Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the passing of a wonderful woman, mother, and American, Sarah Mae Shoemaker Calhoon died on July 7, 2001 outside of Columbus, OH after a courageous battle with cancer. Mrs. Calhoun was 75 years old. Mrs. Calhoon was born on August 31, 1925 in Philadelphia, PA to the late Samuel and Sarah Mae Shoemaker. She spent her childhood in Philadelphia, where she would graduate from Cheltenham High School. On August 29, 1947, just two days before her 22nd birthday, Sarah Mae Shoemaker was married to Tom Calhoon, a Marine from nearby Grandview Heights. The new Mr. and Mrs. Calhoon had their first child, Tom, Jr. or ``little'' Tom as they often called him, early in their marriage. In September of 1948, Tom, Sarah, and ``little'' Tom moved to Columbus, OH, where, over the next 4 years would become the proud parents of three more sons, Sam, Don, and Bob. Their only daughter, Susie, would be born in April of 1961. Although I did not know Sarah Mae Calhoon personally, I have known her son Tom for more than half of my life. We met as undergraduates at Ohio State University in the 1960s and have been fraternity brothers for more than three decades. Despite living so far from each other, Tom and I have managed to keep in touch over the years. It is often said that all children are a reflection of their parents. If Tom is even a faint reflection of his mother, it is a great tribute to the values she carried throughout her life and instilled in her children. Since her recent passing, I have heard and read many wonderful things abut Sarah Mae Calhoon. I have learned about her strong commitment to the community of Columbus, whether it be through her active membership in a variety of organizations like the PTA, 4-H, the Lions Auxiliary or in her unofficial role as the ``zoning watchdog'' of the Calhoon's neighborhood on Old Cemetery Road. I have read about her great success as a multi-million dollar producer in the real estate industry. I have heard, from both former customers and competitors alike, about the dedication, loyalty, and integrity that she brought to her job every day. Most importantly, however, I have learned about her unfailing commitment to being a mother and wife. Nothing was more precious to Sarah Calhoon than her family, and she did all she could to ensure that all of her children grew up in a loving and nurturing environment that would enable them to go on to lead valuable and fulfilling lives. She consistently put the needs, concerns, and feelings of her family and others before her own wishes, never asking for much but always giving a great deal. Her life served as an example, providing inspiration to women everywhere struggling to maintain the careful balance between career and family, a task that she carried out with admirable grace and skill. Everything that I have learned about Sarah Mae Calhoon since her death has only confirmed what I had always pictured my good friend Tom's mother would be like: the epitome of an exemplary wife, mother, business woman, and citizen. In closing, I would like to extend my greatest condolences to her husband, their five children, seven grandchildren, and countless others whose lives were touched by this wonderful woman. As we celebrate her remarkable life, let it be known that Sarah Mae Calhoon will be dearly missed, yet never forgotten.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me say while Senator Bayh is still here, we have not only been Senators together, as he said, we have been Governors together. We were also fathers of young boys, his a few years younger than mine. He believes, as I believe, and certainly as Wade Horn believes, while emphasizing the importance of fathers and fatherhood, we have no intention, no need, no interest in diminishing the importance of the role of mothers. Every child deserves not just one loving, nurturing, caring parent but two. To the extent that we as a society can encourage men to live up to the responsibilities of the children they father and bring into this world, those children will be better for it and so will our country. I say a special thanks to Senator Bayh, for his leadership on this issue. I am delighted to be able to support these efforts. Senator Bayh has known Wade Horn for a half dozen or so years. So have I. I have known him through our work with the National Governors' Association where he came from time to time, at our invitation, to speak on fatherhood. I have known him through his role in cohosting the National Summit on Fatherhood, where I have had the opportunity to participate. I have invited him to my home State of Delaware to speak at our Governor's prayer breakfast, to focus on fatherhood and the importance of fathers in our lives. I also know him, having hosted him in our Governors house, having spent time with him and his wife there. I met his children, his daughters. I have some idea, not just what the author is like, not just what the speaker is like, not just what the policymaker is like, but I feel as if I know him a little bit as a human being. I have seen him in the role of devoted husband and loving father as well. Senator Wellstone said, before he finished his remarks--and I appreciated the concerns he expressed--and I think this is a quote, ``Dr. Horn will be in this position and we will have the opportunity to work with him.'' I hope he is right. I believe Senator Wellstone is right in that. Based on my experience from the last 6 years of knowing Wade Horn and his family, I believe we will appreciate the opportunity to work with him. I feel confident those who question his nomination will come, in the end, to be glad that he was nominated and that we voted to confirm him. I know others have gone back and looked at the words that have been attributed to Dr. Horn in the past. They could do that for me or the Presiding Officer or for any of us and have it appear we say things that, taken out of context, we may not have really said or intended to say. I have never heard Wade Horn speak about compelling women to remain in an abusive relationship or threatening relationships. I have heard him say that too many men fall short in meeting their obligations to the children they father and to the women who bear those children. I have never heard Wade Horn disparage single moms for the work that they do in raising children. I have heard him speak of the need for young girls to see, in their own lives, a father who treats a mother in a way that that young girl herself would want to be treated by her husband someday. I have heard him say there are young boys in this country who need to see how a man treats his wife so that young boy will know how he should treat his wife someday, when he has grown. I have never heard Wade Horn say that children raised by single moms routinely turn out badly. I have heard him say that all children deserve to be raised by two loving, caring, nurturing parents, and that includes their fathers. I have heard it said that as to 16-year-old girls who become pregnant, drop out of school, never marry the father of the children that they bear, 80 percent of them--80 percent of those women and their families will live in poverty at some point in time. As to the 16-year- old girl who does not become pregnant, does not drop out of school, graduates from school, waits until the age of 20 to have a child and marries the father of that child, there is an 8-percent likelihood that family will live in poverty--80 percent on the one hand, 8 percent on the other hand. I cannot stand here today and vouch for those numbers. But if they are even close, I think they serve to underscore for us the need for fathers, for men who father children, to take seriously their obligation to the children they father and to the women who bear them. I believe Wade Horn will serve in this capacity doing a number of good things for the families of our country, men and women, boys and girls. But I think he is going to be a good voice, a recurring voice, one we need to hear, that says: Fathers are not dispensable. They are as important today as they were 100 years ago or 200 years ago. We need to remember that, those of us who are fathers and those of us who someday will be. I am pleased to rise today in support of this nomination, and I hope it will receive ringing endorsement from this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with my distinguished colleague from new Jersey to introduce the FHA Multifamily Housing Mortgage Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2001. A recent report published by the National Housing Conference's Center for Housing Policy found that in 1997, nearly 14 million families either lived in substandard housing or spent more than half of their monthly income on housing costs. This affordable housing shortage also comes at a time of limited resources. Thus, we have to find the best use of each dollar at our disposal, as well as the most effective use of existing Federal programs to stimulate new production and substantial rehabilitation. The Federal Housing Administration's, FHA, multifamily mortgage insurance is an important financing device for housing production. Unfortunately, production through this public/private partnership has been low in recent years. One of the reasons for FHA's absence from the rental housing market is that the multifamily loan limits have not been increased since 1992. While the annual Construction Cost Index, published by the Census Bureau, has increased over 23 percent since 1992, FHA's multifamily loan limits have remained static. These rising construction costs have contributed to FHA's inability to be a significant participant in the production of multifamily housing. Increasing these loan limits by 25 percent, as this legislation does, is something Congress can do today to address immediately the shortage is affordable rental housing. This bill modifies a current federal program, FHA multifamily insurance, to make that program more effective. Importantly, this legislation also indexes the loan limits to the Annual Construction Cost Index. I ask my colleagues to join with Senator Corzine and me to increase these multifamily loan limits so that more working families will have access to affordable rental housing.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with my distinguished colleague from new Jersey to introduce the FHA Multifamily Housing Mortgage Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2001. A recent report published by the National Housing Conference's Center for Housing Policy found that in 1997, nearly 14 million families either lived in substandard housing or spent more than half of their monthly income on housing costs. This affordable housing shortage also comes at a time of limited resources. Thus, we have to find the best use of each dollar at our disposal, as well as the most effective use of existing Federal programs to stimulate new production and substantial rehabilitation. The Federal Housing Administration's, FHA, multifamily mortgage insurance is an important financing device for housing production. Unfortunately, production through this public/private partnership has been low in recent years. One of the reasons for FHA's absence from the rental housing market is that the multifamily loan limits have not been increased since 1992. While the annual Construction Cost Index, published by the Census Bureau, has increased over 23 percent since 1992, FHA's multifamily loan limits have remained static. These rising construction costs have contributed to FHA's inability to be a significant participant in the production of multifamily housing. Increasing these loan limits by 25 percent, as this legislation does, is something Congress can do today to address immediately the shortage is affordable rental housing. This bill modifies a current federal program, FHA multifamily insurance, to make that program more effective. Importantly, this legislation also indexes the loan limits to the Annual Construction Cost Index. I ask my colleagues to join with Senator Corzine and me to increase these multifamily loan limits so that more working families will have access to affordable rental housing.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the amendment before us, which I will ask to be withdrawn in a few moments, is one Senator Landrieu and I offer, and I know has the support of a number of Members of this body from both sides of the aisle. A great deal of effort has gone into crafting a compromise with respect to the appropriate venue, Federal or State, for bringing litigation in cases where an HMO has acted inappropriately. As I have studied this issue over the last week or so, the way the underlying bill assigns venue for State action and for action that is more appropriate in the Federal courts, I have come to believe that the sponsors of the legislation figured it out just right. When it comes to determining damages that might be assigned in cases brought in Federal courts, I personally have concluded that there should not be a cap with respect to economic damages. I further agree with the approach that is taken in the underlying bill, that in cases where noneconomic damages are sought in Federal courts, particularly in cases where children may be involved who are not working, who do not have a livelihood, or in cases where a spouse-- perhaps a woman, but it could easily be a man--who is not in the workforce and stays at home with a family, we may not, if we cap noneconomic damages, be really fair to that young person or to the spouse who is working from the home. However, with respect to damages at the Federal level, as they pertain to punitive claims, I am not comfortable with the approach that is embodied in the underlying bill. Senator Breaux and Senator Frist have offered an approach which I think is better in this regard, and I just want to mention it. It deals with whether or not there should be punitive damages awarded on actions taken in Federal courts. I conclude they have it right and those punitive damages should not be allowed in the Federal courts. Having said that, for actions that are brought in State courts, the laws and rules of the States should prevail. If there are caps in the State courts, that is the business of the States, and that is appropriate. If there are no caps on punitive damages in actions brought before the State courts, that is appropriate as well. As we try to find the compromise here, I believe the underlying bill has it right with the appropriate middle ground on caps and venue. I believe the underlying bill has it right with respect to damages in a Federal action: No caps on either economic or noneconomic damages. I also believe the underlying bill has it right with respect to the proper venue, State versus Federal. I believe my friend from Louisiana and my friend from Tennessee have a better idea with respect to punitive damages and they simply should not be allowed in Federal court. Senator Landrieu is probably en route to the Chamber now to say a few words with respect to the amendment. I do not see that she has arrived yet. If I may, I would like to just reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I say to my friend from New Hampshire that my fervent hope is that when the bill passes the Senate and later the House, and the conference committee is established, the conferees will have a full opportunity to revisit this issue. My hope is that the final compromise will reflect this amendment. I also want to express to the Senator from New Hampshire my heartfelt thanks for the leadership he has provided to the Republican side of the aisle on this issue, and my appreciation for a chance to work with him, as well as the Senator from Massachusetts. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER. That having been said, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARPER. Let me say, too, to my friend from North Carolina, I thank him very much for his overstatement of my contribution. He is very generous. I say back to you, you have been just a terrific manager and cosponsor of this legislation, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to work closely with you and your staff. That having been said, I still do not see Senator Landrieu joining us on the floor. Were she here, she would speak in support of this amendment, but would go on to add some concerns she has with respect to capping noneconomic damages, particularly as they pertain, as I referred to earlier, to young people and spouses who may be staying at home and are not in the workplace.

Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARPER. No more than 15 minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I am pleased to be an original coauthor with Senators Bayh and McCain. The Senator from Indiana is very modest in giving to others the credit, but this is really an idea that I first heard from him. Early this week, Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Bayh and myself were trying to deal with issue of medical necessity. It is a difficult issue around which there are competing interests--doctors, nurses, insurers, patients--who really find consensus hard to reach. I thank Senator Bayh for helping us to find this middle ground on which I am encouraged that maybe we will have strong bipartisan support. I express my thanks to Senators McCain and Kennedy and Edwards for their leadership in getting us here this day, and to my friend, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, for his thoughtful comments, as well as those I heard on the floor yesterday, alluded to by Senator Bayh, from Senator Nickles. As I recited, earlier today Phil Gramm of Texas echoed almost those same comments. Before I return, I want to step back a little bit and go back in time. I used to be State treasurer of Delaware before I was a Congressman, before I was Governor, before I became a Senator. Senator Bayh was Governor of Indiana and was the secretary of state. We worked in those venues before we came here to work. With our State treasurer at the time, we administered benefits of State employees. Among the things I was mindful of was health care costs. In the 1970s and 1980s, health care costs went up enormously. It was not uncommon to see increases then of 20, 25, or even 30 percent annually in the cost of health care for State employees. These really mirrored increases that inured to other employees outside the State of Delaware. Along about the late 1980s, a dozen or so years ago, a number of people began working seriously in this town to figure out how to introduce some competition into the provision of medicine. In a fee- for-service approach in medicine, I might see my doctor and he says, ``You are not well; I will order tests A, B, C and D, and to be sure we will order E, F, G and H,'' and he owns the lab where the tests are administered. Then he says, ``Come back and we will see how you feel next week.'' There really wasn't much impetus for containing costs. As a result, costs spiraled out of control. Managed care was designed and conceived to try to stop that spiraling and introduce some market forces and competition in order to control the cost of health care. It really succeeded better than I think any of its proponents had imagined. Those costs that were going up 20, 25, even 30 percent, back in the 1980s, by the time we got to the end of the 1990s, were going up by 2, 3 percent, in some years nothing at all. As we went about controlling costs, the concerns switched to a different area, and that different area was quality of health care. Instead of a lot of our doctors and nurses making decisions, a lot of decisions for the care to be offered or given to us was made within the HMOs running the managed care operation. In some cases, they were doctors and nurses, and in some cases they were not. What we are trying to do in the context of the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation is restore some balance to the system. We don't want to see costs spiral out of control or employers cutting off health care for employees. By the same token, we want to make sure that more of the medical decisions that affect us if we are covered by an HMO, especially if it falls under a Federal regulation, which ERISA is--we want to make sure we are getting the kinds of protections that inure to folks who are in State HMOs. How do we do that and not lead us back to spiraling, out-of-control costs in a way that is fair to doctors and nurses, and in a way that is fair to employers and at the same time fair to the HMOs? The issue we are trying to address is this: I am in an HMO; I don't like the decision my HMO renders with respect to my health care. I appeal that decision, and it is reviewed by an internal mechanism within the HMO. If they don't provide a decision my doctor and I like, we can appeal to an external reviewer. In some cases, certainly in my State, an external reviewer can override the HMO's decision and mandate the provision of that health care under a State-regulated plan. What about in a case where there is a federally regulated HMO, one that falls under ERISA? What do you do in a case when the language of the plan explicitly excludes the treatment that a member of that plan desires? What do we do when the language of the plan explicitly excludes the very treatment that I or the member of a managed care plan desires? Unintentionally, the language of the bill as drafted says to the external reviewer that you have license to go beyond that which is explicitly excluded in treatment for a patient. That external reviewer can order additional explicitly excluded treatment for a patient. That might be great for the patient, might be appreciated by the patients' doctors and nurses. But how fair is that to the insurer who is trying to cost out a plan, to charge for that plan and have a sum certain to operate with? What Senator Bayh has fashioned, something that he and Senator Nelson and I worked on, is a way to provide that certainty for the insurer and also to provide certainty for the consumer, the patient, and the health care providers. It is a simple change--one endorsed, at least indirectly, by Senator Nickles and today by Senator Gramm. By simply striking a couple lines in his bill and putting a period where a period ought to appear, we helped solve a problem. It doesn't solve all of the problems in this bill, but it solves one of the problems. It is clear, clean, and easy to understand. Let me close my remarks with some comments about another one of our colleagues who, before he was in the Senate, was a Governor, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Before he was Governor, he was insurance commissioner for his State. He has forgotten more about these insurance matters than most of us will ever know. His insights and perspectives on these issues have been enormously helpful to me in this debate. I thank him for joining with Senator Bayh and me and others in the conversations that really led to the emergence of this proposal. Senator Nelson offered an amendment with Senator Kyl a little bit earlier today to try to define medical necessity, which is really the kind of issue we are talking about here. People have been trying to do that for years without a lot of success. While we are not going to agree to change the language in the bill with respect to that, we can say here clearly, if a health plan that falls under the jurisdiction of ERISA explicitly excludes a particular kind of coverage, then in all fairness the external review committee in reviewing an appeal, cannot override the explicit exclusion in that health care plan. That is fair; that is reasonable; it provides certainty for the insurer, and I think it is fair to consumers as well. I am pleased to rise in support of it, and I hope that all of us in this Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and Independent as well, can support this amendment. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this week, this month, we have been seeking to redefine the role of the Federal Government in education in our country. For much of this day we have spent our time in this Chamber trying to make sure that Boy Scouts have the opportunity to have their meetings and their activities in our public schools. As a number of my colleagues, I was a Boy Scout. As a number of our colleagues, I am the father of not one Boy Scout but two Boy Scouts. One just made Star this past week, two steps away from Eagle. The other guy is a new guy, brand new, just was a Weeblo, just crossed over. He is going camping tomorrow night with Troop 67 to Lum's Pond outside Newark, DE. My friends, we have talked about this long enough today. I suggest that we call a halt to this debate and go ahead and vote. There are those of us who want to go camping with the Boy Scouts this weekend. I don't want to be here tomorrow night talking about this issue; I want to be camping.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am grateful to both Senators. Senator Kerry offered two wonderful amendments. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of both of them. I thank him for his leadership. We have spent a fair amount of time talking about academic standards we have set in our schools and other States have set in their schools. We have spent a fair amount of time acknowledging tests are being taken to measure student progress and we need to hold folks accountable-- schools, school districts, and teachers. It has been acknowledged again and again how important having a good teacher in a classroom is to enable all students to reach the standards that are being set in their respective States. Professional development of teachers is critical in my State of Delaware, obviously Massachusetts, and other places. Senator Kerry put his finger on it. It is not enough just to work on the professional development of the teachers or to make sure we have teachers who know their business, know their stuff, love to teach, love kids in our classrooms, but it is critically important that the men and women leading those schools, the principals and assistant principals, learn how to do their jobs well. One of the toughest jobs going these days is not as a Member of the Senate, not even President of the United States. I think one of the toughest jobs in America today is trying to be principal of a school and run the school with all of its challenges--the kids, the curriculum, Federal and State regulations coming at them, dealing with the parents, many of whom are not present in the lives of their children, passing referendums. It is a tough job. The idea that we acknowledge not just that it is a tough job but say to States, you can use some of this Federal money to make sure more of the people leading our schools know how to do their tough job well, is just a wonderful step we are taking. The second thing I want to say with respect to funding, providing the possibility for Federal funds for alternative schools for chronically disruptive students, is that every child can learn. Children who are chronically disruptive came to school behind, started behind, and fell further behind. In many cases they did not have parents engaged in their lives and may not have had the right teachers. Even those kids can learn. They may need to be in a classroom other than the one they are sitting in today or this year. They may need to be in a different school, but they can learn in a different school. If we include in the alternative for disruptive students trained educators and leaders who know how to work with those students who come from tough backgrounds, those kids can learn and can meet the standards, as well. Our role is not to say to States that they have to use this money to train school leaders and principals; our job is not to say they have to use this to provide for alternative schools for disruptive students; but with the amendments we make it an option. I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Smith from Oregon for joining in offering this amendment. I am pleased to stand in support.

Mr. CARPER. May I have 8 of those 19 seconds?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by extending my appreciation to Senator Gregg and a number of our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for joining me in offering this amendment today. Over the course of the last several weeks, we have found considerable common ground as we seek to redefine the role of the Federal Government in education. We believe we need to invest, at the Federal level, more resources, but in programs that work. We agree on the need to give that money to schools and school districts from the Federal Government more flexibly. We agree if we are going to provide more resources, and if we are going to provide those dollars more flexibly, we should demand results there should be accountability. Finally, we all agree on the need to impart to parents the ability to make choices about the schools their children attend. In the 50 States, all but one have adopted rigorous standards about what they expect their students to know and do. In more than half the States of our country this past school year, tests were given to measure student progress toward their State standards in subjects such as math and science and English and social studies. States throughout America have wrestled with consequences, with accountability systems. How do we hold schools accountable, school districts accountable, parents accountable, and politicians as well? We have wrestled with those questions in Delaware. I know we are wrestling with them in all 50 States. The bill we are working on, as it has been modified to date, has some important elements I want us to address with this amendment. I hope in offering this amendment we will make this bill better. I think there is a need for the changes we are offering in this amendment. Under the legislation that has been modified to date and that stands before us today, we call on States to set their academic standards. For the most part they have done that. We call on States to prepare tests-- some have prepared tests to measure student progress, but in this case we are calling on States to prepare tests to measure student progress on an annual basis from the third to eighth grade. We are calling on States to decide at what level they expect all of their students to perform roughly 10 years out. In each of the next 10 years, we are asking them to spell out the benchmarks, the performance levels at which they expect their students to be able to perform, in year 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, out to the 10th year. There are consequences for schools where students do not meet the benchmarks, the improvement that the States themselves agreed on for their own schools. For failing schools--schools that fail to meet their annual progress improvement goals--the consequence is not great in the first year. They will receive technical assistance--more help. I think that is appropriate. The second year a school fails to meet the annual improvement goals for their students, more technical assistance is provided, but there are some additional consequences as well. By the time we get to year 4, for a school that has continued failing 4 years in a row, meaning their students have not met the benchmarks set by their school, set by their State, the consequences become more severe. Let me mention a few of them. First of all, the school district in which that school has failed 4 years in a row must offer public school choice, must provide the transportation for students to go from a failing school to a school that is not failing. In addition, the school district is faced with one of a limited number of options for addressing what to do with that failing school. One of those options is to turn the school over to the State to run. Another option is to disband the school with respect to existing faculty and administration and start all over. A third option will be to turn the school over to a private sector enterprise, a private entity, to run the school. And a fourth option is to mandate that the school be transformed and turned into a charter school. Personally, I hope by the end of year 4 there are not any schools that are failing in this country. But I think that may be the triumph of man's hope over experience. We have tens of thousands of schools. We have thousands of school districts across America. There are going to be schools that do not meet the standards, the benchmarks set by their own States--in some cases, 4 years in a row. What do we do within the Federal Government to help nurture, to foster, to ease that transition to public school choice in those schools that have failed 4 years in a row? I think Delaware was the first State to implement public school choice statewide. We did so to inject market forces into our public schools by saying to parents that if your child's school is failing to meet your expectations for your child, you have the option to go to a variety of other schools, and the State will pay for the transportation. It makes for wonderful change, for good change, and for a positive change as we introduce elements of competition into public education. Unfortunately, if you look at what we are offering within the Federal Government to assist, to nurture, to encourage, and to help ease that transition from traditional public schools to maybe statewide public school choice, we do precious little. The amendment I offer today with Senator Gregg and others says that we ought to do a good deal more. In this amendment, we do. The second question I want to ask rhetorically is, If we say in this legislation before us today that after 4 years of failure we have to do something with that failing school-- one of the options is to turn it into a charter school--what do we do to help make sure that folks who want a charter school might have some ability to succeed in starting a charter school? How do we help them? Under current law, we do a couple of things. Under current law, there is a basic charter school planning and development grant. It does not address brick and mortar, but it helps people who have an idea they would like to start a charter school and are not sure how to do it. It supports technical resource centers and clearinghouses that help point to what is working in other places to start charter schools; but with respect to brick and mortar, to help with the biggest challenge involved in starting up a charter school: Where are we going to have the school? How are we going to pay for building the school? How are going to take over an existing building and refurbish it for our school? It is a huge challenge in my State and every other State. There are 36 States that now have charter schools. But current law doesn't help much in that regard. We help very little in terms of the money that we appropriate. In the current fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, there is a $25 million grant to public entities and private entities that are engaged in providing credit enhancement to help provide space for charter schools. That help might come in the form of loan guarantees. It might come in the form of subsidized loans. It is $25 million. The amendment before us today says that we ought to grow both of these approaches. In the first case, instead of providing $25 million-- the program is currently authorized at $100 million--why don't we increase the authorization to $200 million to provide the assistance that charter schools really need to get started? In the second case, we propose with our amendment to provide short- term matching grants to States that will help these charter schools on the brick and mortar side on the capital side. Currently, in my State folks running a charter school and kids going to that charter school may receive operating money per student at that school equal to the operating funds that go to students in other public schools. However, in those other public schools, if they want to rebuild the school, build a new school, or refurbish a school, the State of Delaware will sell tax-exempt bonds for those public schools. The State of Delaware will pay anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of the cost of the principal and interest on those bonds. If a charter school is trying to get started in my State on the brick and mortar side, we don't do anything for them. We don't issue tax-exempt bonds, or even pay for 1 percent of their capital costs, much less 60 to 80 percent. If you look at the other 36 States, for the most part, those States provide just about the same help to charter schools on the capital side as Delaware--does. I don't think it is the role of the Federal Government to come in and make up all of that difference. We can, as a Federal government, through loan guarantees and subsidized loans, encourage other public and nonpublic entities to assist in starting up charter schools and paying for the brick and mortar costs. We can also provide incentives from my State and other States to provide some capital costs and capital assistance for charter schools. We will provide matching grants at the Federal level. We will not pay for all of it, but we will provide matching grants to help States get those charter schools started. At the beginning of the debate I asked to modify the amendment. I did so because there are some tax consequences that are not appropriate to be debated in the context of this bill because they are within the purview of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. I will mention them anyway. I will use my State as an example because that is what I know best. If the State of Delaware wants to help build public schools, we issue tax-exempt bonds. If a charter school wants to build a school for themselves, they borrow money. The interest is not tax-free. A charter school may be right alongside a traditional public school. The public school gets tax-exempt bonds. Whoever loans the money to the charter school has to pay taxes on the interest. I don't think that is right or fair. I would like to change that. Unfortunately, we cannot do that today. We will try to come back and address it in another venue with another vehicle. For people who voted against the Gregg amendment on a demonstration for vouchers, I understand it was a tough vote. But for people who weren't willing to experiment in that way with choice, I urge you to consider this approach. If you think public school choice can really help introduce market forces and competition into our public schools--other States are trying it--I urge you to vote for this amendment. If you think that we may be able to replicate the success of schools across America as we have done in Delaware--I urge you to vote for this amendment. The Presiding Officer, in another role as First Lady, actually came to the very first charter school we started in Delaware about 5 years ago. We were pleased to welcome her there. We were trying to start a charter high school. I say to the Presiding Officer that last year when the results were counted for tests in reading, math, science, and so forth, the high school that did the best of all the public high schools in Delaware was the Wilmington charter school that she visited. In my State, the only school out of almost 200 schools where every student who took the Delaware math test last year actually met or exceeded the State's math standards, believe it or not, is the school that has the highest incidence of poverty in the State. Eighty-three percent of the kids at the East Side charter school receive free or reduced-price lunches. No other school in our State has an incidence of poverty such as that. Those are only two examples of charter schools: one is a high school and another is K through 3. Charter schools are working well. I hope we will say that the Federal Government should have an obligation. Under the accountability provisions of this legislation, I think there is a real obligation to assist in pushing forward public school choice and in making the transition from traditional public schools to charter schools. Maybe it is not easy, but it is something that is doable. I retain the balance of my time. I turn it over to my colleague, and again say to Senator Gregg, thanks for joining in support of this legislation and, in fact, for amending this legislation to help to make it better.

Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 518 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, let me express my thanks to the chairman, the Senator from Massachusetts, for his support and for his words. I have said on the floor before and I say it again today: We all acknowledge, the role of the Federal Government is not to run our schools, the role of the Federal Government is to try to level the playing field at least a little bit for kids who come, in some cases, from hopelessly disadvantaged backgrounds. The appropriate role of the Federal Government is to help identify what is working to raise student achievement across the country. An appropriate role for the Federal Government is, when we do identify those things that are working, to encourage them. We nurture those ideas. We try to share those ideas with others around the country. I remember when I was Governor of Delaware, about 5 years ago we were debating public school choice. I had just signed, as Governor, public school choice into law. I remember overhearing a conversation between a couple of school administrators. They didn't know I was listening, but I was. I heard one administrator say to the other: If we don't offer parents what they want for their children in our public schools, their children will go to another school where they are offering what they want for their children. I said to myself at the time: He's got it. Because in Delaware and other places where we have public school choice, particularly when you provide help on the transportation side so that it is really meaningful, if a student in school A isn't getting what they want or their parents want for them, they can go to school B. The transportation is provided for, and the money follows the students. That is a really important concept. The money follows the student. In our State, the State provides anywhere from $6,000 to $7,000 per student for their education. When one child goes from school A to school B, the $6,000 or $7,000 follows that student. If one student moves from school A to school B, not many people are going to take notice of that. If 10 students move from school A to school B, that is 10 times $6,000 or $7,000, which is $60,000 or $70,000. Maybe somebody will notice that. If 100 students move from school A to school B because they are offering something school A is not offering, somebody is going to notice that certainly; they are certainly going to notice it in school A. The question they began to ask in my State was: What are they offering there that we are not offering? Maybe we ought to offer it as well. It is the very best thing to come out of competition and out of the market forces we have introduced. Let me also add that I have always believed that the role of government, and particularly the Federal Government, in education is not to row the boat. The role of the Federal Government is maybe to help steer the boat. The Federal Government provides less than 10 percent of the resources for the education of our children. States provide much more. In Delaware, it is 70 percent. Nationally, I think it is about 50 percent. The rest comes from local property taxes. But if we in this body, in this Capitol, in our role as the Federal Government--certainly the legislative side of it--if we can help identify those things that work and if we can nurture them and help steer and not row the boat, our kids, in a lot of places, with relatively modest investments, are going to end up with a better education and be better prepared to go on and face the world with the skills they will need to be successful in college and in work and in life. Senator Kennedy said this is a modest but useful amendment. I think it is going to prove even more useful than we dare to hope today. If it is adopted and ends up in the final bill that goes to the President, we will have a chance to test that premise. I sincerely hope we do. Again, to Senator Gregg, and to others who joined us in cosponsoring the original bill which underlies the amendment, and this amendment itself, I express my thanks. Madam President, I yield back whatever time remains and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire whatever time he needs.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, it is not clear to me who controls the time in opposition.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank both Senator Landrieu and Senator Lieberman for the leadership they have shown in getting us on the right track--I think the track we intended to be on. A friend of mine who used to be my education adviser when I was Governor of Delaware for a number of years used to say that all of us can learn but some of us learn differently. Some of us learn faster than others, but all of us can learn. We are talking about title I, which is a program the Federal Government introduced some 35 years ago to really make sure that young people in our schools--very young people and not so young people--who need extra help in learning to read are going to get it. If they need extra help in math, they are going to get it. Our job is to make sure they get that extra help which they need to enable them to be successful. We are seeking through the debate in the last couple of weeks, and certainly the debate through this week, to redefine the Federal role in education. Nobody here believes the role of the Federal Government in education is to run our schools in Delaware, Nebraska, or in any other State. The role of the Federal Government, as Senator Lieberman said, is to try to help level that playing field so that all kids have a real shot at meeting the academic standards that have been established in their States. In the course of the debate on this bill, we are agreeing on a number of important principles. One is that we ought to be investing more money and to transition Federal resources to raise student achievement. We ought to give that money to schools so that school districts have more flexibly with fewer strings, that we can provide more money and fewer strings, that we ought to require results and demand results. That means accountability and consequences for schools and students who do well, as well as for those who do not do well. Another thing on which we agree is the need for parents to have greater choices in where they send their kids to school--to have a public school choice and charter schools as well. During the course of this debate, one of the things I have learned-- and Senator Lieberman just said it again--is that for a lot of our schools around the country that have a fair amount of poverty, we don't fund title I. It is a strange thing. In a school where the level of poverty is over 50 percent, over half the kids are getting free or reduced-price lunches. That is a school where we can provide title I money and extra learning time for kids who need it. But in about 20 percent of our schools, we don't do that at all. Nobody here is interested in throwing money at the problem. We are interesting in investing money in programs that work, especially where the need is the greatest. I have stood here on the floor in the last couple of weeks and talked about three programs that we know work where we don't invest the money we ought to be investing. The first is Head Start. We provide Head Start funding for fewer than half of the eligible 3- and 4-year-olds in this country. States such as Delaware and Ohio have provided extra money on their own to help make it possible for all 4-year-olds in Delaware, for example, to be in the Head Start Program. But nationally, the Federal Government provides Head Start money for fewer than half of the eligible 3- and 4-year-olds. We know it works. We just do not provide the money. Another program is the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and Federal money for special education programs. We are supposed to, by agreement, provide up to 40 percent of the funds in States across America for students in special education programs. Do we do that? No. We don't provide 40 percent, or 30 percent, or 20, or even 10 percent of the funding. We know it works. But we don't invest the money. The third program we are talking about today with title I is the Extra Learning Time Program, which the Federal Government funds. We don't fund money for every child who is eligible for the program. We don't provide extra money and time for even half of the kids who are eligible. It is one out of three; that is all. In a situation where we know the program works and we know that if we invest the money we will raise student achievement, in the situation where we have a little more money in terms of our budget surplus than we have had in recent years, having taken some of that money off the table through a tax cut--we don't have unlimited money--I think it is incumbent on us, as we increase the spending, to spend a little extra money in this title I for Extra Learning Time. Let's spend it where the kids are most needy. Let's target that money where it will make the most difference. It is really common sense. Let me close by saying this. I talk a lot about Delaware. That is the State I know most about, just as other Members know about Louisiana, Nebraska, or their respective States. I visited a little school in southwestern Delaware a week or so ago, West Seaford Elementary. I met with the principal, a number of the teachers, and an administrator or two. We talked about a variety of ways in which we are trying to raise student achievement. I will mention a couple of them. There is a State program in the department that provides services for children. Their emphasis is to put in that school a social worker--a family crisis therapist who is a go-between for that school and the families who are in a crisis to work; a go-between to help make sure whatever is going wrong at home gets fixed--the child has a better learning environment at home, and the parents will be able to work with the kids at school. I met with a woman who coordinates the mentoring program. She comes in every week and works with kids to help them in this school. There was also a teacher in the room funded by smaller classroom size appropriations. In other words, we provide money for smaller classrooms. They use that money to hire extra teachers. There was a lady there who was funded out of that. Finally, there was a title I teacher there who worked with kids, especially with their reading. These were part of the team that works very successfully at West Seaford to make it possible for just about every kid to reach the standards we set in our State in reading and writing and math. One of the best things we have done in this legislation is provide some extra money and provide more flexibly so that schools such as West Seaford can use those disparate sources of State and Federal and local moneys in ways that they know will work to help their kids do better. While I applaud the fact that we are providing extra money through this authorization bill--and we are going to provide that money with more flexibility--we demand accountability. Hopefully, tomorrow with the Carper-Gregg amendment, we will work a little more on poverty parents through public schools and charter schools. I think it is important, as we spend those extra dollars, to make sure they go to the schools where the need is the greatest. In this day and age where one out of every five schools and where well over half of the kids living in poverty don't have access to the help they get in title I, that is wrong. We can fix it here. My hope is that by agreeing to this amendment, we will do just that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. We in the Senate should be concerned foremost with what is going to work to raise student achievement. We want to provide the resources that will enable and foster and nurture that achievement. We also want to make sure we take away barriers to that student achievement. When I was sitting as the Presiding Officer during the debate, I realized the nature of the amendment being offered, and I felt compelled to applaud what we are endeavoring to do. It reminds me that 10 years ago we faced a roadblock in my own State of Delaware because we were unable to do, on a small scale, what we seek to do with this amendment. I know it is not just our State but in the 49 other States young men and young women will benefit if we are able to include this in the legislation that goes to the President, and then if we follow up in the 50 States of America. I applaud each of you for offering the amendment and thank you for the opportunity to speak on its behalf.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas very much for providing me the 1 minute. And I thank the Presiding Officer for sitting in for me so I might speak. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment that is being offered.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, as we gather today in this Chamber, it is quiet. We have people here prepared to take down our words, but relatively few words are being said. We are on the threshold of a historic occasion here in the Senate, where the leadership, at least the majority, is about to pass from our Republican friends to the Democrats' side of the aisle. While there are many issues about which there might be partisan disagreements, there are many issues on which there is bipartisan agreement. One of those is the education of our children. Today, visiting our Nation's Capitol, coming to this Chamber and that on the other end of the building in the House of Representatives, are the young and the old. In those groups of visitors to their Nation's Capitol are many schoolchildren. In many cases they are with parents and with teachers. They have come here to experience our Capitol, to experience the longest living democracy in the history of the world, the United States of America. This Chamber was not silent just for a good part of this day but for much of last week as well, as we were in recess in observance of Memorial Day. In Delaware and in States across the country, on Memorial Day and during last week, we remembered and saluted and thanked our veterans who served in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, who in many cases sacrificed their lives in wars of the past century, and the two before that. There is a document we are all proud of in this country called the Constitution. The Constitution of our Nation is the longest living written constitution of any nation on Earth. It was adopted on September 17, 1787, first by the little State of Delaware. As I like to kid my colleagues, Delaware for one whole week was the entire United States of America. Then we opened it up, and other States came in: Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Maryland and the rest joined us. Eventually there were 50 of us, and it has turned out well. Mr. President, 213 years later we are going strong. Every now and then our democracy is put to the test. That democracy will be put to the test in this Chamber as we prepare for the passing of the torch from the current majority, Republicans, to the next majority, the Democrats. One issue we will address later this afternoon, to take up again, is one we have been addressing for the better part of a month, and that is redefining the role of the Federal Government in the education of our children. While we have some disagreements in the margins, there is much about which we agree. I say to all who come here today and in the days ahead to observe this debate, whether you happen to be from schools in Claymont, DE, or schools in Colorado or any other place, that we will endeavor to do our best to make sure the young people--very young people and those not quite so young--will have every opportunity to be successful in their schools and in their later endeavors, so when they walk across the stage and get that diploma and leave high school, it means they are ready to go on to be successful in college, careers, military, the private sector, public service sector--whatever they do--to be successful for their employers and, just as importantly, for themselves. There is a meeting commencing this afternoon, after the Democrat and Republican caucuses. A number of Democrat and a number of Republican Senators were invited to the White House, presumably to meet with the President and members of his administration to discuss education reform. While the numbers have shifted here a bit in the Senate, what should not have shifted is our commitment to our young people and making sure the Federal Government plays a more appropriate role in the years ahead. As we infuse more resources into our public schools, as we provide greater resources to the public schools, we seek to hold those schools accountable for results, rewarding the kind of performance we want to see and, where it is not happening, to make sure we take steps and the schools take steps to get the kind of performance they want and need and we desire as well. Finally, we must make sure, better than we did before, that we empower parents to make decisions, real decisions, meaningful decisions, about the education of their children in the public schools of America. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.