Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Chafee, Senator Feinstein, and myself, and I thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln for joining us as cosponsors. Mr. President, if my colleagues are looking for a balanced approach to balancing the budget by 2009, this is it. If my colleagues are looking for tax cuts that would be effective immediately, this amendment does that. This amendment takes the 10 and 20 percent bracket cuts and makes them effective immediately. The estate tax exclusion is set permanently at $6 million per family. We grow the child credit. We eliminate the marriage penalty. We allow small business to expense their equipment purchasing at $75,000 for this year and for next. We pay for that by deferring further cuts in the 35 and 38.5 percent rate until we balance the budget. We also work on the spending side. We adopt the committee's increased defense numbers. We use about an $80 billion offset with the President's numbers to actually add to domestic discretionary spending. We put back in place controls that have been allowed to lapse: Pay-go controls and reinstatement controls. It is a good, balanced approach. We would appreciate your support.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, amendment No. 330 is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Two hours? Ten minutes would be just fine.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas invited several of us Democratic Senators to a briefing in her office on Capitol Hill. She also invited several Members of the House of Representatives who are Democrats. There were several of them in the room. They call themselves Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dog Democrats, for those who have not heard that term before, tend to be budget hawks. They believe balanced budgets do matter, and the idea of running chronic budget deficits year after year is not good for this country. In fact, it is very troublesome for this country. Blue Dogs are willing to take tough votes on defense spending, nondefense spending, entitlement spending, and taxes as well to get us closer to a balanced budget. I served for 10 years in the House of Representatives and as Governor of Delaware. I guess I was a Blue Dog before we had Blue Dogs. I believe I am today. Tomorrow a number of us, including a Republican, Senator Lincoln Chafee, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and I will offer a budget alternative that is modeled after the approach offered by the Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives which was voted on earlier this evening and I understand received about 170, 175 votes. It fell short, but it was a respectable showing. I want to talk about the provisions of that approach and why I think it makes sense. A number of my colleagues talked tonight about the need to stimulate the economy and the need to do so in part with tax policy. In the alternative we will propose tomorrow, we do just that. Those who want to effect the 10-percent rate cut to accelerate it, we do that, in fact, this year. Those who want to accelerate the 27-percent tax bracket cut, we accelerate that this year. Those who want to expand and increase the child credit, we do that this year. To those people who would like to allow small businesses to expense not just $25,000 in investments they make but $75,000, we let them do that this year to encourage that kind of investment. To those who want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty--we did that in Delaware when I was Governor--we would do that immediately under the proposal that will be before us. We raise the exclusion for the estate tax to $6 million for a couple, and we do that this year, effective immediately, and leave it at that rate. Those are some of the provisions we do right now. It would have an immediate impact, and I think a very positive impact on the economy at this time. For those people who happen to be in the 10-percent bracket, they would realize some tax savings, but so would those people whose income is not just $15,000 or $20,000 but $150,000. They would realize a savings, too, by accelerating the tax cut for those in the 27-percent bracket. We are not just helping people in the middle-income portion of the spectrum, but it also helps people at the top of the income spectrum. What we do not do in our approach is reduce further the 35-percent rates and the rate to the 38.6 rate, the top two rates. We defer those cuts until two things happen: One, we pay for the war in Iraq; and, two, until we have actually balanced the budget. That is what we do on the taxing side. That is what was offered in the House of Representatives this evening as well. On the spending side, what we have done is to essentially embrace the discretionary spending numbers proposed by the President. In the House of Representatives, the Blue Dogs took the President's defense discretionary numbers and put that in their proposal. In the Senate, we elected in our version of our budget alternative to take the defense numbers proposed by the Budget Committee. They are a bit less than the President's proposal, I think, by about $85 billion over a 10-year period of time. But we embrace the numbers from the committee itself. We then take that roughly $85 billion and use those moneys to add to the domestic discretionary spending side to help pay for No Child Left Behind, to help meet some of the health care needs in this country, and to help meet some of the agricultural needs in this country. It is roughly $80 billion to $85 billion. It would shift from the defense side to the nondefense discretionary side. Even at the end of that, we would still be spending above the baseline of more than the rate of inflation over the next 10 years for defense and a little less than the baseline in our domestic discretionary spending. But I like the balance a little bit better than what was debated and voted on in the House earlier tonight. The third piece we address is budget controls. I will focus on one, but there are actually several others that are included in the measure we will offer tomorrow. Pay-go: The concept is if a Senator or a House Member wants to cut taxes, or a Senator or House Member wants to raise spending in a way that makes the deficit larger, they have to figure out a way to pay for that so it is budget neutral starting now, not starting next week or not starting next month but starting now. In our alternative, in our substitute, pay-go provisions become effective now. They are reinstated now. If anyone wants to increase spending, they are free to have at it. If they do, they have to offset it by cutting spending somewhere else, or if they cut taxes in one area, they have to raise taxes in another area or do something on the spending side to offset that. We have budget controls that address issues of emergency spending and other provisions as well. I will not go into all those tonight because it is late. That is an important component of what we are trying to do. Let me sum up. We reduce taxes, we do a number of things that have an effect immediately this year, but we pay for them. The overall effect of the tax reduction over 10 years is roughly $100 billion, $115 billion. Most of that is loaded in the first year or two. We provide real spending restraint both on the defense side and on the nondefense discretionary side, and we put in place budget controls, some of which have been allowed to lapse. We put them back into effect to strengthen in the way they ought to be effective. Today it is March 20. The day is almost over. During the course of this day, we will pay as a nation in interest on the national debt roughly $1 billion. That is not principal; that is interest on our debt, $1 billion. We will pay that tomorrow, the next day, and the next day after that. We are a nation marching off to war. Tonight we have tens of thousands of young men and women on the march in a war I hope is mercifully brief for both sides. There is a great irony here as we are sending tens of thousands of our young people marching off to war. We are actually talking about reducing the revenues available to finance that war, to mobilize the troops, the cost of the war, the postwar occupation, and instead of raising the revenue and the means of financing the war, we are taking away those resources, which sits logic on its head, at least for me. As we send those tens of thousands of young men and women marching off to war, their parents and grandparents are on a different kind of march, but a march nonetheless, with a different destination. It is called retirement, and the baby boomers, which I am one, are on the march and starting at roughly the end of this decade and throughout the course of the next decade. The impact that is going to have on Social Security, Medicare, and other spending is the boomers, as they march off into their golden years, will create a financial burden that we are not even a little bit prepared to address. My fear is if we take the course that has been proposed by the administration and is incorporated in this budget resolution, we will have not really been consistent with what the President said in his State of the Union Message. I think one of the finest statements he said in his State of the Union Message is when he said the American people, our Government, should not pass on the problems of today to the next President, to the next Congress, or to the next generation. I am afraid this is exactly what we are prepared to do with respect to the way we spend our money and the way we meet our financial obligations. We do not have to do that. We can do the right thing. I have been looking for months for an approach that I could believe in and say let's do this because it is the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do. I thank those who join me in offering this substitute tomorrow. I especially thank the Concord Coalition for embracing it today and the Blue Dog Democrats for giving us the inspiration in the first place. I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. William B. DeLauder upon his retirement from Delaware State University. He has served as president of the university for more than 16 years. His leadership over that span of time has lifted this small, historically black land grant college of the 21st century and won him the respect of faculty and students alike, along with the gratitude of our entire State. He has been, and remains, a trusted friend and advisor to me both in my previous role as Governor of Delaware and now as our State's junior United States Senator. One of Dr. DeLauder's most noteworthy achievements has been the transition of Delaware State College to Delaware State University. I had the privilege of formalizing this transition by signing into law the official name change that signified this accomplishment when I was Governor in 1993 to more accurately reflect the depth and quality of the University's academic offerings. The changes have been profound. Under President DeLauder the university has undergone a remarkable transformation in academics, student life, fund raising, and in appearance, Alumni returning to visit their alma mater today after an absence of many years are amazed at the appearance of its campus. A beautiful pedestrian campus has replaced the old network of streets that for years divided the old campus into an unattractive series of squares and rectangles. An array of new buildings have been constructed including a modern library, a cutting-edge science center, a home for the School of Management, and a new administrative building. On-campus housing capacity for students has roughly doubled, too. With all of that completed, Dr. DeLauder has begun one final major project--the building of a modern, new stadium and a health and fitness complex. Those may be the most visible signs of change, but they tell only part of the story. During Dr. DeLauder's 16 year tenure, the university also expanded its academic programs by adding new graduate programs in biology, chemistry, and physics, as well as new undergraduate programs in airway science, computer science and mass communications. The university also increased its number of faculty with doctorates from 44 to 72 percent. Admission standards have been raised, as well. In addition, DSU became the first higher education institution in Delaware to receive national accreditation for its teacher education program during his presidency. During his tenure, President DeLauder also founded a board of visitors that consists of State government leaders and corporate executives. The board's purpose is to provide support and assistance to the fund raising and development goals of the university. In 1994, he led Delaware State University on its first major fund raising effort. The campaign raised more than $10 million for the enhancement of academic programs, faculty development, and student financial aid. Dr. DeLauder's accomplishments have been recognized through numerous honors and awards. For example, in March 1994, he received the Thurgood Marshall Award for outstanding contributions to the higher education of African-Americans. In 1995, he received the prestigious leadership award in Delaware presented by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. In November 2001, he was inducted into the Delaware State University Sports Hall of Fame for his support of the school's student- athletes and teams. That same month, he received the prestigious Buchanan award by the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce. In June of last year, President DeLauder was appointed chairman of the United Way of Delaware's Board of Directors. Dr. DeLauder earned his bachelor of science degree from Morgan State University and a doctorate in physical chemistry from Wayne State University. He conducted post-doctoral research in physical biochemistry at the Centre of Biophysical Molecularie du C.N.R.S., Orleans-LaSource, France. Bill is married to a delightful woman, the former Vermell Faulk. She has served as an invaluable partner and University First Lady during this time of remarkable change at Delaware State. The DeLauders are blessed with two children, William Jr. and Ellen, and three grandchildren. Dr. DeLauder is a humble and selfless man who takes pride in his work but is always quick to share the credit for Delaware State College's successes with others. Through his tireless efforts, he has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of students and enhanced the quality of life for an entire state. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for the generations that will follow. I thank him for the warm friendship that we share, and I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him, his wife Vermell and their family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I am pleased today to be able to join my friend from Maine, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This bill is of vital interest to the future of the Postal Service and enjoys the strong support of postal management, postal employees and postal customers. According to OPM and GAO, the Postal Service will significantly overfund its obligations to its employees enrolled in the Civil Service Retirement System if it continues paying at the current rate. The Reform Act addresses this by reducing the amount of money the Postal Service is required to pay into CSRS each year to reflect a more accurate estimate of its obligations that has been prepared by OPM. In the current fiscal year, this will reduce the Postal Service's annual CSRS payment by nearly $3 billion. These savings, and savings of similar size projected for future years, will be used to retire a portion of the Postal Service's $11.1 billion debt to Treasury. The Postal Service had previously only been able to budget $800 million for debt reduction this fiscal year. Most importantly, the savings the Postal Service will enjoy if the Reform Act becomes law will allow it to hold the price of postage steady until at least 2006. This is important because, while what the Postal Service charges for its services is still a bargain when compared to the prices charged by most foreign posts, postal customers have absorbed multiple rate increases in recent months that have raised the price of postage by more than the rate of inflation. At a time when the economy is weak and modes of communication like e-mail and electronic bill pay are more popular than ever, another rate increase this year could be a disaster for the Postal Service. If the price of postage goes up again in 2004, as I expect it to if the Reform Act is not enacted, the Postal Service will likely lose a good deal of business. Companies will be more aggressive in encouraging their customers to communicate with them online. Large mailers will reduce volume and let workers go. Everyday users of the mail will be forced to bear another large spike in the price of a first-class stamp. All of this would come at a time when the Postal Service is predicting an increase in volume for the first time in quite a while. The Reform Act will keep mail in the system and give mailers the opportunity to increase the amount of business they do with the Postal Service. The Reform Act, however, does not remove the Postal Service's obligation to continue on the modernization program begun under Postmaster General Jack Potter. General Potter came on the job at a difficult time for the Postal Service but has led them in a successful effort to streamline operations, taking billions of dollars in costs out of the system without hurting service. That process needs to continue. The Reform Act also does not eliminate the need for the Postal Service to deal with the future cost of retiree health benefits. These costs are estimated at about $50 billion. The Postal Service funds them now on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning they are not reflected in the price of postage today. If not addressed soon, these costs will be pushed on to future ratepayers, forcing the Postal Service to begin raising rates dramatically once the baby boom generation begins to retire. Some of the savings the Postal Service will enjoy if the Reform Act becomes law should be used to prevent this from happening. Finally, the Reform Act does not remove Congress's obligation to enact postal reform legislation this year that will help the Postal Service and General Potter continue the transformation necessary to make the Postal Service viable in the electronic age. President Bush's Commission on the United States Postal Service will release a set of postal reform proposals this summer that I hope will offer some fair, balanced recommendations that we can use to begin drafting legislation. I plan to put forward a proposal of my own this year that maintains universal service and current delivery standards while giving the Postal Service the kind of flexibility its private sector competitors have to set prices and cut costs. I look forward to working with Chairman Collins and all of my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee in getting a postal reform bill signed into law during the 108th Congress. In closing, I would like to briefly address some of the similarities between the Reform Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act President Bush proposed during the 107th Congress and make an important distinction between the two proposals. Like the Managerial Flexibility Act would have done for all Federal agencies, the Reform Act makes the Postal Service responsible for benefits due to its CSRS enrollees as a result of prior military service and amortizes its unfunded CSRS obligations over a period of 40 years. The Managerial Flexibility Act also would have required Federal agencies to begin funding their retiree health benefits on a cost accrual basis, something the Postal Service should be able to do if the Reform Act becomes law and it begins to see some savings. This kind of accounting makes sense in the case of the Postal Service, which by law must be self-sufficient and must pay its employees' pension and health costs through the price of postage. The utility of requiring all Federal agencies to account for their employees' retirement costs in this way is not clear to me. As CBO points out in its January 23rd evaluation of the version of the Reform Act proposed by OPM late last year, recognizing the accrual cost of agency retirement benefits by mandating payments between agencies and the Treasury does not provide the government with the resources necessary to make future payments when they come due and does not lessen the burden on future taxpayers to pay them. In the case of the Postal Service, however, the kind of accounting contained in the Managerial Flexibility Act will give postal customers, who must plan how much they mail in future years based on how much they anticipate postage will cost, a more realistic idea of what the Postal Service's future costs of doing business will be. If the Reform Act is not enacted before April 1st, the Postal Service will need to assume that they will be required to make the large CSRS payment required of them under current law, forcing them to file the rate case they have been preparing. This will force mailers to begin litigating the case, meaning they will begin spending resources paying lawyers instead using the mail. I call on my colleagues to act quickly on the Reform Act to prevent this from happening.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I am pleased today to be able to join my friend from Maine, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This bill is of vital interest to the future of the Postal Service and enjoys the strong support of postal management, postal employees and postal customers. According to OPM and GAO, the Postal Service will significantly overfund its obligations to its employees enrolled in the Civil Service Retirement System if it continues paying at the current rate. The Reform Act addresses this by reducing the amount of money the Postal Service is required to pay into CSRS each year to reflect a more accurate estimate of its obligations that has been prepared by OPM. In the current fiscal year, this will reduce the Postal Service's annual CSRS payment by nearly $3 billion. These savings, and savings of similar size projected for future years, will be used to retire a portion of the Postal Service's $11.1 billion debt to Treasury. The Postal Service had previously only been able to budget $800 million for debt reduction this fiscal year. Most importantly, the savings the Postal Service will enjoy if the Reform Act becomes law will allow it to hold the price of postage steady until at least 2006. This is important because, while what the Postal Service charges for its services is still a bargain when compared to the prices charged by most foreign posts, postal customers have absorbed multiple rate increases in recent months that have raised the price of postage by more than the rate of inflation. At a time when the economy is weak and modes of communication like e-mail and electronic bill pay are more popular than ever, another rate increase this year could be a disaster for the Postal Service. If the price of postage goes up again in 2004, as I expect it to if the Reform Act is not enacted, the Postal Service will likely lose a good deal of business. Companies will be more aggressive in encouraging their customers to communicate with them online. Large mailers will reduce volume and let workers go. Everyday users of the mail will be forced to bear another large spike in the price of a first-class stamp. All of this would come at a time when the Postal Service is predicting an increase in volume for the first time in quite a while. The Reform Act will keep mail in the system and give mailers the opportunity to increase the amount of business they do with the Postal Service. The Reform Act, however, does not remove the Postal Service's obligation to continue on the modernization program begun under Postmaster General Jack Potter. General Potter came on the job at a difficult time for the Postal Service but has led them in a successful effort to streamline operations, taking billions of dollars in costs out of the system without hurting service. That process needs to continue. The Reform Act also does not eliminate the need for the Postal Service to deal with the future cost of retiree health benefits. These costs are estimated at about $50 billion. The Postal Service funds them now on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning they are not reflected in the price of postage today. If not addressed soon, these costs will be pushed on to future ratepayers, forcing the Postal Service to begin raising rates dramatically once the baby boom generation begins to retire. Some of the savings the Postal Service will enjoy if the Reform Act becomes law should be used to prevent this from happening. Finally, the Reform Act does not remove Congress's obligation to enact postal reform legislation this year that will help the Postal Service and General Potter continue the transformation necessary to make the Postal Service viable in the electronic age. President Bush's Commission on the United States Postal Service will release a set of postal reform proposals this summer that I hope will offer some fair, balanced recommendations that we can use to begin drafting legislation. I plan to put forward a proposal of my own this year that maintains universal service and current delivery standards while giving the Postal Service the kind of flexibility its private sector competitors have to set prices and cut costs. I look forward to working with Chairman Collins and all of my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee in getting a postal reform bill signed into law during the 108th Congress. In closing, I would like to briefly address some of the similarities between the Reform Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act President Bush proposed during the 107th Congress and make an important distinction between the two proposals. Like the Managerial Flexibility Act would have done for all Federal agencies, the Reform Act makes the Postal Service responsible for benefits due to its CSRS enrollees as a result of prior military service and amortizes its unfunded CSRS obligations over a period of 40 years. The Managerial Flexibility Act also would have required Federal agencies to begin funding their retiree health benefits on a cost accrual basis, something the Postal Service should be able to do if the Reform Act becomes law and it begins to see some savings. This kind of accounting makes sense in the case of the Postal Service, which by law must be self-sufficient and must pay its employees' pension and health costs through the price of postage. The utility of requiring all Federal agencies to account for their employees' retirement costs in this way is not clear to me. As CBO points out in its January 23rd evaluation of the version of the Reform Act proposed by OPM late last year, recognizing the accrual cost of agency retirement benefits by mandating payments between agencies and the Treasury does not provide the government with the resources necessary to make future payments when they come due and does not lessen the burden on future taxpayers to pay them. In the case of the Postal Service, however, the kind of accounting contained in the Managerial Flexibility Act will give postal customers, who must plan how much they mail in future years based on how much they anticipate postage will cost, a more realistic idea of what the Postal Service's future costs of doing business will be. If the Reform Act is not enacted before April 1st, the Postal Service will need to assume that they will be required to make the large CSRS payment required of them under current law, forcing them to file the rate case they have been preparing. This will force mailers to begin litigating the case, meaning they will begin spending resources paying lawyers instead using the mail. I call on my colleagues to act quickly on the Reform Act to prevent this from happening.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the good work of the Delaware Mentoring Council and to celebrate the efforts of mentors across our great country. With the designation of January as National Mentoring Month, we focus national attention on the need for mentors, as well as how each of us--individuals, businesses, schools and community groups--can work together to increase the number of mentors and assure brighter futures for our young people. Mentors serve as role models, advocates, friends, and advisors. Numerous studies document that mentors help young people augment social skills, enhance emotional well-being, improve cognitive skills, and plan for the future. For some children, having a caring adult mentor to turn to for guidance and encouragement can make the crucial difference between success and failure in life. Delaware has been showing communities across the country the power of mentoring for quite a while. Mentoring has become an integral part of our school system in Delaware and is one of the keys to improving academic achievement among at-risk students. As Governor, I helped recruit thousands of mentors as part of a statewide effort and was actively involved in recruiting individuals, churches, service clubs, students, and corporations to help in mentoring Delaware's at-risk children. I first experienced the joy of mentoring in 1997 when I became a mentor to Darryl Burton, a fifth grader at Wilmington's Warner Elementary School. More than 5 years later, we now meet at Delcastle High School, where he is a freshman, every week during the school year. I know from personal experience that there are few things more rewarding than making a difference in the life of a child. Literally hundreds of mentors have said to me of their mentoring experience over the past 6 years, ``I know I'm helping the young person that I mentor, but I get even more out of it than they do.'' We are making great strides in the First State in helping thousands of additional students realize their full potential, along with Delaware's rigorous academic standards. The Delaware Mentoring Council is, in large part, leading the way. We must continue to work to level the playing field and give every child the tools they need to succeed in school and in life. I am proud to be part of Delaware's army of mentors. We know that there are thousands of other students in our schools who would benefit greatly from having another positive role model in their lives, so I urge others to join us. For a child living in the shadows of life, an hour of our time can make a lifetime of difference for that child and for each of us.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have a couple comments. First, on the heels of what has been said by our friends on the other side, a little more than 24 hours ago we listened as the President addressed our Nation and shared with us how he thinks we are doing and how he thinks we could do better. I thought it was, for the most part, a good speech, well delivered. There were a number of aspects of the address I especially welcomed. As a former Governor of Delaware, who has been a mentor for over 5 years, and who went out and recruited 10,000 mentors in our State, I especially appreciated his recognition for the importance of the roles of mentors in young people's lives and the call for other Americans to mentor children in their own communities. I very much appreciated his, I believe, sincere commitment toward rallying the United States to help fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa and to put our money where our mouths are. A year or so ago we sat just down the Hall in the House Chamber and the President talked about an axis of evil in which he included North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. I had some difference with what he said, particularly dealing with Iran. He simply seemed to lump all the Iranians together, whether they happen to be the ruling clerics, who are squashing human liberties, civil rights in that country, or whether they happen to be many of the younger people, those who have taken to the streets, who have demonstrated, risked their lives in a commitment to democracy. I was very pleased when President Bush, in his comments the night before last, spoke to the situation in Iran and acknowledged there are two camps. There is a camp whose direction we do not endorse, we do not support, but strongly differ with. But there are a lot of good people in that country who are trying to do the right thing for themselves in a way we would welcome as they seek to restore civil liberties, human liberties, human rights, and to infuse a true democracy in that country. There are a lot of people in that country who, frankly, like this country. On the heels on 9/11, and a time or two since, we have heard of spontaneous and organized demonstrations there where a number of people have expressed their sympathy with what we have suffered as a result of 9/11. Those are just a few aspects of the President's speech in which I found favor. There were a couple others that I thought were missing. Delaware is a State where we have had a remarkably strong economy. Our unemployment rate today is about 4 percent, which compares very favorably with other parts of America. I am not sure what the situation is in Montana, home of our Presiding Officer. Some States have unemployment rates of 6, 7, maybe 8 percent. We have a million or more people who don't have a job today than we did a year or so ago. I was disappointed in the President's decision not to acknowledge that these are tough times for a lot of States financially, that the cumulative deficits faced by the States this year are in the tens of billions of dollars, actually getting bigger, not smaller, as the year goes forward. Some in this body think we should write out a check and provide revenue sharing for the States. I was never a big advocate for revenue sharing when I was a Member of the House or as a Governor for 8 years. I am not a huge advocate of revenue sharing today. Unfortunately, we actually don't have a whole lot of revenues to share these days, given the kind of budget deficits we face. But there are a couple of ways we might want to consider helping the States. I will just mention three. I will certainly pursue those with the administration and my colleagues. No. 1, States are getting killed on Medicaid costs. As unemployment goes up, people are losing health care and more people are showing up asking for coverage under Medicaid, health care for low-income and unemployed people. There is a formula called the FMAP formula that specifies what percentage of Medicaid is paid by the Federal Government and what percentage is paid by the States. It varies from State to State. For my State, the Feds pay roughly half and the State pays half of Medicaid costs. In some cases, the States pay less, in some cases maybe a bit more. We ought to change that formula for a year or two, as the States try to get on their feet and provide a little bit more help--not forever, not permanently, but to make a modification for a year or two in the share of the Medicaid cost we are willing to bear, not by 10, 20 percent, but by a couple of percent. Another area where we can help States--and it has a lot to do with doing what is right and also what is in the best long-term economic interest--is making sure we fully fund No Child Left Behind, something we debated at some length just last week. States don't need unfunded mandates. As their revenues are dropping, most States have adopted basic standards for math, science, English, and social studies, and they are measuring student progress towards those standards. States are under pressure to cut back on the extra learning time they put in place. They are under pressure to cut back on the funding they are providing for Head Start and early childhood education. It is important for us to make sure we meet our commitment for funding No Child Left Behind, so as the States struggle to come up with the money to pay for a whole host of costs, at least we are meeting our side of the bargain for funding education. One other area the President spoke to, at least indirectly, was State and local frontline defenders--police, paramedics, fire, and others-- when we have our next terrorist attack. Unfortunately, we probably will. The people who will be confronted with that initiative aren't so much those of us here in Washington; it is going to be the cop on the beat, the paramedic on duty, the fire station that gets the call; they are going to be among the first. It is important that we do what we can and need to, working through our new Department of Homeland Security and funding the problems we have authorized, listening to the States where they believe their need is the greatest, and be responsive to that. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office, on the heels of the President's State of the Union Message, brought up a subject that he did not; that is, the size of our budget deficit. The President did not bring up the size of our trade deficit either. The size of the Nation's trade deficit last month was about $40 billion. It wasn't that long ago, if we had had a trade deficit of $40 billion for 1 year, not 1 month, people would have been alarmed. A lot of alarms would have gone off in this city and around the country. Our trade deficit last month was $40 billion. Our trade deficit last year reached close to $400 billion. It has been a long time since we had a surplus on the trade side--far too long. But the numbers are going in the wrong direction. We need to be mindful of that and concerned. The budget deficit numbers are going the wrong way, too. It wasn't that long ago that they were actually going in the right direction. Starting in 1998 and 1999, 2000 and 2001, we actually had budget surpluses for the first time since 1969. I don't recall, hearing the President's State of the Union Message, his mentioning the issue of budget deficits or trade deficits. If he did, I missed it. But to be honest with the American people and ourselves, they are important. They are problems. They are concerns. They need to be addressed. The President, in an effort to try to get the economy moving again, has said what we ought to do is cut taxes. He has laid out a proposal for doing that, with getting rid of the double taxation of dividend income. In theory, it is not a bad idea, although his approach is one I am not sure is the best. It may make more sense to let businesses expense their dividend payments as they do interest payments, if they are interested in getting rid of this imbalance that is favored toward debt by companies. But I don't want to quarrel with that. We have cut taxes two times now: 2001, a large tax cut; 2002, a smaller tax cut bill. It is like the quarterback or the coach who is calling a play. The President called the play in 2001: We have an economy that is not doing well; let's cut taxes. The economy is not doing well; let's cut taxes in 2002. The economy is still not doing well; let's cut taxes again in 2003. As a former Governor, I used to cut taxes fairly regularly in my State. We cut them for 7 out of the 8 years I was privileged to be Governor. But we also cut taxes in a way that was consistent with a balanced budget, in a way that was balanced, fair, and equitable. We cut taxes in a way that we believed would stimulate the economy, the economic development and creation of jobs. We had a litmus test. A similar litmus test needs to be applied to this proposal. Will it stimulate the economy in the near term? Is it consistent with a balanced budget over the long haul? Is it broad based, equitable? And is there anything in there to help the States as a result of passing those tax cuts in 2001 and 2002? because so many State budgets or State tax laws piggyback on Federal tax laws. They are interconnected. When we cut Federal taxes, we also cut States taxes. As they are struggling to make ends meet, we are prepared to cut taxes again, another $4 or $5 billion added to an already heavy burden for States. I have talked of late with a lot of business leaders in my State, and they acknowledge that the idea of eliminating the double taxation of dividends is probably the right thing to do. Intellectually, a number of them have said--and I agree in the context of overall tax reform--it may make sense. Doing it just on its own to stimulate the economy maybe doesn't. At least it won't have the kind of near-term effect for which many would hope. What a number of people a whole lot smarter than I, who study the economy and economics, study our banking system, and who run companies, have said is, more than a tax cut right now to get our economy moving, more than a spending package to get our economy moving, we need to get rid of the uncertainty we face, not so much here at home, although the threat of terrorism is part of it, but around the world. The President spent a lot of time talking about uncertainty--with respect to North Korea, an effort to pursue a diplomatic solution, which I believe is the right approach, and then with respect to Iraq, the approach he spoke to and which has been discussed here today. For myself, the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had just a few years ago, in the late 1990s, acknowledged they had a few years ago, I believe they still have. They have them hidden. They have not reported them. They have not destroyed them. I believe they have them. The question is: What do we do to get rid of them? Take them away from Saddam Hussein, and his ability to deliver them in the region or outside that region? On this one, we may have a difference of opinion, although I am not sure just how broad those differences are. I heard the President talk about his request of Colin Powell to go to the United Nations on February 5 and give an address with respect to what we believe we ought to do, given the early results from the inspections, what we should do next at the United Nations, the Security Council, for our country. Sitting in the House Chamber, I heard the President say he is going to send the Secretary of State over to the United Nations on February 5 to give an address. I wonder if this is going to be like something that happened about 40 years ago when John Kennedy was our President and he sent Adlai Stevenson, Ambassador to the United Nations, as we were working on another potential military altercation, this one a very serious one between the United States and the Soviet Union, as we believed the Soviets were introducing intermediate-range ballistic missiles into Cuba which could target the United States. We asserted this was what the Soviets were trying to do. They denied it. We attempted to gain intelligence information, which was difficult to come by. Finally, we hit pay dirt. Intelligence flights over Cuba captured not only missiles but the site preparation that was on going. Our U.N. Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, presented that information to his colleagues at the U.N. in one of the most famous exchanges I have ever heard at the U.N. When the Soviet Ambassador was confronted with these photographs of all this material, larger and larger photographs, he said he needed more time to understand the translation of the accusations coming from our Ambassador. He said he needed more time to understand what he was hearing through the earphones. Adlai Stevenson said, ``You know what I am saying, and you know what these pictures say, and I will wait until hell freezes over.'' That is a long time, until hell freezes over. I am not going to suggest we should wait that long for the Iraqis to fess up and turn over and enable to be destroyed that which I think they clearly harbor. But I hope, just as the President of 40 years ago chose to continue to work through the U.N., this President will do so as well. Going back to the economy, the best thing we can do to get the economy moving is to eliminate all this uncertainty that flows out of Iraq--hopefully, peacefully, but in the end, if need be, through war. Hopefully, we can do it without going to war. If it is necessary, we should be prepared to do that. I have said all along, one of the reasons we were so effective in the Persian Gulf war--which I supported as a House Member and voted for as a House Member--I think one of the reasons we were successful there, and in Afghanistan, is we didn't do it by ourselves. It was not just unilaterally, us by ourselves. We led an armada of nations. If there is to be a military altercation, our chances for success are better enhanced if we do not do it alone and if we have the blessing of the U.N. and if we have broad-based military support from around the globe. I worry about the human cost to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in a war. We are going to win and, I think, without a great deal of difficulty. Taking the cities might be a lot more dangerous, and we face a threat from the biological and chemical weapons he has. Hopefully, we will win without a huge cost in lives. The financial cost will be lowered if we have others by our side. What I am concerned about maybe more than anything is the cost of the postwar, the morning after, when we help try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together in a country that has no democratic memory or institutions, a lot of dissenting voices and ethnic groups--pulling them together and trying to help them become a democracy. It is going to take time, money, and a lot of patience. I don't want the U.S. to be doing that by itself. How does all this fit into the economy? We can offer businesses all kinds of tax incentives to make investments and other decisions. When they are faced with uncertainty, they are not going to make the kind of investments we want them to make and they ought to be making. The sooner we can resolve--hopefully peacefully and, if not, through the use of force--the situation in the Middle East, I think that probably augurs better for the economy. Having said that, let's be careful in our rush to judgment and keep in mind that our chances for early success, and for reducing the loss of life to Americans, and our chances for reducing out-of-pocket costs for the war and the postwar occupation are diminished if we have a lot of others with us. Especially in the next few weeks, we need to continue to be patient and share our intelligence with the inspectors and give them the best information for them to do their job on the ground. I thank the Chair for the time. I look forward to yielding back whatever time I have and hearing from my friend and colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Peg Bradley upon her fiftieth birthday. She is a woman with a kind heart, diverse interests and great abilities. She is one of the most remarkable people with whom I served in State government. In a State as small as ours, her dedication and tenacity have become legendary. She truly embodies the best of Delaware. I consider it a privilege to have known her and an even greater privilege to have worked closely with her on Delaware's education reforms in the decade of the 1990s. Just 50 years ago, Peg was born in Kansas to O. Wayne and Wilma Gordon. While her journey to Delaware took her many places in the years preceding it, when she arrived at the University of Delaware in the late 1960s, she found her true home. With her diploma in hand, Peg embarked upon a career that would set the tone for education innovations throughout the State of Delaware and across the Nation. The proud mother of three children, Kirsten, Carrie and Cort, and the grandmother to 4-year-old Xavier, Peg lives her life through the eyes of children. While Peg learned and honed her craft teaching elementary school children, she really made her mark when she opened and became the first Director of the Preschool at Concordia Lutheran Church. Then, in 1992, Peg ran for State Representative as a Democrat in the most Republican District in the State of Delaware and won. During her 2 years in the State House, she sponsored legislation that dramatically expanded Head Start opportunities for Delaware youngsters and began drawing attention to the important role that the first few years of a child's life play in their ability to learn and go on to live productive lives. Peg served as my education adviser during most of my 8 years as Governor. She was instrumental in helping me work my education reform proposals through the legislature, through the education community, and through the public from their infancy to implementation. She worked tirelessly to ensure that the reforms we made reflected what was best for Delaware's children. Today, Delaware has rigorous academic standards, the ability to measure objectively student progress toward those standards, and real accountability, in no small part because of Peg Bradley's stewardship and persistence. Part of her legacy is the consistent improvement in academic performance at all grade levels in Delaware in core subjects like math, English, language arts and science. Together, along with the support of the legislature, the business community, many parents and educators, we amassed a record of innovative accomplishments, including unprecedented support for charter schools and public school choice; standards-based education, statewide testing and accountability. She even persuaded me to support a public school choice bill written by a certain State Senator named Rick Hauge. Just last week they celebrated their first wedding anniversary. Peg helped me win battles that seemed daunting. In doing so, she won the grudging respect of more than a handful of cynics along the way. More than almost anyone else, Peg Bradley helped shape the legacy of my administration and change the face of education in Delaware. Peg was an invaluable advisor, mentor, and resource to me throughout the last decade. She takes pride in her work and has made hundreds of educators and parents proud to work alongside of her. During the time that I was chairman of the National Governors' Association, we focused a good deal of our attention on raising student performance. Peg's assistance to me during that stressful time was invaluable and afforded her with an opportunity to play a significant role on a national stage. Today, I rise both to celebrate this milestone moment in Peg's life and to shine a spotlight on her momentous commitment and countless contributions to the community. She is living proof that a life filled with good works is a good life indeed. I thank her for her friendship, congratulate her on her first 50 years and wish her and her husband Rick only the very best in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, apparently within the next 24 hours we will have the opportunity to vote on the President's nominee to head our new Department of Homeland Security. The President has made an excellent choice. It is hard for me to imagine a better choice to undertake this responsibility than Governor Ridge. Twenty years ago this month, Governor Ridge and I stood with about 80 other freshmen Congressmen and women at the other end of this building and raised our right hand and took an oath of office to defend our Constitution and country. He and I then served together in the House for the next 10 years and actually helped to lead one of the Banking Committee subcommittees as ranking Democrat and Republican. Later we served as Governors in the neighboring States of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Even before we came to Washington, we served in the Armed Forces of our country where he served with real distinction in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war. I will always be especially grateful for a breakfast Governor Ridge came to almost 20 years ago. I had just been elected the at large Congressman from Delaware and ended the campaign with a little bit of debt. We decided to have a fundraising breakfast to help take care of the debt, and Senator Biden, then the junior Senator from Delaware, was good enough to come and speak at our breakfast. We had a whole host of Democratic colleagues from the House, new freshmen who wanted to show their support for their new colleague. One Republican stopped by that breakfast, and it was the freshman Congressman from Erie, PA. I will always be grateful for that appearance and for the friendship that has spanned some 20 years. I will be pleased to vote with my colleagues and join, I suspect all of them, in making him a unanimous choice for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. While I believe Governor Ridge is more than qualified for the job, the task he faces is daunting. Congress has given him a Department that at least on paper should be able to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks more effectively than Federal Government and State governments can today. We have authorized the transfers of literally dozens of agencies and tens of thousands of workers. We have outlined a skeleton organization that should be able to pull together under one roof information on threats and vulnerabilities and to use that information to improve security and better prepare our first responders. Very little of what we have outlined, though, will be in place on day 1, and day 1 is tomorrow for all intents and purposes. A number of outstanding questions remain. Both in the Committee on Governmental Affairs where I serve and on the Senate floor, we have had a healthy debate over the details of how the transition to a new Department of Homeland Security should work. I know some of my colleagues are uncomfortable with what we have. I have a few concerns of my own. That being said, I think it is important now that we put aside our disagreements and do what we need to do to enable this Department to do what it needs to do, to protect American lives. Let me take a few minutes to discuss a couple of the issues I hope Governor Ridge will address early on during his tenure as Secretary of this Department. First, let me touch on the subject of rail security. Now that the Transportation Security Administration has for the most part achieved the goals we set for them, it is time for them and for the Department of Homeland Security to focus on other modes that have received less attention, especially rail. As I said before, our failure more than a year after September 11 to act to improve the security of our rail infrastructure is an Achilles' heel in our Nation's effort to secure our total transportation system. In New York City today, hundreds of thousands of people on their way to work pass through tunnels that are badly lit, poorly ventilated, and from which escape is very difficult. In fact, there is even a rail tunnel that goes under the Supreme Court and congressional offices just a couple of hundred yards from where we are gathered this evening. Every day thousands of people pass through that tunnel under this Capitol on their way to work or to home. Passenger safety demands a real investment, but to ask Amtrak to do more with respect to security without providing more resources is, in my view, an unfunded mandate, not a solution. I thank Governor Ridge for understanding the importance of improving rail security, not just for passenger rail but for freight rail as well. I also thank Governor Ridge for acknowledging at our hearing last week that Amtrak is likely to need some additional financial assistance, if it is expected to make the security enhancements that need to be made. Let me also touch on the matter of first responders. States and localities are in desperate need of additional new resources to help prepare their police, their fire, and emergency personnel for any future terrorist attacks. At the same time, most State and local governments are suffering through extraordinary fiscal crises that are forcing some to raise taxes or cut services. We see that in Delaware, in Tennessee, and a host of other States as well. I am disappointed that the omnibus appropriations bill on the floor this evening and today and again tomorrow probably does not provide State and localities with the level of first responder aid that they need. In the future, I hope Governor Ridge, soon to be Secretary Ridge, and our colleagues in Congress and the President will heed the calls from back home for more first responder aid. I also hope Governor Ridge works quickly in the coming weeks to set up a communications link between the new Department and first responders so their needs can be heard and information on what they need to do to protect their communities makes its way down to them. When the Committee on Governmental Affairs first marked up the Homeland Security Act and again when a modified version of the bill reached the floor, Senators Collins and Feingold and I offered an amendment to create an office of State and local coordination within the new Department. That would place a homeland security liaison office within each State. Our language, unfortunately, was not included in the final bill, but I do hope Governor Ridge will consider setting up something like what we recommended once this new Department is in place and he and his employees have gotten their sea legs. I want to close with some comments on relations with employees. A matter that held up final passage of this legislation when we created the new Department last month was really relations with employees, what kinds of rights they have under the collective bargaining laws and under the merit rules of the civil service rules of our country. Recently, ADM James Loy, head of the Transportation Security Administration--I am told a very able person--used the authority Congress granted him under the airline security legislation we passed after September 11 to forbid airport screeners from joining unions. He cited his view that the screeners perform sensitive national security work as the reason for his decision. The admiral's decision may or may not have been the right one. Whether it was or not, it has not done much to improve relations between the administration and thousands of unionized employees who are being transferred to this new Department, who perform work just as sensitive as--or in some cases even more sensitive than--that performed by the screeners. As he works with the Office of Personnel Management to develop a human resources management system for this new Department, I urge Governor Ridge to work swiftly to repair the strained relationship between the administration and the public employees' union. He will benefit by doing that, the employees of that Department will benefit, and I believe our Nation will, too. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Yes.

Mr. CARPER. I would appreciate 5 minutes.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding 5 minutes. I also express my thanks to her, and especially Senator Hollings, for their work. I say to Senator McCain that I appreciate his comments and his willingness to join with the Senator from Delaware last year as we tried to address the issue of rail security. It looks like we will pass, on a voice vote, an appropriation level for Amtrak which will carry Amtrak through the balance of this fiscal year. That sets the stage for a robust debate, which we need to have, on whether the future of passenger rail service in this country is the Northeast corridor and maybe some routes on the West Coast. If there are other high speed corridors that make sense, if there are long distance trains such as the Auto Train that make sense, I welcome that debate. The concurrence of reauthorization of T-21, reauthorization of our transportation programs along with reauthorization of Amtrak, is a very fortunate confluence of events. I think we will have the opportunity to maybe do the right thing not just by Amtrak but by the people of this country. I have said on this floor before and I will say it again tonight, when Amtrak was created roughly 30 years ago it was created at a time when private rail companies wanted out of the passenger business. They could not make money carrying passengers. They said to Congress: Let us out of that business, and Congress freed them of that responsibility. Amtrak was created with the private railroads, the freight railroads, giving to this new entity their old rolling stock, their old passenger cars, their old cafe cars, their old locomotives. Amtrak was given the old track bed from Washington to Boston. Amtrak was given the old repair shops, the old train stations. Somehow, given all this old equipment and being undercapitalized for 30 years, we said to Amtrak we expect them to make money when nobody in the private sector could make money. There are a number of other countries around the world that have terrific passenger rail service. We have talked about some of them tonight. The reason why they have good passenger rail service is because they believe it is in the naked self-interest of their country to invest in passenger rail, and that is some of the reason why they do it. They want to reduce their reliance on foreign oil. They want to reduce the size of their trade deficits that grow out of importing foreign oil. They want to reduce the amount of congestion they have on their highways and at their airports. They are concerned about the quality of the air and the kinds of emissions that their cars, trucks, and vans put up into the air. As a result, those countries rather generously support passenger rail service. They do not do it for reasons of altruism or nostalgia. They think it is in their naked self-interest, and it is. When we think about it, we have an interest in clean air as well in this country. We have problems with congestion around our airports and our roads as well. We have a huge trade deficit, $400 billion this year. About a third of that is imported oil. I say to my friend from Arizona, I do not think it makes sense for us to run trains where people do not want to ride them. But today in this country, 75 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. Think about that. That provides for a lot of congestion, but it also provides for some wonderful high speed train routes that if we are smart we will figure out how to take advantage of and give people the chance to move throughout those densely populated corridors more quickly. From time to time, there is going to be a train like the Auto Train which runs south of Washington, DC, down to Orlando. It leaves every day and comes back every day. It basically makes money. A lot of people ride the train. It is the longest train in the world. They take their cars, trucks, and vans, hitch them up to the train and head on south or bring them back from Florida. There are probably some other routes like that around the country that would make sense, too. Then there are some States where, frankly, the States would like to put in some of their own money in order to have passenger rail service to routes that are losing money, but inexplicably, at least to me as an old Governor, I was never allowed to use Delaware's Federal transportation money or congestion mitigation money to help provide for passenger rail. We could use that money in our State for freight railroads, for bicycle paths, but we could not use it to help pay for passenger rail service. That makes no sense. We should give States and Governors the flexibility to use a portion--not all, a portion--of their Federal transportation money to invest in passenger rail if it makes sense for the States. We will have a great debate this year. It is time for that debate. I am pleased to participate with all my colleagues on this. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership, Senator Byrd and Senator Hollings for their work, Senator Hutchison, Senator Specter, and others who believe in the cause. I say to my friend from Arizona, we look forward to a debate that will lead to better passenger rail service and, frankly, the return of common sense.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 70th wedding anniversary of my dear friends Millard and Hattye Mae Biddle. Our friendship has spanned some three decades. I want to congratulate them on behalf of all Delawareans wish them both the very best in all that lies ahead. As they celebrate this milestone in their lives, they will surely reflect on the many changes, successes, and accomplishments they have experienced together over the last 70 years. Theirs is a journey of which they can be proud. The Biddles have lived in the Dover community for many years. For a number of those years, they owned a bed and breakfast in Wyoming, DE. At the start of my career, I worked in Kent County and lived in New Castle County in the northern part of out State. Their trademark hospitality was in full swing. I stayed so often as their guest, they finally gave me my own bedroom and a key to the House! They have always made me feel like a member of their family, and their home became, in many ways, mine as well. Both Millard and Hattye Mae have lived their lives in the service of others. Long before it was popular, Hattye Mae recognized the tremendous need for early childhood education for kindergartners and preschool children in Kent County. She started a successful preschool called the Little School. Both the school and its students--hundreds of them--have grown up, stronger under her watchful eye. Hattye Mae volunteers at the Old State House in Dover, giving tours to the many visitors. She has served as a member of the board of directors and is now an honorary member of the Board of Directors of Kent/Sussex Industries, a nonprofit organization that provides work opportunities for Delawareans each year. And no July in Harrington is complete without seeing her sweet smile at the annual Delaware State Fair. Millard started his career delivering milk for the Frear Milk Company. After serving in World War II, Millard opened a grocery store. He returned to public service as a Kent County assessor shortly thereafter, from which he happily retired. Millard served as a member of the Dover Housing Authority and served two terms on the Dover City Council. He is, in fact, the oldest living former council member. Millard has enjoyed many hours giving tours at the E.R. Johnson Victrola Museum in Dover, reading about the talking machines, records and other relics of the Victor Talking Machine Company of Eldridge R. Johnson Manufacturing Machinists. A wiz at clock making, Millard enjoys using old Victrola records and transforming them into clocks. They are, by all accounts, incredibly impressive. Today, I rise to congratulate Millard and Hattye Mae on their 70th wedding anniversary. In a day and age where many marriages do not last 70 months or even 70 weeks, the strength and durability of their union serves as a source of inspiration to us all. In addition, each of them has demonstrated great devotion to their family, three children, nine grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren, and to their community in too many ways to number. I know that their years together hold many beautiful memories. It is my hope that those ahead will be filled with continued joy and contentment. They give true meaning to the words of the poet who wrote, ``Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.''

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to set aside a moment to reflect on the life of Mr. Leon N. Weiner upon his passing. Leon was a good friend and a man who made remarkable contributions toward affordable housing for thousands of families in Delaware and many more beyond our state's borders. He was a man with a kind heart, diverse interests, great abilities, and boundless energy. Leon was born in Philadelphia, PA. After graduating from Overbrook High School, he attended the University of Pennsylvania for 3 years before leaving to take up a job as an apprentice machinist at Westinghouse Electric Corp. in Essington, PA. After serving his country in the Army Air Corps during World War II, Leon came to Delaware and joined his uncle in building Leedom Estates near New Castle. This was one of the first suburban housing projects in New Castle County and the first of more than 5,000 houses that Leon built across New Castle County during his 54-year career. At the age of 53, he turned his attention to the challenge of building housing for low- and moderate-income families and seniors. A very colorful character, Leon spoke with a booming voice and always wore suspenders, something that became his trademark. To the end of his days his office was filled with honorary gavels, keys to cities, and pictures of him with leading Democratic figures. In 1979 he was inducted to the National Housing Hall of Fame and subsequently was given the National Housing Man of the Year Award. His appointment to the Kaiser Commission on Urban Housing led to the landmark Housing Act of 1968. Leon leaves behind his wife of 53 years, Helen; as well as a stepdaughter; three grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. He also leaves behind many friends, colleagues and several thousand families who are living more productive, satisfying lives today because Leon was committed to building affordable housing. Leon's lifelong dream was that low-income seniors and families would have the opportunity to afford their own homes, in the communities they called home. He lived to see that dream largely fulfilled. Leon's legacy will live on in the lives of those he helped shape, in the rooms of affordable low-income housing he helped build, and in the hearts of those who were lucky enough to call him their friend. I rise today to commemorate Leon's life, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our thanks for sharing with the rest of us a truly remarkable human being. Although a resident of nearby Pennsylvania, Leon embodied the best of Delaware where his firm, Leon Weiner and Associates, was headquartered. He will be sorely missed. I know he can never be replaced.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Cab Calloway School of the Arts in Wilmington, the first public arts school in the State of Delaware. Since the late Cab Calloway cut the ribbon for the school's grand opening on November 23, 1992, the school has expanded from a small middle school with vocal detractors to an overwhelmingly successful experiment in public school choice, boasting an enrollment of 760 6th to 12th graders. If their first decade is any indication of what they will offer in the future, we have much to look forward to. Cab Calloway School of the Arts works to provide young people from diverse backgrounds with intensive training in the arts and a comprehensive academic curriculum that will prepare them for success in higher education and employment. They are succeeding. The school's halls are filled with talented faculty, skilled supervisors, and dedicated staff. Its students have been awarded numerous accolades and recognition for their art, writing, theatre, academics, vocal and band performances, as well as academics. Cab Calloway's students continue to defy the odds, meeting or exceeding our State's standards in reading, writing and math. Last year, the school's 10th graders ranked among the very highest in the State in reading and writing comprehension. Mixing academics with freedom of expression and strong parental support has boosted their students' self-confidence and given us all something to feel good about. When I served as Governor of Delaware, Cab Calloway's students performed, at my request, at the Hotel DuPont for the Governor's National Association. They helped me celebrate my second inauguration as Governor at the Wilmington Grand Opera House and have since been named to the Governor's School of Excellence. They continue to make me proud. Cab Calloway School of the Arts has represented the State of Delaware at The Kennedy Center in Washington DC, and its students have performed at the Delaware Mentoring Council Celebrations in Wilmington and Dover, attended by GEN. Colin Powell. These days I work closely with Hillary Clinton in the Senate. When I brought her to tour the Cab Calloway School of the Arts in 1996, she was our First Lady, and I made sure that a tour showcasing the best of Delaware included the innovative school. We talked about the importance of school choice and the inroads made possible by a school dedicated to providing a cultural and academic experience that instills character and a greater appreciation of the arts. As Governor of Delaware, and now as Senator, I have shared with people across America the story of Cab's success. I tell them about teachers such as Marty Lassman, who daily demonstrate unparalleled commitment and patience, the support staff that is there when needed, the students who again and again exceed expectations, and the parents and family members who understand they have an obligation to be full partners in the education of their children. Together, they serve as an inspiration and an example to communities across the country. Delaware is a small State, but we are building a growing record of achievement in public school education. Statewide, scores have again increased in all grades and across the board in reading and math, as we begin to close the achievement gap. Much of what we have accomplished in Delaware, and at the Cab Calloway School of the Arts, serves as a model for our Nation. I thank the staff and students of the school, both past and present, for their efforts to create a more meaningful experience for our students, and I wish Cab Calloway School of the Arts a very happy 10th anniversary. I rise today to offer my full support to future generations of students and educators at Cab Calloway School of the Arts and congratulate this extraordinary school on a remarkable decade of success.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this past June, at an EPW Committee markup, I joined the majority of committee members in reporting out legislation to reduce harmful emissions from our Nation's power plants. At that time, I offered, and then withdrew an alternate, comprehensive, 4-emission approach. Since then, along with representatives from electric generators who would be impacted by such legislation, and some leaders in the environmental community, I have worked to strengthen my amendment even further. The result is the Clean Air Planning Act. I rise today to introduce this bill, and am pleased to be joined by Senators Chafee, Beaux, and Baucus. The bill takes a market-based approach that would aggressively reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, SO2, nitrogen oxides, NOX, carbon dioxide, CO2, and mercury from electrical power generators. This approach also would provide planning and regulatory certainty to electric generators, who are required to achieve these reductions. It is mindful of the fact that coal fuels approximately 50 percent of our Nation's electricity and contributes a disproportionate share of emissions, and will remain the leading source of reliable, affordable electricity for decades to come. The public health and environmental impacts of SO2, NOX, and mercury have been well documented. While there is bipartisan agreement that emissions of these three pollutants from power plants need further control, there is some disagreement over how much and how fast. The Clean Air Planning Act would establish significant caps on total emissions of these pollutants, but the caps would be phased in to provide the industry the time needed to meet the caps. In addition, the bill includes a flexible trading system to allow the caps to be attained most efficiently. There is also a growing consensus that greenhouse gases such as CO2 emissions from power plants are contributing to climate change. The time has come to set up mechanisms that will address these emissions without impeding economic growth. The Clean Air Planning Act establishes the modest goal of capping CO2 emissions from electrical generators at 2001 levels by 2012. Generators can meet that goal with a flexible system that allows both trading between generators. The bill also includes flexible options to reduce the costs of controlling carbon dioxide emissions through international projects and through forest and agricultural projects that can sequester carbon from the atmosphere while also providing additional environmental benefits. Part of the task ahead is to get better analysis that helps determine the right parameters for these flexibility provisions, so that the bill provides a smooth least-cost transition for the industry yet also delivers a meaningful incentive for improved efficiency and reduced emissions from power plants. In the context of comprehensive legislation that will achieve significant reductions in emissions from power plants, some existing regulatory requirements should be updated. This bill carefully updates some New Source Review requirements to eliminate redundancy while retaining strict environmental protections. I have heard from several experts in recent weeks who have studied provisions of this bill as it was being developed, and I plan to engage them in further discussions in the weeks and months ahead. I appreciate their willingness to help keep this important topic moving forward. This is a complex issue, one that should be of great importance to electric generators, environmental leaders, State and local regulators, and to each of us here in the Senate. There are numerous complicated issues in this legislation such as the proper extent of crediting off system carbon reductions, equitable allocation of allowances, appropriate regulatory streamlining, and prevention of local impacts, and we invite assistance from all who want to help us address these issues. Today, America's power plants will emit over 6 million tons of harmful emissions. They will also power the world's most productive economy. Reducing emissions while retaining affordable electricity is the goal of the Clean Air Planning Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I look forward to developing consensus within the Senate next year and passing strong, comprehensive legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this past June, at an EPW Committee markup, I joined the majority of committee members in reporting out legislation to reduce harmful emissions from our Nation's power plants. At that time, I offered, and then withdrew an alternate, comprehensive, 4-emission approach. Since then, along with representatives from electric generators who would be impacted by such legislation, and some leaders in the environmental community, I have worked to strengthen my amendment even further. The result is the Clean Air Planning Act. I rise today to introduce this bill, and am pleased to be joined by Senators Chafee, Beaux, and Baucus. The bill takes a market-based approach that would aggressively reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, SO2, nitrogen oxides, NOX, carbon dioxide, CO2, and mercury from electrical power generators. This approach also would provide planning and regulatory certainty to electric generators, who are required to achieve these reductions. It is mindful of the fact that coal fuels approximately 50 percent of our Nation's electricity and contributes a disproportionate share of emissions, and will remain the leading source of reliable, affordable electricity for decades to come. The public health and environmental impacts of SO2, NOX, and mercury have been well documented. While there is bipartisan agreement that emissions of these three pollutants from power plants need further control, there is some disagreement over how much and how fast. The Clean Air Planning Act would establish significant caps on total emissions of these pollutants, but the caps would be phased in to provide the industry the time needed to meet the caps. In addition, the bill includes a flexible trading system to allow the caps to be attained most efficiently. There is also a growing consensus that greenhouse gases such as CO2 emissions from power plants are contributing to climate change. The time has come to set up mechanisms that will address these emissions without impeding economic growth. The Clean Air Planning Act establishes the modest goal of capping CO2 emissions from electrical generators at 2001 levels by 2012. Generators can meet that goal with a flexible system that allows both trading between generators. The bill also includes flexible options to reduce the costs of controlling carbon dioxide emissions through international projects and through forest and agricultural projects that can sequester carbon from the atmosphere while also providing additional environmental benefits. Part of the task ahead is to get better analysis that helps determine the right parameters for these flexibility provisions, so that the bill provides a smooth least-cost transition for the industry yet also delivers a meaningful incentive for improved efficiency and reduced emissions from power plants. In the context of comprehensive legislation that will achieve significant reductions in emissions from power plants, some existing regulatory requirements should be updated. This bill carefully updates some New Source Review requirements to eliminate redundancy while retaining strict environmental protections. I have heard from several experts in recent weeks who have studied provisions of this bill as it was being developed, and I plan to engage them in further discussions in the weeks and months ahead. I appreciate their willingness to help keep this important topic moving forward. This is a complex issue, one that should be of great importance to electric generators, environmental leaders, State and local regulators, and to each of us here in the Senate. There are numerous complicated issues in this legislation such as the proper extent of crediting off system carbon reductions, equitable allocation of allowances, appropriate regulatory streamlining, and prevention of local impacts, and we invite assistance from all who want to help us address these issues. Today, America's power plants will emit over 6 million tons of harmful emissions. They will also power the world's most productive economy. Reducing emissions while retaining affordable electricity is the goal of the Clean Air Planning Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I look forward to developing consensus within the Senate next year and passing strong, comprehensive legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Jessica Hafer, a member of my staff, during debate on this resolution.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I come before the Senate this evening to join in this debate, to express my support for our Nation's effort to address the threat Saddam Hussein poses, and to lay out the concerns that I believe must be addressed if we are to succeed in disarming Iraq. The President has called upon Congress and the American people to support his administration in its effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein's hold on weapons of mass destruction. The Congress has responded by taking up this resolution authorizing the use of force, if needed, to strip Iraq of those weapons and the ability to deliver them. A number of serious questions have been raised in this historic debate. It is critical that President Bush and the Congress fulfill our obligation to all Americans, and to the international community, by ensuring that those questions are faithfully addressed. Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be an implacable foe of the United States. It is essential that we confront the threat that he represents. The question is not whether we confront it, but how we confront it. We must make every effort to build a multilateral coalition. If we do so, we raise the likelihood of bringing a measure of stability to a turbulent part of the world. If we do so, we can minimize the impact of any conflict on the Iraqi people, on Iraq's neighbors and on American and allied forces. And if we do so, we will serve to strengthen, not undermine, the international laws and institutions that have served us well in the years since World War II. Leadership is a responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. Leadership in deciding whether to resort to military force requires the greatest deliberation and consideration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, said that ``no one with any sense considers war a first choice--it is the last thing that any rational person wants to do. And it is important that the issues surrounding this decision be discussed and debated.'' It is clear to me that millions of Americans are discussing and debating the issues (that are before us this evening. I have heard from Delawareans throughout my state. I have heard from veterans who know the harsh realities of war. I have heard children who can scarcely imagine it. I am comforted by the fact that the American people, and their representative in Congress, have been thoughtful and deliberate in discussing the challenges that we face and how we might confront those challenges. This is not the first time that I have faced the question of how we ought to deal with Saddam Hussein's intransigence in the facet of international law. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I voted in 1991, along with many members of this body, to authorize President George Herbert Walker Bush to use military force to expel the armed forces of Iraq from Kuwait. I am proud of that vote, and I am prouder still of the American and allied forces that went on to liberate Kuwait. Having engaged in that debate, and witnessed Saddam Hussein's refusal to yield except when confronted with the threat of force, I have no illusions about the danger he poses to regional stability and international security today. I am concerned that Iraq remains in violation of more than a dozen Security Council resolutions. I am alarmed that the regime of Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of the international agreements it promised to comply with at the end of the gulf war. Above all, I feel strongly that we must not allow Saddam Hussein to develop the capacity to acquire or deploy nuclear weapons. This past Monday night, President Bush addressed our Nation. He reminded us that there are significant risks to the United States both in acting and in not acting. If we choose not to act, we must remember that, in Saddam Hussein, we are talking about a man who has invaded his neighbors, showing a reckless disregard for the stability of a volatile region. We are talking about a man who has risked his own survival, and that of his regime, to indulge his own vengeance. Finally, we are talking about a man who has used weapons of mass destruction before, even against his own people. The need for action, however, does not preempt the need for an objective and open debate on the course of action we choose and the consequences of our subsequent actions. Bringing the weight of the world's disapproval to bear on Iraq; demanding unfettered inspections of every potential weapons site; and preparing for any military or diplomatic contingency offers us the best chance to face down our foe now and to ensure his permanent disarmament. Like many in this chamber, I believe that it is essential for us to work closely with the international community to reinstate inspections that will lead to Iraq's disarmament. But it's imperative that such inspections be unhindered. Inspectors must have the freedom to go where they want, when they want. They must have the right to talk to whomever they wish and to provide immediate amnesty to any Iraqis who provide information that might place them at risk of reprisal from the regime. Inspections are only valuable if they are truly a means of stripping Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to deliver them. If Saddam Hussein's regime is unwilling to accept this level of intrusion, both he and Iraq must be prepared to accept the consequences, including the likelihood of a war they will lose. Looking back, one of the principal reasons we were so successful in the gulf war was because former President Bush and his administration did the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong international coalition before unleashing our military might. Our current President and his aides similarly did the hard work necessary to build such a coalition after the attacks on our country last fall. This up-front investment has paid off in the arrests of Al Qaeda operatives throughout the globe, as well as in the elimination of the regime that was harboring them in Afghanstan--though the war on terror is far from over. These are prime examples of America's global leadership in action at its very best. They are examples that we should emulate now. If we fail to uphold our international leadership responsibilities, and act without regard to the views and interests of our allies, we invite our isolation in the world. We undermine our position as a preeminent force in global policy and order. We make more difficult the task of securing the assistance of the international community in helping Iraq to return as a responsible member of the community of nations. We invite additional terrorist attacks on Americans at home and abroad, as well as put the fragile governments of many Muslim nations further at risk. Moreover, if we are perceived to act without the sanction of international law or authorization of the United Nations, we further fuel anti-American resentment in the Arab world, thereby increasing the threat to Israel. On the other hand, if we make an effort to work in concert with our allies, we have the opportunity to strengthen the international institutions that will be critical in addressing future threats. At a time when 24-hour news networks have made the images of war instantly accessible, our nation's recent military successes have made the awful realities of war appear ever more remote: images of laser- guided bombs falling on indistinguishable targets; missiles lighting up the night sky. For an entire generation of Americans, our military efforts have come to be seen almost as a casualty-free video game, where no one gets hurt and few families face the knowledge that their son or daughter will not be coming home. But like a handful of my colleagues here in the Senate, I have known a different side to war, having seen if first-hand. During my 23 years in the Navy, including service in Southeast Asia, we witnessed soldiers, sailors, and airmen leaving for missions from which they would never return. I've met countless veterans who left part of themselves on the battlefield. Some of those heroes serve in this very body today. War can--and often does--enact a terrible price. It should be entered into as a last resort. So, the decision we face this week, which may lead to war, is not one that I take lightly. Nor do any of us. For the past 11 years, people in this country and elsewhere have second-guessed the decision of former President Bush to stop short of entering Baghdad in 1991. I have never criticized that decision. That flat, open sands on which our soldiers fought and won is a far different--and less dangerous--terrain than the streets of major Iraqi cities. There, our enemy's tactical advantage likely would have enacted a far heavier toll on American lives. If the course of events in this decade ultimately leads to another conflict with Iraq, and I hope it does not, the risks associated with urban warfare may well become a reality this time. Before they do, it is critical that we prepare ourselves, and the American people, for the losses we may endure in a military campaign of that nature. We must also face head-on the fact that, if war should occur, liberating Baghdad from Hussein's power will not solve every problem in the region. It will, however, force us to find answers to a difficult set of new questions. Among them, how will we operate in Iraq after a military victory? A number of competing factions will vie for control if Saddam Hussein is removed from power. Who will we support? How will we convince them to work together? We will need a coherent policy to help Iraq make the transition to political and economic stability. We will also need a great deal of patience and fortitude. Otherwise, we risk creating a less stable and more explosive Iraq than we face today and, worse yet, an even more volatile region. We have learned from our missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan that bringing meaningful change to unstable nations requires enormous time, resources, and effort. We have been relatively successful in restoring stability in Bosnia and Kosovo, but it has not been without a painstaking commitment over many years. Indeed, the U.S. and our NATO allies continue to maintain a significant troop presence in both of those nations. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has demonstrated how minimal troop commitments can impair efforts to restore peace in a war-ravaged nation. Hamid Karzai and his coalition government continue to express Afghanistan's ongoing need for adequate support and resources from the U.S. and other nations if the Afghan people are to realize the peace and democracy of which they dream. In a post-war Iraq, the need for ongoing U.S. and allied intervention is likely to be far greater and far more costly. Experts in military operations maintain that creating a more stable Iraq will require the continued presence of between 50,000 to 100,000 troops. Not for a few weeks or months, but for several years. There is another question that I believe must be addressed as we move forward: How will we bear the financial burdens of such a mission? It is impossible to place a price tag on the lives that might be saved by disarming Saddam Hussein. At the same time, it would be fiscally irresponsible to take on such an operation without at least considering the impact of a potential war on our already fragile economy. Over the past 2 years, we have watched the stock market plummet, making its sharpest decline in 70 years. The budget surplus that we worked so hard to achieve in the 1990's is gone. All the while, current estimates project the likely cost of U.S. military action in Iraq to be in the range of $100 billion. These estimates do not include the prospect of long-term peacekeeping operations in the event of a regime change. The presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops for months--maybe years-- once the fighting has ended will cost billions more. This is a cost we should not bear alone. I believe the principles and questions I have laid out today were best embodied in, and addressed by, the bipartisan resolution drafted earlier this month by Senate Richard Lugar and my fellow Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden--two Senators of intellect and skill in the area of international diplomacy. The Biden-Lugar draft resolution focused on the most critical task at hand--disarming Saddam Hussein. Senators Biden and Lugar carefully crafted this resolution to give President Bush the flexibility he needs to garner international support now for a tough, new U.N. Security Council resolution. Their draft resolution also provided the President with the authority to unleash U.S. military force against Iraq should he determine that Iraq's continued intransigence makes such action necessary. I'm disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to vote on that alternative this week. Having said that though, I do believe that the Biden-Lugar proposal contributed appreciatively to the change in direction that this debate has taken in recent weeks, particularly in its emphasis on acting together with our allies. That change in tone was clearly evident in the address of President Bush to the American people this past Monday night. What he said encouraged me and served to reassure much of our nation. The President spoke of the importance of working with the United Nations to craft a tough inspection regimen in Iraq. I agree with him. The President said that the U.N. must be ``an effective organization that helps keep the peace.'' I agree with him. The President told the American people that our primary goal in this endeavor is to strip Saddam Hussein of his ability to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction. Again, I agree with him. We also heard the President state that he hopes the policy he has laid out will not require military action, although he acknowledged that it might. I hope it will not. We all share that hope in the Senate as members of this body prepare to cast our votes and to authorize the use of force if certain conditions are met. In closing, let me say for much of our Nation's history, the United States has been an instrument for peace and justice and a better life for the people of many nations throughout the world. That is our heritage. It is one of which we can be proud. There have been times in our history when we have had to go it alone. But history has shown that we have been most successful when we provided the leadership that compelled other nations to join us in a just cause--two World Wars, the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. Stripping Saddam Hussein, once and for all, of the weapons that would enable him to create havoc and great loss of life is a just cause. Other nations know that, too. If we make the case to them forcefully, skillfully, and persistently in the weeks ahead, they will join us. I am certain of it. The burden before us--disarming Iraq--is one we should not bear alone. If the President uses the powers inherent in this resolution authorizing the use of force with great skill and diplomacy, we will not have to bear this burden, and face this challenge, alone. An armada of nations, again, will join us, and together we will make this world, at least for a little while, a safer and saner place in which to live. I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of a remarkable Delawarean, Helen Vincent, upon her passing at the age of 82. Helen was a good friend and a woman who demonstrated tremendous courage and integrity. She was a woman with a kind heart, diverse interests, great abilities, and boundless energy. In the way she lived her own life, Helen reminded each of us how good we can be. In her 30 years in Newark, DE, Helen became a well- known political and civic activist who championed ethics and justice. She believed in the democratic process and the value of honesty and integrity. A staunch ally, she was a major figure in our successful efforts to clean up New Castle County politics. We are a better State and a stronger Democratic Party because of her tireless efforts to infuse ethics into politics and her refusal to be deterred. Helen taught us all how to act responsibly, with vision and determination. She understood the inherent danger that comes from the silence of good people. With her courage, she made it just a bit easier for the rest of us to stand up and make our voices heard. Like Helen, Lou Gehrig's disease works across boundaries, without regard to racial, ethnic or economic barriers. But while the disease seeks to weaken the body, it proved only to bolster Helen's spirit and resolve. In life, and in facing death, Helen Vincent exemplified grace and grit. In the face of adversity, Helen seemed to always prevail. Even now, as we reflect on her life, she seems somehow to have triumphed again. Helen's legacy will live on in the lives of those she helped to shape, in the halls of the institutions she served, and in the hearts of those of us who were lucky enough to call her their friend. She believed that we could all do a bit better, and inspired us to do just that. So I rise today to commemorate Helen, to celebrate her life, and to offer her family our support. Helen truly embodied the best of Delaware. She will be sorely missed by all Delawareans who cherish honesty and integrity and who are committed to playing by the rules.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate John and Eileen Sweeney, who will celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary on November 25, 2002. As they celebrate this milestone in their lives, they will surely reflect on the many changes, successes, and accomplishments they have experienced together over the last 25 years. Theirs is a journey of which they can be proud. Leo John Sweeney Jr. is the son of the late Leo John Sweeney Sr. and Isabelle Moore Sweeney, and is a lifelong Wilmingtonian. He is a graduate of St. Elizabeth's Elementary School and Salesianum High School. His wife, Catherine Eileen Claffey Sweeney, is the daughter of the late John J. Claffey and Alice G. Rowan Claffey, and is also from Wilmington. She is a graduate of St. Paul's Elementary School and St. Paul's Commercial School. John and Eileen met and began dating in early 1976 and became engaged in June 1977. They were married on November 25, 1977, at St. Joseph's on the Brandywine Roman Catholic Church in Wilmington. They made a welcoming home on South Broom Street. A lieutenant, John has worked at the Wilmington Fire Department for 28 years. In 1961, he played in Delaware's Annual Blue and Gold All- Star Football Game, and, on the 25th anniversary of the Blue/Gold Game in 1980, John began umpiring these games. He continues to umpire high school football games today. Eileen has worked for the Catholic Diocese for 30 years and has also served as Publicity Chair for the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee. In 1994, she opened an Irish Shop in the Forty- Acres neighborhood. We have shared many laughs together at the Irish Culture Club of Delaware over the years. Today, I congratulate John and Eileen on their 25th wedding anniversary. Both have shown great service and commitment to their family and their community. I know that their years together hold many beautiful memories. It is my hope that those ahead will be filled with continued joy and contentment. I wish them both the very best in all that lies ahead.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, DE. Five years after opening their doors to some of the State's most economically and educationally disadvantaged children, they have amassed a record of meeting and exceeding expectations. The achievement gap is narrowing in the First State, and the East Side Charter School is leading the way. Located in the middle of what is called the projects, in properties managed by the Wilmington Housing Authority on the east side of Wilmington, East Side Charter School is home to low-income students in grades K-3 who face unique challenges. Over 80 percent of the students at East Side Charter School live in poverty. Most of the children live with only one parent, few of whom completed any college education. Many live in neighborhoods with high incidence of violence and crime, and some are without proper nutrition and health care. But at this school, kids can come early and stay late. They have a longer school year. They wear school uniforms. Parents sign something akin to a contract of mutual responsibility. Teachers and administrators are given freer reign to innovate and initiate. The attendance rate is nearly perfect. Parents are given a better chance to help children fulfill their potential. At this school the halls are filled with talented faculty, skilled supervisors, and dedicated staff. Principal Will Robinson challenges students and empowers them to meet those challenges. When the East Side Charter School started 5 years ago, the odds were stacked against its success. The school has flourished though, in spite of the daunting statistics. One of almost 200 public schools in the State of Delaware, from the wealthiest to those struggling the most, East Side Charter School was the only one in the last few years where every student tested met or exceeded our State's standards in math. As Governor of Delaware, and now as Senator, I have shared with people across America the story of East Side's incredible success. I tell them about the teachers like Barbara Juraco, who daily demonstrate unparalleled commitment and patience, the support staff that's there when needed, the students who again and again exceed expectations, and the parents and family members who understand they have an obligation to be full partners in the education of their children. Together, they serve as an inspiration and an example to communities across the country. Delaware is a small State, but we are building a growing record of achievement in public school education. Statewide, scores have again increased in all grades and across ethnic lines for reading and math, proving that we are closing the achievement gap. Much of what we have accomplished in Delaware, and at the East Side Charter School, serves as a model for our Nation. I rise today to offer my full support as future generations of students and educators at East Side Charter School ready to face the challenges of the 21st century and overcome them.