Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid. As we come to a conclusion on this bill, I just ask a couple of rhetorical questions I want us to consider. One of those is, do we believe as a people--not just as a Senate but as a people--that those in our country who incur substantial debt, in many cases through no fault of their own, should be able to gain access to help, to the forgiveness that can be found in a bankruptcy court? I think most of us would say, yes, they ought to have that right. If we ask the second question: If someone filing for bankruptcy has the ability to repay a portion of their debts, should we expect that of them? I think most of us in this Chamber and across the country would agree, if they have the ability to repay a portion of their debts, they ought to do that. Those are really the easy questions. The harder question in this debate is how do you determine who has the ability to repay a portion of their debts? In some cases, we give to a bankruptcy judge the discretion to make those decisions. In the legislation before us today, that we will vote on in a short while for final passage, we go a step beyond that. It is a good step. What we do is provide, in essence, a safe harbor for those who really do not have a whole lot of money in the first place, so they can gain access to file under chapter 7 and not have to go through an extended process of demonstrating a need or lack of means. The way it works is pretty simple. I will discuss it again. I want to reiterate it. Those families whose income is below 100 percent of family median income--that is about $46,000 in Delaware for a family of four; in Alabama it might be $33,000; in Connecticut it might be $50,000--have a safe harbor. They can go right to chapter 7 and file. That is pretty much the ball game. For those whose income is between 100 percent of median income and 150 percent of median income, they have the option to get an expedited review, and in all likelihood will go ahead and file under chapter 7 as well. For those people who have extenuating circumstances, and they don't meet either the test of safe harbor, the test of 100 percent or 150 percent of median family income, or they have extra medical expenses, those can be taken into account. If they have extra expenses for educational needs, those can become extenuating circumstances. For people who have seen a marriage end or for people who have lost their jobs, those can be extenuating circumstances and be accounted for by a bankruptcy judge who is given discretion to decide whether or not a person can then go ahead and file under chapter 7. There is another very important change in the bill. I would like to share a letter I received from the child support enforcement agency in my State. As in other States, Delaware has a child support enforcement agency to make sure parents meet their obligations to their children for whom they do not have custody. In my State, our child support enforcement agency endorsed this legislation. Frankly, that has been the case in virtually every State across America. The reason they do it is simple. This legislation makes it more likely that people who have an obligation to the children for whom they don't have custody will meet their obligations. Similarly, people who have an obligation to their spouse or former spouse for alimony will meet that obligation. Under current law, once satisfied in bankruptcy, there are secured creditors, and there is money left over. When it comes to unsecured creditors, children and former spouses are near the end of the line. Under this bill, children, alimony payments, and child support payments move not to the end of the line under the nonsecured creditors but to the front of the line. That is an important change of which we need to be mindful. I know not everybody agrees with what we have done. There is some disagreement as well. We had debate on an amendment that said to those people who might try to take their assets and go to a State where there is no limit on the amount of money they can put into an estate, a home, or residence to protect it from bankruptcy--we have attempted to make a real change there--to the extent they would have done it, it would have had to have been at least 2 years before bankruptcy, and it is capped at $150,000. I know that causes heartburn for some people. But it also goes a long way in protecting the abuses that occasionally occur when people do just that. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Sessions. I express my thanks to those on our side--especially to Senator Biden and Senator Torricelli, and others--who have worked real hard to get us to a compromise which I think is fairer to creditors and certainly fairer to those who incur debt than is the current case. I think it significantly increases the ability for those who have the capability of paying their debts to do so while better ensuring that those who do not will not be punished. I yield back the floor.

Mr. CARPER. The amendment offered by Senator Leahy is a good amendment and he has pointed to a problem with the bill, I think unintentional. This is the situation we face: We have a husband and a wife and they are living separately, maybe at the end of their marriage, and the wife wants to file for bankruptcy. The income of her spouse will be imputed, regardless of whether or not that spouse is providing any kind of support at all. As a result, in most cases the wife would not be able to file chapter 7 and enjoy the benefit of safe harbor. Mr. Leahy would have us fix that. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, the problem that flows out of the amendment is that in some cases that husband really is providing support for that spouse. It is important we find that out; that we not create a situation, unwittingly, where fraud could prevail and where that husband, in most cases, is supporting the wife and supporting the family and does not acknowledge as much. There is a simple way to fix it, and I hope in conference Senator Leahy and others will find that appropriate fix.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, for the last hour or so we have been privileged to hear comments from Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy who discussed the debate of the bankruptcy reform legislation, which took place in the Judiciary Committee over the last several weeks. We now have the opportunity, today and tomorrow, to begin amending the bankruptcy reform legislation that was vetoed by President Clinton last year. I wish to express my own appreciation to both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee for letting the process work, and for moving the process forward. I especially thank Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch for working out a compromise on those who would use bankruptcy as a way to avoid their responsibilities; or for those who have brought action against family planning clinics, or, frankly, any act of violence, intimidation or threat. I am appreciative of Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch for the work they have done in trying to make sure that consumer privacy protections are provided in this legislation. The history of bankruptcy is known by many people. For much of the last century, individuals and businesses have been able to seek protection through bankruptcy in order to put their lives back together, or their businesses back together. Several chapters that exist for bankruptcy are designed to provide a place for consumers to find relief. In the last decade we have witnessed some of the strongest economic expansion in our country's history--the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history--yet during the 1990s we have seen an alarming increase in the number of people filing for bankruptcy. Not all of those people who filed for bankruptcy had any other recourse. In fact, the lion's share of the people who filed for bankruptcy last year--or the year before that and the year before that--were folks who were up against the wall. They needed a way out and for them bankruptcy was that way out. There are people who lost their jobs; people whose family suffered illnesses; maybe catastrophic illnesses; or marriages that were dissolved; or relationships that came to an end. And because of those situations and others like them, those families need the protection of bankruptcy. Not everyone who files for bankruptcy needs the protection afforded them in chapter 7. For some who file, chapter 7 is not the appropriate venue, because they have the ability to pay at least a portion of their debt. If an individual can repay some of their debt, they should instead file under chapter 13. The challenge that the committees in the Senate and House faced last year was to try to figure out a fair way to determine who indeed had the ability to pay something of their debts and who did not. Among the other reasons why we need reform--it has been alluded to before, and I will touch on it briefly--is that under current bankruptcy law those who have an obligation to pay child support, or those who have an obligation to make alimony payments, in many cases find those priorities low on their list. And, frankly, they are pretty low on the list of the bankruptcy laws of our land. We need to do something about that. This legislation would. It would raise the priority of child support payments and alimony payments as well. Currently those who have those kinds of obligations to their children, or to a former spouse, also have to try to use something called the automatic stay as a way to avoid meeting those obligations while their bankruptcy case winds its way through court, and sometimes this can be a long period of time. This legislation would end the automatic stay for child support and alimony payments, making sure individuals are responsible for these personal obligations. State and local governments are affected as well. As former Governor of Delaware, and former chairman of the National Governors' Association, one of the reasons why the National Governors' Association supported bankruptcy reform was to make sure individuals who had the ability to pay some of their State and local taxes were called upon to do that where it was reasonable. This legislation would do that. In the end, when people who have the ability to pay, do not pay and walk away from those debts, the rest of us end up paying the costs of their bankruptcy. Businesses and creditors have to swallow the debt. Then, those of us who borrow money--whether it is for a house, or for a car, or for credit card purchases--in the end we pay more than we really ought to. This is not fair to the majority of us who pay our bills. I have only been in the Senate for about 2 months. One of the comments I have heard most frequently is the old adage ``don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' My guess is we are going to hear that a lot on the Senate floor this week. I will be the first to say it. This bill represents in many respects so much that is needed. The changes don't do everything I would like. I will mention a couple of concerns that I have. I think it was Senator Leahy who spoke a few moments ago about the credit card applications that come to our children. In some cases rather young children, even to our pets. I think he referred to Rover, Rover Leahy. I do not know if his dog actually did get a credit card application. I would just say we get a lot of mail in our home. I am sure we all do. We probably get more credit card solicitations than we would like. But we simply throw them away if we are not interested. If credit card issuers or, frankly, others who are extending credit are so foolish as to extend credit to a pet or to a child, who does not have the ability to repay that obligation, that is a poor underwriting decision by the extender of the credit. And they deserve, in the end, what they will get. It is issued probably to someone who either maybe will not use it, or if they do use it, it is perhaps not with the intent of ever paying that obligation. For the real person who is actually extended the credit card under those circumstances, under this bill, if they do not have the ability to pay, if, indeed, their income is under a median family income, they have a safe harbor. If they have to declare bankruptcy, they will continue to have the ability to file under chapter 7 and will not have to pay that obligation. Senator Leahy also mentioned the issue of disclosure. We get our credit card statements whenever they come. There is a statement on the credit card that says: If you pay your minimum monthly amount that is due, you can do so and not incur any kind of penalty. The credit card does not say how long it is going to take you to actually pay off your credit card bill if you only pay the minimum. I wish there was some way to address that in a way that does not put the extender, the creditor, in harm's way with respect to class action lawsuits. This is a difficult situation. The bill that is before us this week does provide an example to those of us who are consumers and explains that if we only pay the minimum payment, it may take an extended period of time to pay our credit card bill. It actually uses an example, as I understand it. Creditors, in this case, issuers of a credit card, are to provide on the statement an example that if this is how much you owe, and you pay your minimum payment--and this is the interest rate--this is how long it will take you to actually pay down your obligation. They actually offer a 1-800 number that someone can call to say: ``My debt is $800. That is what my statement says. My minimum payment is $20 a month. How long will it take me to pay it off?'' We can get an answer by calling the 1-800 number. I wish we had the ability to put a close estimate of what the debt would cost a consumer, and how long it would take to pay off, right on the credit card statement. I am told the reason why the bill out of committee does not do that is because of concerns about class action lawsuits. That is a legitimate concern but, for me, the solution is not a perfect one. The other issue I wish we could address is the homestead exemption. I understand Senator Kohl may try to address this issue this week. People roll up big debts and then go to a State that has a large homestead exemption, and they put a lot of money, a lot of assets therein, for example, a very expensive home--a quarter of a million dollars, half a million dollars, or million-dollar home--and then walk away from their other obligations and use that estate, that homestead to protect their assets. I understand Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment that makes this practice somewhat more difficult to do. I welcome that provision. But most of the people who file for bankruptcy are not folks who seek to try to stiff credit card or financial institutions or department stores or anyone else. They are people who are left with little other choice. As I said earlier, they have been dealt, in many cases, a difficult or maybe a crippling blow in their lives. More than 90 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy actually need the protection of the laws, and fewer than 10 percent actually have the ability to pay something back. But of those people who do have the ability to pay something back, I believe--and I suspect almost all of us believe--that they should repay at least a portion of their debts. I don't care if it is only 5 percent of the people who file who have the ability to pay something back--or 4 percent or 3 percent--if they have the ability, they should make that effort. We should expect that of them and of ourselves. A major challenge the committee has faced, and the Congress has faced, in trying to craft an appropriate balance--weighing the concerns and rights of consumers versus those who extend the credit--is in relation to the tough questions that we have dealt with, such as how do you actually determine the ability to repay? We all come from different family circumstances in terms of employment, marital status, and illness. How do we determine who has the ability to repay? The committee, to its credit, has provided for a safe harbor, essentially to say people whose median family income falls below that of 100 percent of the median family income with respect to their State, they would automatically have a safe harbor. They could file for bankruptcy in chapter 7, and they basically get a free pass. What is 100 percent of median family income? I think for a family of four in Delaware, it is about $45,000 a year. I think in Maryland, it is about $50,000 a year; and in Alabama, it is perhaps $35,000 a year. For those whose family income is between 100 percent of median family income and 150 percent of median family income, they would receive, not a complete pass, but a rather cursory review to see if they would not also qualify for that safe harbor. So we are talking about, in Maryland, for example, those whose income is between $50,000 and $75,000 would be below the 150-percent threshold, and I think would, for the most part, after an expedited review, have the right to file under chapter 7. I think it is appropriate to ask, for one who files for bankruptcy, what kind of expenses are factored in when determining whether or not a person has the ability to pay? We get beyond these thresholds of 100 percent of median family income, 150 percent of median family income. Is anything else taken into account? As it turns out, a number of payments are. And they are the kind of payments we would expect for people to be able to hold their households together and be able to work. For example, a person who is asking to file under chapter 7, as opposed to chapter 13, if their income exceeds those thresholds of 100 percent or 150 percent of median family income, they could present documentation to the bankruptcy court indicating how much their housing costs, their rent or mortgage payments are. If they have car payments, those would be appropriate, as well as would education expenses, clothing, and food allowances. Judges are given discretion to address special needs as well, including medical costs. Let me close by saying Senator Leahy, in his comments, talked about how many credit card solicitations are mailed out every year. I think he indicated the number is over 3 billion. That is a lot of mail. I would just remind everyone, as those credit card solicitations come into our mail boxes, of course, we do not have to take advantage of all of them. When I drive down the road in Delaware, and I go by an ice cream store or a doughnut shop, as much as I might be tempted to pull in and sample their wares, I do not always do that. We have to show some personal discretion regardless of how tempting those treats might be. But if financial institutions actually do make money, and if their bottom lines are enhanced to some extent by the adoption of this legislation, my guess is, in the end, they all do not keep that money. My guess is, in the end, if you think about the competition--and it is a dog-eat-dog world these days in the credit card business--if I do not like the interest payment that comes with my credit card, I can find dozens of other issuers with a lower rate. If I do not like the monthly fee that I am asked to pay, I can find dozens of other issuers with lower monthly fees. I would simply suggest the competitive nature of the business, including the credit card business, is such that for those issuers of credit cards who do not pass along some of those savings to consumers, then their competitors will. If competitors lower their interest rates and reduce or eliminate their monthly fees, those of us who are consumers will move off to take advantage of their lower interest rates and lower fees. Let me conclude with these comments. I am glad we are at this point in the debate. I look forward to the debate over the next several days. I am very pleased we are going to have this debate. And those who have amendments, if they want to offer them, will have the opportunity to do so. We will debate them, and vote on them, and then vote on final passage. I hope the amendments make the bill even a little better than it is today. I think it is better today than it was going into the committee a week or so ago. I am pleased to participate in the debate.

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Luis Rivera, of the Finance Committee staff, be accorded floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today we stand and honor the life and accomplishments of ``The Man'' Dale Earnhardt. Millions of Americans will remember him as a NASCAR legend, perhaps the best that ever raced. But the people I've spoken with and read about who knew him well remember better a kind father, a loving husband, and a trusted friend. For over 21 years, Dale Earnhardt delighted hundreds of thousands of people at the Dover Downs, International Speedway in my state of Delaware. Like most of the places Dale raced, at Dover Downs he won, and won big. But the people of my State honor him for more than his wins at our NASCAR track, three first-place finishes, or the money he earned there, the most of any Winston Cup driver in history. The reverence and respect from NASCAR fans stems from his constant pursuit of excellence and his refusal to give less than his all every time he took to the track. They called him ``The Intimidator,'' and on the track, that was true, but to the fans in Dover that he spent time with signing autographs, shaking hands, and in some cases sharing dinner at their kitcken table, Dale Earnhardt was known as ``The Man.'' Last Friday, Dover Downs opened up to those who needed a chance to say ``good bye.'' Even though a blizzard had blown through our State the night before, over 5,000 people turned out to pay their respects. In a moving display of affection, families created in the winner's circle a shrine of flowers, posters, hats, pictures, and poems honoring their hero. I was told once that the greatest measures of a man's life are the people he has touched, the difference he has made and the standards he has set for others to follow. Despite his passing, Dale Earnhardt's legacy of excellence will forever influence his sport and its millions of fans. We honor him today for the lives he touched and the Children he inspired.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act. I want to congratulate my good friends, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana, for their strong leadership on this issue. When they first introduced this legislation back last year, the prospects for bipartisan education reform looked far different than they do today. Members on the two sides of the aisle were sharply divided over the future of the federal role in education. As a result, the Congress failed last year to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the first time in its 35- year history. Last year, it took courage and foresight for the supporters of this legislation to step into the partisan breach in the way that they did. This bill received all of 13 votes when it was first brought to the floor. Today, we ought to all be grateful for the leadership of those 13 senators, because this year the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act represents the best hope and the best blueprint for finally achieving meaningful, bipartisan reform of the federal role in education. For the last eight years, I had the great privilege of serving my little State as governor. During that time, I worked together with legislators from both sides of the aisle, with educators and others, to set rigorous standards, to provide local schools with the resources and flexibility they needed, and in return to demand accountability for results. We in Delaware have not been alone in this endeavor. We have been part of a nationwide movement for change--a movement of parents and teachers, of employers, legislators and governors, who believe that our public schools can be improved and that every child can learn. As a former chairman of the National Governors' Association, I can attest that the Federal Government is frequently a lagging indicator when it comes to responsiveness to change. It is clearly states and local communities that are leading the movement for change in public education today. The bill we introduce today does not seek to make the Federal Government the leader in education reform by micromanaging the operation of local schools. Nor does this legislation seek to perpetuate the status quo in which the Federal Government passively funds and facilitates failure. Rather, this legislation seeks for the first time to make the Federal Government a partner and catalyst in the movement for reform that we see all across this country at the State and local level. This legislation refocuses Federal policy on doing a few things, but doing them well. It redirects Federal policy toward the purpose of achieving results rather than promulgating yet more rules and regulations. I believe we have a tremendous opportunity this year to achieve bipartisan consensus to reform and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and in so doing to redeem the original intent of that landmark legislation. I want to express my appreciation to our new President for his interest in renewing educational opportunity in America and leaving no child behind. There is much in the legislation we introduce today that squares with the plan that the President sent to Congress last week. We on this side of the aisle agree with the President that we need to invest more federal dollars in our schools, particularly in schools that serve the neediest students. We also agree that the dollars we provide, we should provide more flexibly. And we agree that if we are going to provide more money, and if we are going to provide that money more flexibly, we should demand results. That's the formula: invest in reform; insist on results. I believe we also agree with our new President that parents should be empowered to make choices to send their children to a variety of different schools. We agree that parents are the first enforcers of accountability in public education. Where we disagree is in how we provide that choice. The President believes that the best way to empower parents and to provide them with choices is to give children and their parents vouchers of $1,500. With all due respect, that is an empty promise. In my State, you just can't get your child into most private or parochial schools for $1,500 per year. That is simply an empty promise. I believe there is a better way. I believe we've found a better way in my little State of Delaware. Four years ago, we introduced statewide public school choice. We also passed our first charter schools law. I knew that this was going to work when I heard the following conversation between a school administrator and some of his colleagues. He said, ``If we don't provide parents and families what they want and need, they'll send their kids somewhere else.'' I thought to myself, ``Right! He's got it.'' We have 200 public schools in my small State, and students in all of these schools take our test measuring what they know and can do in reading, writing, and math. We also measure our schools by the incidence of poverty, from highest to lowest. The school with the highest incidence of poverty in my state is the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, Delaware. The incidence of poverty there is 83 percent. Its students are almost all minority. It is right in the center of the projects in Wilmington. In the first year after East Side Charter School opened its doors, very few of its students met our state standards in math. Last spring, every third grader there who took our math test met or exceeded our standards, which is something that happened at no other school in the state. It's a remarkable story. And it's been possible because East Side Charter School is a remarkable school. Kids can come early and stay late. They have a longer school year. They wear school uniforms. Parents have to sign a contract of mutual responsibility. Teachers are given greater authority to innovate and initiate. We need to ensure that parents and students are getting what they want and need, and if they're not getting what they want and need that they have the choice--and most importantly that they have they have the ability--to go somewhere else. A $1,500 voucher doesn't give parents that ability, at least not in my State. Public school choice and charter schools do. We agree on many things. Where we disagree, as on vouchers, I believe we can find common ground. I believe that we can come together, for example, to provide a ``safety valve'' to children in failing schools, in the way of broader public school choice and greater access to charter schools. I am therefore hopeful about the prospects for bipartisan agreement and for meaningful reform. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act. I want to congratulate my good friends, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana, for their strong leadership on this issue. When they first introduced this legislation back last year, the prospects for bipartisan education reform looked far different than they do today. Members on the two sides of the aisle were sharply divided over the future of the federal role in education. As a result, the Congress failed last year to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the first time in its 35- year history. Last year, it took courage and foresight for the supporters of this legislation to step into the partisan breach in the way that they did. This bill received all of 13 votes when it was first brought to the floor. Today, we ought to all be grateful for the leadership of those 13 senators, because this year the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act represents the best hope and the best blueprint for finally achieving meaningful, bipartisan reform of the federal role in education. For the last eight years, I had the great privilege of serving my little State as governor. During that time, I worked together with legislators from both sides of the aisle, with educators and others, to set rigorous standards, to provide local schools with the resources and flexibility they needed, and in return to demand accountability for results. We in Delaware have not been alone in this endeavor. We have been part of a nationwide movement for change--a movement of parents and teachers, of employers, legislators and governors, who believe that our public schools can be improved and that every child can learn. As a former chairman of the National Governors' Association, I can attest that the Federal Government is frequently a lagging indicator when it comes to responsiveness to change. It is clearly states and local communities that are leading the movement for change in public education today. The bill we introduce today does not seek to make the Federal Government the leader in education reform by micromanaging the operation of local schools. Nor does this legislation seek to perpetuate the status quo in which the Federal Government passively funds and facilitates failure. Rather, this legislation seeks for the first time to make the Federal Government a partner and catalyst in the movement for reform that we see all across this country at the State and local level. This legislation refocuses Federal policy on doing a few things, but doing them well. It redirects Federal policy toward the purpose of achieving results rather than promulgating yet more rules and regulations. I believe we have a tremendous opportunity this year to achieve bipartisan consensus to reform and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and in so doing to redeem the original intent of that landmark legislation. I want to express my appreciation to our new President for his interest in renewing educational opportunity in America and leaving no child behind. There is much in the legislation we introduce today that squares with the plan that the President sent to Congress last week. We on this side of the aisle agree with the President that we need to invest more federal dollars in our schools, particularly in schools that serve the neediest students. We also agree that the dollars we provide, we should provide more flexibly. And we agree that if we are going to provide more money, and if we are going to provide that money more flexibly, we should demand results. That's the formula: invest in reform; insist on results. I believe we also agree with our new President that parents should be empowered to make choices to send their children to a variety of different schools. We agree that parents are the first enforcers of accountability in public education. Where we disagree is in how we provide that choice. The President believes that the best way to empower parents and to provide them with choices is to give children and their parents vouchers of $1,500. With all due respect, that is an empty promise. In my State, you just can't get your child into most private or parochial schools for $1,500 per year. That is simply an empty promise. I believe there is a better way. I believe we've found a better way in my little State of Delaware. Four years ago, we introduced statewide public school choice. We also passed our first charter schools law. I knew that this was going to work when I heard the following conversation between a school administrator and some of his colleagues. He said, ``If we don't provide parents and families what they want and need, they'll send their kids somewhere else.'' I thought to myself, ``Right! He's got it.'' We have 200 public schools in my small State, and students in all of these schools take our test measuring what they know and can do in reading, writing, and math. We also measure our schools by the incidence of poverty, from highest to lowest. The school with the highest incidence of poverty in my state is the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, Delaware. The incidence of poverty there is 83 percent. Its students are almost all minority. It is right in the center of the projects in Wilmington. In the first year after East Side Charter School opened its doors, very few of its students met our state standards in math. Last spring, every third grader there who took our math test met or exceeded our standards, which is something that happened at no other school in the state. It's a remarkable story. And it's been possible because East Side Charter School is a remarkable school. Kids can come early and stay late. They have a longer school year. They wear school uniforms. Parents have to sign a contract of mutual responsibility. Teachers are given greater authority to innovate and initiate. We need to ensure that parents and students are getting what they want and need, and if they're not getting what they want and need that they have the choice--and most importantly that they have they have the ability--to go somewhere else. A $1,500 voucher doesn't give parents that ability, at least not in my State. Public school choice and charter schools do. We agree on many things. Where we disagree, as on vouchers, I believe we can find common ground. I believe that we can come together, for example, to provide a ``safety valve'' to children in failing schools, in the way of broader public school choice and greater access to charter schools. I am therefore hopeful about the prospects for bipartisan agreement and for meaningful reform. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act. I want to congratulate my good friends, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana, for their strong leadership on this issue. When they first introduced this legislation back last year, the prospects for bipartisan education reform looked far different than they do today. Members on the two sides of the aisle were sharply divided over the future of the Federal role in education. As a result, the Congress failed last year to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the first time in its 35- year history. Last year, it took courage and foresight for the supporters of this legislation to step into the partisan breach in the way that they did. This bill received all of 13 votes when it was first brought to the floor. Today, we ought to all be grateful for the leadership of those 13 senators, because this year the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act represents the best hope and the best blueprint for finally achieving meaningful, bipartisan reform of the Federal role in education. For the last eight years, I had the great privilege of serving my little State as governor. During that time, I worked together with legislators from both sides of the aisle, with educators and others, to set rigorous standards, to provide local schools with the resources and flexibility they needed, and in return to demand accountability for results. We in Delaware have not been alone in this endeavor. We have been part of a nationwide movement for change--a movement of parents and teachers, of employers, legislators and governors, who believe that our public schools can be improved and that every child can learn. As a former chairman of the National Governors' Association, I can attest that the Federal Government is frequently a lagging indicator when it comes to responsiveness to change. It is clearly states and local communities that are leading the movement for change in public education today. The bill we introduce today does not seek to make the Federal Government the leader in education reform by micromanaging the operation of local schools. Nor does this legislation seek to perpetuate the status quo in which the Federal Government passively funds and facilitates failure. Rather, this legislation seeks for the first time to make the Federal Government a partner and catalyst in the movement for reform that we see all across this country at the State and local level. This legislation refocuses Federal policy on doing a few things, but doing them well. It redirects Federal policy toward the purpose of achieving results rather than promulgating yet more rules and regulations. I believe we have a tremendous opportunity this year to achieve bipartisan consensus to reform and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and in so doing to redeem the original intent of that landmark legislation. I want to express my appreciation to our new President for his interest in renewing educational opportunity in America and leaving no child behind. There is much in the legislation we introduce today that squares with the plan that the President sent to Congress last week. We on this side of the aisle agree with the President that we need to invest more Federal dollars in our schools, particularly in schools that serve the neediest students. We also agree that the dollars we provide, we should provide more flexibly. And we agree that if we are going to provide more money, and if we are going to provide that money more flexibly, we should demand results. That's the formula: invest in reform; insist on results. I believe we also agree with our new President that parents should be empowered to make choices to send their children to a variety of different schools. We agree that parents are the first enforcers of accountability in public education. Where we disagree is in how we provide that choice. The President believes that the best way to empower parents and to provide them with choices is to give children and their parents vouchers of $1,500. With all due respect, that is an empty promise. In my State, you just can't get your child into most private or parochial schools for $1,500 per year. That is simply an empty promise. I believe there is a better way. I believe we've found a better way in my little state of Delaware. Four years ago, we introduced statewide public school choice. We also passed our first charter schools law. I knew that this was going to work when I heard the following conversation between a school administrator and some of his colleagues. He said, ``If we don't provide parents and families what they want and need, they'll send their kids somewhere else.'' I thought to myself, ``Right! He's got it.'' We have 200 public schools in my small State, and students in all of these schools take our test measuring what they know and can do in reading, writing, and math. We also measure our schools by the incidence of poverty, from highest to lowest. The school with the highest incidence of poverty in my state is the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, Delaware. The incidence of poverty there is 83 percent. Its students are almost all minority. It is right in the center of the projects in Wilmington. In the first year after East Side Charter School opened its doors, very few of its students met our state standards in math. Last spring, every third grader there who took our math test met or exceeded our standards, which is something that happened at no other school in the state. It's a remarkable story. And it's been possible because East Side Charter School is a remarkable school. Kids can come early and stay late. They have a longer school year. They wear school uniforms. Parents have to sign a contract of mutual responsibility. Teachers are given greater authority to innovate and initiate. We need to ensure that parents and students are getting what they want and need, and if they're not getting what they want and need that they have the choice--and most importantly that they have the ability-- to go somewhere else. A $1,500 voucher, doesn't give parents that ability, at least not in my State. Public school choice and charter schools do. We agree on many things. Where we disagree, as on vouchers, I believe we can find common ground. I believe that we can come together, for example, to provide a ``safety valve'' to children in failing schools, in the way of broader public school choice and greater access to charter schools. I am therefore hopeful, about the prospects for bipartisan agreement and for meaningful reform. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, I had a phone conversation with Senator Ashcroft--it was not an easy call for me, and I suspect it was not an easy call for him--in which I shared with him my decision not to vote for his confirmation to be Attorney General for our country. Unlike many of my colleagues in this body, I never served with Senator Ashcroft. We heard a lot about him today from those who know him better than I ever will. While some are full of praise and others are more critical, a number of characteristics about the man emerge. I want to reiterate some of those. Even his critics will acknowledge that John Ashcroft is a person of intellect, someone with great energy, someone with a wealth of experience within his own State and here at the Federal level, a person of deep faith, someone who was gracious in defeat in his reelection campaign last November. If he were a nominee for Secretary of Education, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Agriculture, or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, my vote would be different; I would vote for him. But he is not. He is the nominee for Attorney General for our country. Senator Ashcroft and I have some common roots. I share his deep faith. We are both Christians. I have been Governor of my State. He was Governor of his State. He nominated many people to serve in that capacity. I nominated many people to serve in that capacity as well, judges and people to serve on my cabinet. Governors of Delaware do not nominate the attorney general of our State. The person charged with law enforcement and prosecuting criminals in our State is the attorney general, who is independently elected. Some have said to me that the President should have the right to his choice of his attorney. We need to remember that the Attorney General is not just the President's attorney. The President actually has his own attorney, and all Presidents for a long time have had their own attorneys. The Attorney General is the Attorney General for the country. There was a fellow named George Wallace who used to be Governor of Alabama. Many of us remember him. When he would run for President, he knew he was not going to win. John Ashcroft is going to win. He will be confirmed today. He knows that, and I think we know that. When George Wallace used to run for President, he would say to the voters who were skeptical to spend their vote on a guy who was not going to win: Send them a message. I am struck by the people in my State, people of color, who have said to me in the last month or two since John Ashcroft's name was floated and ultimately submitted by President Bush, that even if Senator Ashcroft is confirmed as Attorney General, we need to send him a message, and the message is that people in my State, particularly people of color, are uncomfortable with this nomination. They are unconvinced that he will be forthright, that he will be consistent, that he will be persistent, that he will be a champion when it comes to ensuring that their civil rights are protected. John Ashcroft comes from Missouri. It is a show-me State. There are people in my State, especially people of color--and I know there are others in Delaware and in other States--who are concerned about whether or not Attorney General John Ashcroft would ensure reproductive rights for women, civil rights for those who may have different sexual preferences than others of us, people who may feel differently about gun laws. Will this Attorney General enforce the laws of the land and protect those interests as well? I have heard from too many people in my State--from the minority community--who have said we need to send a message to Washington, to the new administration, that they do not want to be forgotten. They do not want to be left behind. As much progress as we have made in providing a better, equal footing, a level playing field for people of color, we still have a long ways to go. I regret I have to vote against our new President on this nomination. I will vote yes on every other one. This is one on which I have to take a different course. I thank Senator Ashcroft for the conversation we just had a little bit ago. I am hopeful he is prepared to send all of us a message, regardless of where we are from, what our color is, what our sexual preference is, how we feel about a woman's reproductive right, and that is: As Attorney General he will enforce rigorously the laws of this land for all of us. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to briefly thank Senator Biden for inviting Father Trainor to open this session of the Senate with the prayer that he has given. Senator Biden shared with us a story of his first visit here as a very young man, and his second visit, at 30 years old, when he was sworn into office, barely just old enough to take the oath. When I think of his youth, the first time he stepped into this room as a Senator, and the first time I stepped into this room as a Senator earlier this month, I am so old, they named me a member of the Aging Committee. So there is a little bit of difference between his perception and mine. But I am delighted to be here and just thrilled to be able to welcome Father Trainor today. Joe Biden mentioned that Senator Thurmond is an inspiration to us all. I just want to say Father Trainor continues to serve as an inspiration to us all, whether we be Catholic--or in my case, Protestant--or some other faith. St. Pat's is in the inner-city part of Wilmington. It is an urban parish and an urban ministry, but people actually worship there from all over the northern part of our State. I will be privileged to worship there, too, in a month or 2 at the end of our St. Patrick's Day parade, which winds down and ends right at the front door of St. Patrick's Church. We will go in and worship together--people of all faiths. We will appreciate the warm welcome, the hospitality, and the grace that is shared at that time. I want to say one other word, if I may, about St. Pat's and Father Trainor. In a passage of Scripture in the New Testament, Matthew 25, people are gathered at the Heavenly Gates. Some are going to get in and some are not, and those who are going to be extended the privilege of living there forever in Heaven are told: When I was hungry, you fed me; when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink; when I was naked, you clothed me; when I was sick and in prison, you came to visit me. I just want to say at St. Pat's, as much as any church, as much as any parish in our State, that litmus test is still adhered to. And for those who are thirsty or hungry or homeless, or sick, they have a place to go. I just want to say to Father Trainor, thank you for all that you do to make that the case and for sharing the Gospel with all of us and for really serving as a wonderful example. We welcome you here today. I am delighted to be able to be here to join with Senator Biden for this opportunity, and to say that the umbrellas still do work here, as Senator Biden alluded to earlier, and so do the elevators.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding and for the opportunity to speak today. For the last 8 years, I served as Governor of Delaware and a colleague of Governor Thompson. During that period of time, my family was fortunate enough to be a guest in his home. We have eaten at his table. There were times over the last 8 years when we crossed swords-- rarely. But there have been many more times when we found there was common ground and the opportunity to work together for the good of Wisconsin, Delaware, and the other 48 States. He was chairman of the National Governors' Association for a year. He was also the chairman for our Center for Best Practices within the National Governors' Association. In those roles, I found him to be, first of all, pragmatic; secondly, I found him to be innovative. I found Governor Thompson to be someone who is civil, who really does not just talk about bipartisanship, but he actually means it and lives it. I found in Governor Thompson someone who really tries to treat his colleagues the way he would want to be treated. I want to pause for a moment and direct my thoughts and attention to welfare reform. Some people think it is possible to do welfare reform on the cheap and we simply set time limits and push people off a cliff at the end of that period of time. Governor Thompson does not approach welfare reform that way, nor do I, nor do most of our Governors. When welfare was actually created over 60 years ago, we set up a system with the best of intentions, but a system that unwittingly turned out to encourage people to get on welfare and have children out of wedlock, have them early, and for fathers to walk away from those responsibilities and for people to be better off by staying on welfare. What Governor Thompson has done and what Governors across the country have done is to say maybe we should change the incentives we set up over the last 60 years so people are better off when they go to work, not by staying on welfare. For Gov. Tommy Thompson, it has meant spending more money on child care, not less. For Gov. Tommy Thompson, it has been spending more money on health care to make sure when people leave welfare they do not also lose health care for themselves and their families. For Gov. Tommy Thompson, it has been providing transportation so people have the opportunity to take a job and actually have a way of getting there. For Gov. Tommy Thompson, and for the rest of us, it has meant changing our tax policies as well so people are not penalized for the first dollar they make when they go to work but actually are able to realize and keep that purchasing power they have earned. He does not believe in welfare reform on the cheap. He has a good, realistic, tough-love approach. Sure, there is a toughness to it, but there is also real love and compassion, and I believe he will take those same qualities to his new post as Secretary if we confirm him, which I hope we will. Another way I got to know him, believe it or not, is through Amtrak. The President historically appoints one Governor to serve on the Amtrak board. He was on the Amtrak board before me. President Clinton appointed me to serve for 4 years, and at the end of my service, I recommended the President appoint Governor Thompson again. Not only that, he ended up serving as the chairman of the board for Amtrak. In that capacity, he has helped to focus, spread, and expand passenger rail service, to improve the quality of that passenger rail service, to find ways to reduce Amtrak's operating budget deficit, to invest in the infrastructure of passenger rail service, and to try to be fair to not just the customers but the folks who work for Amtrak. In closing, I am delighted to be able to stand here before you today to say this is somebody I know, somebody I have known for a long time. This is someone of whom the people of Wisconsin can be proud. This is someone I am proud to express my support for today and to encourage my colleagues to support his nomination. I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this is my first opportunity to address this body, so this is a special day for me. For the past 8 years, I have been in and out of this Chamber any number of times as Governor of Delaware and chairman of the National Governors' Association. I have never had the opportunity to sit down in one of these seats or to speak at one of these podiums. One of the great things about being Governor is you get to be part of the National Governors' Association. There is a strong history there of Democrats and Republicans, and one or two Independents as well, to actually work together, to reach across the aisle and to find consensus, not just occasionally but routinely. One of the aspects I liked most about being Governor was that every day you came home you felt good because you had gotten something done. Some of us previously served together in the House for awhile. I can remember any number of times going home on the train to Delaware feeling frustrated, not just 1 night or 1 week but maybe months, because we hadn't gotten enough done. We hadn't really met what was expected of us by the people who sent us here. I suspect, for people outside this body, the action we are endorsing today will have a relatively little consequence or seems to be of little consequence. But the agreement that has been struck is an agreement of real consequence, not just for those of us working here in the years to come but I think a real consequence for our Nation. We could have spent much of this month, and maybe the next month and the month beyond that, arguing about the size of the negotiating table and how many seats were going to be at that negotiating table or how many members would be on committees and subcommittees. We are not going to be doing that. Instead, we are going to have the opportunity to take up the business of the people who sent us here to work in the first place. This may be the triumph of man's hope over experience, but maybe if we can agree on some of the difficult issues we are agreeing on today, then there is some hope and promise that we may be able to find agreement on campaign finance reform, on ways to continue reducing our Nation's debt, and we might shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and we might cut some taxes--Democrats and Republicans will find common ground there--and how we might extend health care coverage to folks who don't have it, and prescription assistance for some of our older Americans, and even on schools. When the American people voted for 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, they did not vote for gridlock. When they voted for almost equal numbers in the House, they did not vote for gridlock. When they voted almost equally for George W. Bush and Al Gore, they did not vote for gridlock. I am proud to stand here on my third day as a Senator to be able to support a wonderful compromise struck by two excellent leaders that holds forth the promise that the next 2 years that we work together in the 107th Congress will be 2 years that will show a great deal more progress for our country, and that is good. This is a good day. I commend those who brought us to this agreement. I yield back my time.