not knowing for sure at the end of the day, and for 5 years, or whatever, whether this actually works to raise student achievement, comparing apples and apples, oranges and oranges, being able to compare those 2,000 kids with another 2,000 kids in charter schools and 2,000 kids in public schools. We will not know absolutely. And we should know. For people who don't like vouchers, for those who think we should not put a dime in vouchers, they should know after 5 years that it works. And maybe we should consider, as we said, other school districts. By the same token, for those who think vouchers are the best thing since sliced bread, it would be great to have an experiment that demonstrated that at the end of 5 years, maybe it does not work. And other schools around the State, other cities or school districts would say: They tried it in DC. It was a fair experiment, and it didn't work. They could decide to go ahead and have their own experiment and do it themselves. But we need a test and experiment that nobody can question at the end of the day that it wasn't done fairly and squarely on all counts. I feel disappointed tonight. I really do. I am not angry, but I am disappointed. I have invested some personal time. My staff has. Senator Landrieu has invested a whole lot more. I know Senator DeWine has. I don't feel good about this because we ended up having spent all this time without coming to the kind of consensus I hoped we could. I fear we will pass a bill ultimately that will be flawed, not flawed in the sense of the Senate version, but the House version, because that is a badly flawed voucher proposal. I fear we will pass something that is not what it could be. We will go to conference and what comes out of conference will be a whole lot worse than what is being contemplated here in the Senate. The last thing I want to say is this: If we had been able to reach agreement that these vouchers would only be used for some of the 9,400 kids who are today in failing schools in the District, we would have eliminated a real stumbling block going forward. If we had been able to work out with smart people in the administration, smart people who work around here, a way to make sure that the same accountability or some comparable accountability system that we used under No Child Left Behind for charter schools and public schools--that we can apply that in the way I described earlier for these 2,000 kids--if we can do that, we have eliminated a major stumbling block. Senator Landrieu and I are reluctant, though, even if we passed a measure that had those provisions in it and the other principle she has talked about already, to go to conference even with a good bill without the assurance that what is going to come out of conference will be consistent with those principles. I would feel pretty foolish if we struck a good agreement, a sound agreement that we felt proud of, and went to conference and ended up with something else that was a horse of a different color. We are not going to come to agreement, I am afraid, on those two major principles that we talked about here tonight, if our friends on the other side can't give us an assurance that even if we were, those principles would survive the conference. I understand that is a difficult thing to do. Having said that, I must say that that understanding doesn't diminish at all my disappointment that we have fallen short. I yield back.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator make the request again?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. The Senator from Mississippi's comments about the importance of receiving candidates soon is very true and I hope that the Bush administration will promptly follow the normal procedures of appointments, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Amtrak board are tasked with leading our national passenger railroad, with stewardship over substantial Federal resources and the responsibility of ensuring that the needs of the corporation and the traveling public are met. A stable and competent board is critical for so many reasons. Now is not the time for the kind of uncertainty that would clearly come from an partially staffed or incapacitated board as my colleagues have mentioned. As vacancies occur on the Amtrak board, the Bush administration has two critically important obligations that they must meet to ensure that Amtrak has a chance to survive and prosper. First, they must allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional role of reviewing nominees so that we have the most qualified and capable people for this important job. Second, while that process is underway, they must ensure that a strong, fully functional board remains in place to provide the direction and stability Amtrak needs.

Mr. CARPER. As a former member of the Amtrak board and Governor of Delaware, I personally understand the important role that board members play in leading the corporation and I want to thank my colleague for recognizing the special skills that governors bring to such a position. The board's strong leadership establishes a clear direction for the corporation and provides proper oversight and accountability. Without this clear direction, investors and customers can quickly lose confidence in the company and its ability to preform and grow. The current board of management has done an excellent job of maintaining a solid and predictable course through particularly uneasy times.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to call the Senate's attention to a very important address that my distinguished senior colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, delivered today on America's foreign policy and our ongoing operations in Iraq. I commend Senator Biden for his wise and eloquent words, and I hope that all of my colleagues will take note of this insightful address. Senator Biden delivered this address today on the one-year anniversary of the bipartisan hearings he held last year as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in which the committee explored many of the very questions that are bedeviling us today in post-war Iraq. Those hearings raised, before the war, all of the questions we are confronted with today with respect to how many troops we will need to maintain in Iraq and for how long, as well as how much the reconstruction of Iraq will cost and how we can best secure international cooperation to share the burdens of bringing peace and democracy to Iraq. Indeed, Chairman Biden said at the very first of those hearings last year, ``We need a better understanding of what it would take to secure Iraq and rebuild it economically and politically. It would be a tragedy if we removed a tyrant in Iraq, only to leave chaos in his wake.'' One can only wish that the administration had paid more attention to the questions the committee raised and some of the warnings that the committee received from the distinguished witnesses that testified during those hearings. Senator Biden's speech today was an unapologetic defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq. ``Anyone who can't acknowledge that the world is better off without [Saddam] is out of touch,'' he said. ``The cost of not acting against Saddam would have been much greater, and so is the cost of not finishing the job.'' At the same time, Senator Biden's speech today was also a ringing affirmation of the historical tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that has been the hallmark of this institution and of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in particular. He suggests that today, and I quote, ``the stakes are too high and the opportunities too great to conduct foreign policy at the extremes.'' In very convincing terms, Senator Biden argues that we need to chart a sensible path between the prescriptions of neo-conservative purists, who affirm a strident unilateralism, and multi-lateral purists, who shrink from forcefully acting in the absence of international consensus. Again I quote: ``What we need isn't the death of internationalism or the denial of stark national interest, but a more enlightened nationalism--one that understands the value of institutions but allows us to use military force, without apology or apprehension if we have to, but does not allow us to be so blinded by the overwhelming power of our armed forces that we fail to see the benefit of sharing the risks and the costs with others.'' As Senator Biden argues, we need to act forcefully, but humbly in the world today. We need to be unapologetic in the post-9/11 world about fighting for the security of our people. But we need to pursue our goals, as Thomas Jefferson once said, ``with a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'' The course that Senator Biden outlined today is the course we should follow, Mr. President. Ultimately, I believe that most Americans will conclude that we were right to act in Iraq. We also need to see the job through. But we need to reengage with the international community and make them partners in the noble work of securing the peace in Iraq and spreading freedom and democracy throughout the region. Again, I commend Senator Biden's address to my colleagues' attention, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to take this time to talk about the reauthorization of welfare reform, the reform launched a half dozen years ago. The authorization for those reforms has expired once, has been renewed for a year, and will expire again at the end of this year. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he said a number of things for which he is remembered. He said: It is the economy, stupid. And it is always the economy, stupid, as far as I am concerned. But he also said we ought to change welfare as we know it. And we have. Welfare reform was very much needed in the mid-1990s. A lot of people who ended up on welfare stayed there for long periods of time. And one of the reasons why they stayed there for so long was because they and their families were better off being on welfare than not. If people on welfare went to work, they lost some things. They lost maybe health care for their kids, eligibility for food stamps, nutritional support for their families, affordable housing. They certainly had to pay more for affordable housing. And what would they gain by going to work and getting off welfare? The right to pay taxes: State income taxes, Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. After losing those certain things and gaining the right to pay those taxes, they would have to deal with the costs included in childcare. Who is going to take care of my kids? How will I pay for it? How will I get to work? Is there transportation? Is there transit? Do I have a car? Is it a working car? If I don't, how do I get one or pay for it or maintain it? The reforms adopted in 1996 were actually endorsed by the National Governors Association which served as a catalyst for the adoption of Federal law. There were a number of principles that underscored or underwrote that welfare reform initiative of the mid-1990s. The first was work first. We should not place emphasis on finding people for jobs that may not exist. We ought to help people to go to work first. The second principle was, work ought to pay more than welfare. People actually ought to be better off because somebody in that family is going to work every day. The third principle was really a tough love principle. There ought to be limits on the amount of time that people could be on welfare. States could make it more stringent but a 5-year cap on the amount of time people spent on welfare should be the law of the land. We should have a tough love approach. There ought to be a certain toughness in what we are doing. People should show up for job interviews. They should take the jobs offered. They should not be able to walk away from the jobs. If they do those kinds of things, they would face, in a number of States, the likelihood of being sanctioned for their refusal or inability to go to work and continue to work. We also said that we realize there are some people on welfare who will never come off. For reasons physiological, they are going to be dependent forever. We allowed the States to recognize some percentage-- I think 20 percent--of the caseload of people who will not go to work. We said that it might be a smart idea to have a rainy day fund, in case the economy falls off a cliff or we have a lot more people who show up and need a welfare payment. So we provided for a rainy day fund. Finally, we said there are really four critical elements that need to be addressed in order for people to get off welfare and stay off welfare for an extended period of time. No. 1, there had to be a job to go to. No. 2, they have to have a way to get to the job. No. 3, there has to be health care for the kids. If the kids get sick, parents are not going to go to work. There has to be minimal health care for the family. People will not go to work if there is nobody to take care of their kids. So there needs to be some assistance given for childcare. By most standards, the welfare reforms we began a half dozen years ago are regarded as a success. The rolls are down by roughly half across the country, including Delaware. Many families who used to be on welfare are now working and those families are, for the most part, better off. In those families where somebody is going to work every day, that parent sets an example for their children that there is an expectation to go to work, that there is dignity with work, and we are expected to be self-aligned and self-sufficient, if we are psychologically able to do that. I have heard the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some people said that about the welfare reforms to be adopted in 1996--that they were not broke and we ought not to fix them. Other people said we ought to change it substantially, which is what we did in 1996. Some would like to go back to a situation that existed prior to that time. Others would like to go to an even tougher love arrangement, with the emphasis on toughness and not a whole lot of love involved. Rather than saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think the better approach is to say this: If it is not perfect, make it better. The reforms we adopted 6 years ago can be improved upon and we can make it better. I want to talk about a proposal Senator Nelson and I will be offering. As former Governors of our States, we believe it will build on the changes adopted in 1996. It would make the system better and make it one that is more likely to help people get off welfare and stay off for an extended period of time, and hopefully forever. When we adopted the welfare reforms of 1996, we decided to take welfare, which had been an entitlement program, and make it a block grant program. I believe it provided that $16.5 million would be distributed to States in block grants and States could apportion that money out, to be used for a variety of things, including cash welfare payments, childcare assistance, health care, and other things. They could also use the money for transportation assistance. We put a 5-year limit on the amount of time people, under Federal law, could be eligible for welfare benefits. We also said in that law that we want States to eventually increase their work participation rates. If you look at the welfare caseload, the percentage of people doing work or work-like activities, we wanted that to increase so by 2002 the work participation would have gone up 50 percent from wherever it started. That is where it is today; the work participation rate is 50 percent. We give a credit to States that moved people off of welfare since the mid to late 1990s. So if they have moved people off welfare, States can get a credit toward the work participation rate, with the 50-percent mandate. As it turned out, when they moved half of the people off of the welfare rolls and the work participation rate is 50 percent effectively by moving people off welfare to work, in most of the States we have eliminated de facto the work participation rate. Most States have a zero work participation rate as a result. Our bill changes that in a couple of ways. It gradually raises from 50 percent to 70 percent, in 5-percent increments each year, the work participation rate, so that by 2008, today's rate would go up to 70 percent. We provide for something called an employment credit. The employment credit provides a credit to States against its work participation rate for doing a couple of things. One, for moving people to work. Two, they get bonus credit for moving people to work at better paying jobs. Also, States can earn partial credit against the work participation rate if people are doing at least 16 hours of core work activities. Under the current Federal law, a workweek for people who have kids over the age of 6 is 30 hours in order to count toward the work participation rate. Under current law, if a person has a child under 6, they need to be working 20 hours in order to count toward the States' work participation requirement. Senator Nelson and I would change that a little bit. We say that-- there is one thing we don't change. If you have a child under the age of 6, it is still 20 hours. If they are over the age of 6, we expect them to be working 32 hours, 8 of which can be activities other than core work activities. An example would be assistance for substance abuse, or anything that is deemed to be eliminating the barrier toward employment. If a person doesn't have a high school degree, they can be working toward their GED, and that counts as part of that 8 hours. But 24 hours of the 32 would have to be a core work activity. I will give you some examples: private sector work, public sector work, community service, and vocational education. Senator Nelson and I also made a modification with respect to education and training. Under current law, vocational education counts up to--I believe you count it toward your work participation rate for 12 months. We make that 24 months. We put in a cap. If you had 100 people on your caseload, no more than 30 percent of that 100 people who are involved in vocational education training or postsecondary can be counted toward a State's work participation rate. We extend from 12 months to 24 months those who are participating in vocational credit. If you want people to go to work, you have to make sure there is help on the childcare side. If we are going to raise the hours, we expect the people to do work or work-like activities. If we are going to raise the work participation rate, we have to provide additional assistance. There is an extra $6 billion that we provide for childcare over the 5- year period. In addition, we raise the social service block grant to a fully authorized level over a 5-year period of time. On the transportation side, as I mentioned earlier, unless people can get to work--we can have all the caps and participation rates we want but unless people can get to work, they are not going to be able to get off welfare and stay off of welfare. In our legislation, we provide under current law where States can use the TANF block grant for transportation assistance. We provide authorizing language for another $15 million in authorization for transportation. If you live in a rural area and there is no transportation, States can help people buy cheaper but working cars to get where they need to go. We make a change with respect to transitional health care. Under current law, if I am on welfare and then I go to work, I lose my health care. I can get 12 months of transitional assistance from Medicaid. We raise that. We give States the discretion to raise that to 24 months. I see Senator Grassley has risen to speak. I will finish my remarks. I say this to him. I appreciate very much his effort in leading the Finance Committee. Senator Nelson and I have actually been privileged to be Governors of our States--8 years apiece--at the time we launched welfare reform. We learned a lot from those experiences. We think it is germane to the debate that is coming soon in the next steps in welfare reform. We hope to be part of the debate--maybe not in your committee but certainly when we get the bill to the floor. As much as I understand what is taking shape here, I think there are common elements in what Senator Grassley is seeking to do and what Senator Nelson and I propose to do. We look very much forward to engaging with the chairman in the work he is doing now and with that which is going to be brought to the floor later this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill that Senator Nelson and I are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to take this time to talk about the reauthorization of welfare reform, the reform launched a half dozen years ago. The authorization for those reforms has expired once, has been renewed for a year, and will expire again at the end of this year. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he said a number of things for which he is remembered. He said: It is the economy, stupid. And it is always the economy, stupid, as far as I am concerned. But he also said we ought to change welfare as we know it. And we have. Welfare reform was very much needed in the mid-1990s. A lot of people who ended up on welfare stayed there for long periods of time. And one of the reasons why they stayed there for so long was because they and their families were better off being on welfare than not. If people on welfare went to work, they lost some things. They lost maybe health care for their kids, eligibility for food stamps, nutritional support for their families, affordable housing. They certainly had to pay more for affordable housing. And what would they gain by going to work and getting off welfare? The right to pay taxes: State income taxes, Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. After losing those certain things and gaining the right to pay those taxes, they would have to deal with the costs included in childcare. Who is going to take care of my kids? How will I pay for it? How will I get to work? Is there transportation? Is there transit? Do I have a car? Is it a working car? If I don't, how do I get one or pay for it or maintain it? The reforms adopted in 1996 were actually endorsed by the National Governors Association which served as a catalyst for the adoption of Federal law. There were a number of principles that underscored or underwrote that welfare reform initiative of the mid-1990s. The first was work first. We should not place emphasis on finding people for jobs that may not exist. We ought to help people to go to work first. The second principle was, work ought to pay more than welfare. People actually ought to be better off because somebody in that family is going to work every day. The third principle was really a tough love principle. There ought to be limits on the amount of time that people could be on welfare. States could make it more stringent but a 5-year cap on the amount of time people spent on welfare should be the law of the land. We should have a tough love approach. There ought to be a certain toughness in what we are doing. People should show up for job interviews. They should take the jobs offered. They should not be able to walk away from the jobs. If they do those kinds of things, they would face, in a number of States, the likelihood of being sanctioned for their refusal or inability to go to work and continue to work. We also said that we realize there are some people on welfare who will never come off. For reasons physiological, they are going to be dependent forever. We allowed the States to recognize some percentage-- I think 20 percent--of the caseload of people who will not go to work. We said that it might be a smart idea to have a rainy day fund, in case the economy falls off a cliff or we have a lot more people who show up and need a welfare payment. So we provided for a rainy day fund. Finally, we said there are really four critical elements that need to be addressed in order for people to get off welfare and stay off welfare for an extended period of time. No. 1, there had to be a job to go to. No. 2, they have to have a way to get to the job. No. 3, there has to be health care for the kids. If the kids get sick, parents are not going to go to work. There has to be minimal health care for the family. People will not go to work if there is nobody to take care of their kids. So there needs to be some assistance given for childcare. By most standards, the welfare reforms we began a half dozen years ago are regarded as a success. The rolls are down by roughly half across the country, including Delaware. Many families who used to be on welfare are now working and those families are, for the most part, better off. In those families where somebody is going to work every day, that parent sets an example for their children that there is an expectation to go to work, that there is dignity with work, and we are expected to be self-aligned and self-sufficient, if we are psychologically able to do that. I have heard the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some people said that about the welfare reforms to be adopted in 1996--that they were not broke and we ought not to fix them. Other people said we ought to change it substantially, which is what we did in 1996. Some would like to go back to a situation that existed prior to that time. Others would like to go to an even tougher love arrangement, with the emphasis on toughness and not a whole lot of love involved. Rather than saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think the better approach is to say this: If it is not perfect, make it better. The reforms we adopted 6 years ago can be improved upon and we can make it better. I want to talk about a proposal Senator Nelson and I will be offering. As former Governors of our States, we believe it will build on the changes adopted in 1996. It would make the system better and make it one that is more likely to help people get off welfare and stay off for an extended period of time, and hopefully forever. When we adopted the welfare reforms of 1996, we decided to take welfare, which had been an entitlement program, and make it a block grant program. I believe it provided that $16.5 million would be distributed to States in block grants and States could apportion that money out, to be used for a variety of things, including cash welfare payments, childcare assistance, health care, and other things. They could also use the money for transportation assistance. We put a 5-year limit on the amount of time people, under Federal law, could be eligible for welfare benefits. We also said in that law that we want States to eventually increase their work participation rates. If you look at the welfare caseload, the percentage of people doing work or work-like activities, we wanted that to increase so by 2002 the work participation would have gone up 50 percent from wherever it started. That is where it is today; the work participation rate is 50 percent. We give a credit to States that moved people off of welfare since the mid to late 1990s. So if they have moved people off welfare, States can get a credit toward the work participation rate, with the 50-percent mandate. As it turned out, when they moved half of the people off of the welfare rolls and the work participation rate is 50 percent effectively by moving people off welfare to work, in most of the States we have eliminated de facto the work participation rate. Most States have a zero work participation rate as a result. Our bill changes that in a couple of ways. It gradually raises from 50 percent to 70 percent, in 5-percent increments each year, the work participation rate, so that by 2008, today's rate would go up to 70 percent. We provide for something called an employment credit. The employment credit provides a credit to States against its work participation rate for doing a couple of things. One, for moving people to work. Two, they get bonus credit for moving people to work at better paying jobs. Also, States can earn partial credit against the work participation rate if people are doing at least 16 hours of core work activities. Under the current Federal law, a workweek for people who have kids over the age of 6 is 30 hours in order to count toward the work participation rate. Under current law, if a person has a child under 6, they need to be working 20 hours in order to count toward the States' work participation requirement. Senator Nelson and I would change that a little bit. We say that-- there is one thing we don't change. If you have a child under the age of 6, it is still 20 hours. If they are over the age of 6, we expect them to be working 32 hours, 8 of which can be activities other than core work activities. An example would be assistance for substance abuse, or anything that is deemed to be eliminating the barrier toward employment. If a person doesn't have a high school degree, they can be working toward their GED, and that counts as part of that 8 hours. But 24 hours of the 32 would have to be a core work activity. I will give you some examples: private sector work, public sector work, community service, and vocational education. Senator Nelson and I also made a modification with respect to education and training. Under current law, vocational education counts up to--I believe you count it toward your work participation rate for 12 months. We make that 24 months. We put in a cap. If you had 100 people on your caseload, no more than 30 percent of that 100 people who are involved in vocational education training or postsecondary can be counted toward a State's work participation rate. We extend from 12 months to 24 months those who are participating in vocational credit. If you want people to go to work, you have to make sure there is help on the childcare side. If we are going to raise the hours, we expect the people to do work or work-like activities. If we are going to raise the work participation rate, we have to provide additional assistance. There is an extra $6 billion that we provide for childcare over the 5- year period. In addition, we raise the social service block grant to a fully authorized level over a 5-year period of time. On the transportation side, as I mentioned earlier, unless people can get to work--we can have all the caps and participation rates we want but unless people can get to work, they are not going to be able to get off welfare and stay off of welfare. In our legislation, we provide under current law where States can use the TANF block grant for transportation assistance. We provide authorizing language for another $15 million in authorization for transportation. If you live in a rural area and there is no transportation, States can help people buy cheaper but working cars to get where they need to go. We make a change with respect to transitional health care. Under current law, if I am on welfare and then I go to work, I lose my health care. I can get 12 months of transitional assistance from Medicaid. We raise that. We give States the discretion to raise that to 24 months. I see Senator Grassley has risen to speak. I will finish my remarks. I say this to him. I appreciate very much his effort in leading the Finance Committee. Senator Nelson and I have actually been privileged to be Governors of our States--8 years apiece--at the time we launched welfare reform. We learned a lot from those experiences. We think it is germane to the debate that is coming soon in the next steps in welfare reform. We hope to be part of the debate--maybe not in your committee but certainly when we get the bill to the floor. As much as I understand what is taking shape here, I think there are common elements in what Senator Grassley is seeking to do and what Senator Nelson and I propose to do. We look very much forward to engaging with the chairman in the work he is doing now and with that which is going to be brought to the floor later this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill that Senator Nelson and I are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before Senator Durbin leaves the floor, I want to say that the concerns he has raised are serious and grave. They deserve serious attention, not just of this body but of the people in this country. I thank him for bringing them to us today and join him in voicing the gravity of the situation. The kind of actions he has described, if they are true, should not be permitted. They should not be countenanced. (The remarks of Mr. Carper pertaining to the introduction of S. 1443 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, Senator Biden indicated he is interested in offering the amendment after Prime Minister Blair addresses our joint meeting. So I will not do it at this time. If I can accept the kind offer of the chairman to find some common ground, I would very much like to discuss that with him and Senator Inouye and their staffs. Let me close, if I may. I see Senator Byrd is on his feet. I want to close. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money in ways that will not have much effect in a positive respect for those who fly our aircraft or for those who maintain our aircraft. As sure as we are gathered here today, a decision to put an avionics modernization package on our C-5As and C-5Bs will make those aircraft safer for the crews who fly them, it will make them easier to maintain for the folks in this country and around the world who are trying to maintain the aircraft as they meet their missions throughout the world, and it is a bargain for the taxpayers of this country. Finally, it is a cost-effective--a highly cost-effective--way to maintain and to strengthen the air groups that connect us in this country to our disparate forces around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, to follow up on the comments of the Senator from South Dakota, he alluded to the presence of over 100,000 United States troops in Iraq. As it turns out, if you look across the globe today, we have United States forces stretched around the world in places and numbers we have not seen for a long time--not only Iraq but Afghanistan, Bosnia, Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other places. We support the deployment of those military personnel through a combination of sealift and airlift. When I served on active duty during the Vietnam war, we were fortunate in having so many more overseas bases from which we could forward deploy or resupply. Many of those bases are closed today, and we rely instead on a mixture of different kinds of aircraft, military and civilian, and on sealift, a variety of ships to serve as a bridge, a sea bridge or an air bridge, to connect this country to our troops deployed around the world. The air bridge is changing. In this country we are seeing the retirement of an older aircraft built in the 1960s. The C-141 is being retired. It is being replaced by a newer aircraft, a very good aircraft called the C-17. To date, we have received about 100 of those new cargo aircraft and about another 80 have been placed on order and will be coming into the fleet in the coming years. We have as part of that air bridge C-5s, perhaps the largest cargo aircraft in the world, 74 C-5As built in the 1970s, about 50 C-5Bs built in the 1980s. A third part of this air bridge is the C-130. We have them in the Delaware Air National Guard, and they are in air guards throughout the United States. But it is really those three aircraft--the C-5, C-17, the C-130s--that enable us to resupply our troops and to move our men, women, materiel, and weaponry around the globe. The C-5 carries enormous amounts of cargo, roughly twice the amount of a C-17, at distances roughly twice the distance of a C-17, even more cargo than a C-130 and greater distances than the C-130. The C-5s have been used in the Iraqi war and Afghanistan to move men, women, and materiel, equipment, from the United States into theaters. And the movement of those personnel and that equipment within theater has fallen largely to C-17s and to C-130s. I wish I could stand here today and say the combination of ships we have in our sealift capability and aircraft as part of our air bridge is sufficient to meet our needs. Our sealift capability is inadequate. Our airlift capability is in even worse shape. I have an article--this is a June 2 edition of Air Force magazine-- where they talk a good deal about the squeeze on air mobility--not just my words but the words of the top people in military airlift in the Air Force who cite examples of how our inability to move as much personnel, as much equipment as we sought made it difficult in some cases for us to implement our game plan in that part of the world. If the current assets, especially the current air assets we have within the Air Force, are insufficient to provide sufficient airlift, what might be sufficient? Every so often, the Air Force is asked or directed to do another update to look at their assets and what we expect to be the need for airlift in the years to come and to tell us and the administration what their needs are. We need a new analysis and we need an update. My hope is the language in the Defense bill, the authorization bill which is now in conference--that out of that conference will come clear direction for the Air Force, authorization for the Air Force to update that last study which is called MRS-05, out of that update will flow a good deal of the information we need. We don't need another study or another analysis to tell us that the resources we have on the airlift side are woefully inadequate. The answer is more, not less. A critical question for us in this body, especially as we face a budget deficit this year of $450 billion, is how do we go about meeting our woefully inadequate airlift capability, how do we do that in a way that is cost-effective and in a way that recognizes that we have these huge deficits and that as far as the eye can see they continue. I want to talk about that. I would like to talk for the next several minutes about a cost- effective airlift, and then later today Senator Biden and I, along with Senator Chambliss and others, will offer an amendment that we believe addresses in good faith how we might make some progress on that front today. There are some who would like to take our C-5s, the fleet--there are 74 C-5As and 50 C-5Bs--some would like to get rid of all the C-5As, send them to the boneyard and let that be that. They have some interest in upgrading or modernizing the C-5Bs but less interest in doing anything for the C-5As. As it turns out, we are going to be flying C-5As and C-5Bs for a good long while, probably for the remainder of this decade on both As and Bs and, for Bs, well beyond that; even programs for As well beyond this decade. There has been a lot of debate in this Chamber in the last couple years on how we might upgrade the capability of the C-5 to make it more mission capable. The Air Force pays a lot of attention to a number called the mission capable rate for aircraft. The mission capable rate for the new C-17 is in the mid 80s--it does a really fine job--the mission capable rate over the last 12 months for the C-5As, about 60 percent; the mission capable rate for the C-5Bs over the last 12 months, 72 percent. Two upgrades have been proposed to both aircraft. One of those upgrades is fairly inexpensive, the second expensive. The less expensive upgrade is the Avionics Modernization Program. The Avionics Modernization Program would enable us to take a 1970s cockpit of a C-5A or a 1980s cockpit of a C-5B and turn it into a 21st century cockpit. Not only would it look different, the plane would fly differently, would be controlled differently. The communication gear would become 21st century communications equipment. Its reliability and effectiveness would be enhanced as would that of the crew--new training, avoidance equipment, the ability to actually fly at very accurate levels of altitude to enable us to get the maximum advantage out of the airspace in the skies in which we fly. The avionics modernization package costs about $3 million per aircraft. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Congress authorized and appropriated money to install the avionics modernization package in a total of 10 C-5 aircraft. This year, in the fiscal year 2004 authorization bill, there was an authorization for 30 additional kits, for the cockpits, communications systems, and all. In this bill, there is money appropriated for 18. Let's go back. I talked about the number of C-5s we have: 74 C-5As, 50 C-5Bs. The Air Force is in the process of retiring 14 of the least dependable C-5As, the ones that are least mission capable, that create the most maintenance headaches. So we will end up with 60 C-5As and 50 C-5Bs later this year or next. The Air Force would like to see their C- 5s AMPed, or fully equipped with this new upgrade, the avionics modernization package, by fiscal 2007. In order for us to meet that schedule, we need to appropriate not AMP kits for 18 C-5As in 2004 but for 30 to get us back on schedule. That 30, plus the original 10, will take us to 40 AMP kits for C-5s. That would leave about 70 more we would need to fund in 2005, 2006, and 2007. What do we get out of AMPing the aircraft? Among the things that we get is better mission capable numbers. Last week I was privileged to meet with the four star general who is the commanding officer of our airlift mobility command, and I asked him: In terms of mission capable improvement, what can we look for? For each avionics modernization program that we put in a C-5, how much improvement would we get? He said it would be anywhere from 3 to 5 points of improvement of mission capability in each aircraft. That could mean taking the C-5 numbers, the A numbers, for the last year where the mission capable rate was 60 and bring it up to 63, or even as high as 65. It would take the 72 percent mission capable rate from the C-5Bs from the last 12 months and raise it to 75 percent, or maybe as high as 77 percent. If you think about it, if we were to actually install the AMP kits in all C-5As and Bs, at roughly $3 million apiece, the cost to the Treasury is about $350 million. If you multiply 3 percentage points or 5 percentage points--let's take somewhere in between, say a 4-percent increase in the mission capability rate for AMPing C-5s. If you multiply that 4 percent across the whole 110 C-5As and Bs we have in our inventory at the end of this year, we end up with the equivalent of about--because of improvements in mission capability rates--4.4 additional C-5 aircraft. The cost of getting those four additional C-5 aircraft is about $350 million. The cost of a new C-5 or a new C-17 is a whole lot more than that. We can get four equivalent C-5s simply out of being more mission ready and mission capable by AMPing, installing the avionics modernization package in all the C-5s. I want to talk a moment, if I could, about those who are interested in doing something about the As, not the Bs. I have talked about this first improvement, this first retrograde, the avionics modernization package. The second piece is reengining, referred to as RERP. Reengining the C-5s would be a next step and a far more expensive step. We would not only change up the engines and install the same kind of engines that are on Air Force One, we would make major changes in the hydraulics and landing gear. Those are the major areas that cause downtime on the C- 5s. If you put together the improvements in mission readiness for AMPing the aircraft and another 3 to 5 percentage points, and from 10 to 15 percentage points by reengining the aircraft, you are talking about improvement in mission capability rates for the C-5As from roughly 60 percent to somewhere in the mid-70s, and improving the mission capable rate of the Bs from the low 70s to somewhere in the mid-80s. There was a big debate a year or two ago on whether or not we ought to go forward and install both the first inexpensive fix, the avionics modernization package, and the reengining, just appropriate money to do both. The agreement that was struck was to do both fixes on a total of three aircraft. We are going to install the avionics modernization package on one C-5A and two C-5Bs. We are going to install the reengining package, new engines, hydraulics and landing gear and other changes, on one C-5A--the same A--and two C-5Bs. We are going to fly them for a while and see how they work. If they work as advertised, or if they continue to have a high failure rate--and I have a hunch they are going to work--we are not talking about developing a new engine, we are talking about taking the same engine as on Air Force One, a modern aircraft engine, and it will give us 10,000 hours between changes of engines instead of 1,000, and it will make a huge difference in our mission capable rate. Somewhere down the line we will have the opportunity to have those test aircraft--three of them--in the air, flying for a year or so; we will see how they are performing and we will then make the decision as to whether we want to invest more money in either of those retrofits. I think that is smart. When we are talking about spending that kind of money, we ought to upgrade the planes and fly them for a while and see if they work as advertised. The avionics modernization package has already been installed in at least one aircraft, and more are coming. The aircraft that it has been installed in was actually installed ahead of schedule and within budget. The early test is going well. The Air Force has chosen a site on the east coast and one on the west coast to continue the work that has begun on the avionics modernization package installation for the C-5s. We should go forward and put the C-5 avionics modernization package in as many C-5s as quickly as we can. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the four star general who actually heads up military airlift command. Those were his words as recently as last week. He said: Provide for us as many AMPed C-5s as you can, as quickly as you can. The reason is that it is a fairly cheap fix to get aircraft readiness up and to give him the aircraft tails, if you will, that he needs in order to support our troops in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, and other places around the world--probably Liberia next. Who knows. Let me close with this thought. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money on this floor and we are asked to appropriate money for defense projects and others that have not been authorized by the authorizing committee. These 12 additional AMP kits, avionics modernization packages, for the C-5s have been authorized in both the House authorization bill, the Defense bill, and the Senate authorization bill. The authorizing committees are on board. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money when a branch of our Armed Forces has not expressed interest in a particular kind of weapons system or project or gizmo. In this case, these 12 kits, on top of the original 18 in the bill, are in the Air Force's list of unfunded priorities. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money when neither the aircrews who fly these planes nor the maintenance folks who maintain them nor the four-star generals in charge of the whole show really think it makes a lot of sense. In this case, the aircrews who fly them, the maintenance crews who maintain them, and the four-star general who is in charge of the whole show say we need as many C-5s AMPed as quickly as we can. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate dollars to buy a capability that is not needed. In this case, we need airlift. We need it. We need it today; we needed it last month; we needed it last year; and we are going to need more of it next year. We cannot meet the current demands for airlift. If we actually put on all of our C-5s between now and 2007 the avionics modernization package, it is the equivalent of giving the Air Force three, four, or as many as five additional C-5 aircraft with which to meet their missions. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate dollars for items that are not cost-effective. I am going to tell my colleagues, to get the effect of three or four or five additional C-5 aircraft for $350 million by simply raising mission capability by anywhere from 3 to 5 points per aircraft for $3 million apiece is a bargain in this world, and it is one we should not pass by. If we end up with a mix of C-5As and C-5Bs--let's say in C-5Bs you have a cockpit that is 21st century--modern communications equipment, modern terrain avoidance, altitude separation equipment--and you end up with C-5As that have not been modernized or a 1970 cockpit with the old altitude separation equipment, the old terrain avoidance, the old communications gear--we put our crews in a difficult or maybe dangerous situation. Today, C-5 aircrews move from C-5As to C-5Bs and fly them interchangeably. It does not matter because one aircraft is very similar to the other. The people who maintain the aircraft maintain the C-5As as easily as they can maintain a C-5B. Most of the spare parts fit interchangeably with the C-5Bs. I would not want to say to a crew today: You are going to fly the C-5B with the new avionics modernization, you are going to get in a 21st century cockpit and fly this aircraft, and then say to the same crew: Tomorrow you are going to fly the old aircraft with the old cockpit, with the old equipment. I would not want to say to the maintenance crews: We expect you to maintain this old aircraft, and a lot of them are located at the same bases. Do we expect them to maintain the same aircraft--it is a differently configured aircraft in the cockpit--and expect them to have the expertise and training to do maintenance on an entirely different cockpit? Finally, in terms of keeping spare parts, we do not put the spare parts at Air Force bases that have C-5As. There are Air Force bases around the world and in places where we support troops and have airlift. I would not be making a big deal about this if the wings on the C-5As or C-5Bs were about to deteriorate and fall off. They are not. The wings and fuselages of the C-5As and C-5Bs, according to the experts, have another 30 or 40 useful years of life on them.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we are delighted at this decision. We welcome him as a cosponsor. The Clean Air Planning Act is a sensible solution to a vexing and challenging problem. We welcome the support of Senator Alexander on this bill and the opportunity to work with him and other colleagues in this body to pass a strong bipartisan piece of clean air legislation later this year. Together, we can pass legislation that will control harmful emissions, provide cleaner air, and let more people live longer and healthier lives. We can do so in a way that does not impose hardship on those who produce electricity or on the consumers or an industry that relies on affordable electricity. There are several advantages for the Nation that the Clean Air Planning Act will provide, and I want to mention several of those at this time. First of all, let me begin with public health and environmental benefits. The Clean Air Planning Act will achieve substantially greater emissions reductions than the administration's Clear Skies Act. The Clean Air Planning Act will generate an additional 23 million tons of SO2 reductions, 3 million tons of nitrogen oxide reductions, 240,000 pounds of mercury reductions, and 764 million tons of carbon dioxide reductions relative to the Clear Skies Act in the first 20 years of the program. As a result, the human health benefits are likely to be substantially greater under the Clean Air Planning Act than the Clear Skies legislation. An EPA analysis has concluded that in 2020, the Clean Air Planning Act would avoid almost 6,000 premature deaths from fine particulate matter when compared with Clear Skies on an annual basis-- not a cumulative basis. Let me return to CO2 and business certainty. From the perspective of the electric generating sector, business certainty is a major driver for the enactment of multipollutant legislation. Without CO2 included, electric-generating companies will continue to make their investment decisions in the face of major business uncertainty. This raises the specter of stranded investments. By lifting the uncertainty surrounding future action on CO2, the Clean Air Planning Act creates a more favorable climate for the expansion of U.S. coal markets and stimulates the development of clean coal technologies. Let me talk for a moment about diverse generation mix. The Clean Air Planning Act and Clear Skies will both preserve a diverse fuel mix. Both bills are projected to have minimal impact on coal use. In 2010, coal use is expected to be about 2 percent lower under the Clean Air Planning Act than under Clear Skies--50 percent versus 48 percent. Coal is projected to constitute 45 percent of the electric generating mix in 2020 under either bill, Clear Skies or the Clean Air Planning Act. An important question is, What will it cost to buy the relative advantages of the Clean Air Planning Act? In both 2010 and 2020, total annual electric system costs under the Clean Air Planning Act are projected to be only 2.5 percent higher than under Clear Skies. This includes the cost of regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Planning Act. On a net present value basis, the total cost differences between Clear Skies and the Clean Air Planning Act over a 20-year period, from 2005 to 2025, is in the range of 2 to 3 percent. The EPA itself has conceded that retail electricity prices would increase by only two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour more under the Clean Air Planning Act than under Clear Skies, which amounts to about $1.20 per month for the average residence. According to the EPA, the CO2 reduction plan could be carried out at ``negligible'' cost--that is their word--to the industry. Specifically, we can achieve the CO2 goal in our bill--returning electricity industry emissions to 2001 levels by 2013-- for approximately $300 million in additional costs on top of the $103 billion the industry will already be spending to produce electricity. That is just 0.3 percent--not 3 percent, not 30 percent, but 0.3 percent. Let me conclude. Once again, I thank Senator Alexander for having the courage to join us in this effort. I know it is not a decision that he made lightly. As a former Governor, he shares my commitment to getting things done in the Senate and in our Nation's Capital, with a commitment to focusing on policies that are the right thing for this Nation to do. Speaking for Senators Gregg, Chafee, and myself, we welcome the support of the junior Senator from Tennessee. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Lamar Alexander announced his decision on this Senate floor to join Senators Gregg, Chafee, and me in cosponsoring the Clean Air Planning Act. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be added as a cosponsor of S. 843.