Floor Statements

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, we have made some truly amazing strides in medical research with the creation of new medicine and mapping the human genome. I think we all agree more can be done and more should be done.

We know stem cells hold promise, and we have an opportunity tomorrow to pass critical legislation that enables us to take some of those next steps in finding treatments and cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer.

Like, I suspect, every Member of this body, I have my own personal experiences in my family and reasons for supporting stem cell research. My mother passed away about a year and a half ago--almost 2 years ago now. She had, in the last decade or so, been stricken by Alzheimer's disease, dementia. Her mother had lived and died with the same disease. Her grandmother lived and died with the same disease. Her sister may be showing early symptoms of the same disease. My mother's father was a butcher. He worked 5, 6 days a week until he was 81 years old in a little mom-and-pop supermarket in Beckley, WV. His hands would shake. Some would probably think, how many fingers would he lose today while trying to cut up the meat. He never did lose any. He was a great hero to me. I remember watching as Parkinson's took its toll on him, as it has others of our colleagues here and in the House, such as Mo Udall, whom we thought the world of, and still do--but to see what happened to them because of that disease. We lost my uncle in Huntington, WV, last year to a form of cancer which is almost always deadly, pancreatic cancer. Those are only a couple of people in my own life, people who were close to me and people in my family whom we have lost or have seen a serious degradation in the quality of their lives. Some day, I would like to be able to say to my sons, who are 17 and 18, you will never have to worry about Alzheimer's disease because of the research and the kind of work that is made possible in this legislation and what it will do for you. I would like to tell them you will never have to worry about Parkinson's or pancreatic cancer.

Today is about much more than curing diseases. It is also about keeping America's research centers competitive and relevant. The United States has always been a key leader in the prevention and treatment of illnesses. We have developed vaccines and antibiotics that have literally saved millions of lives, and still do. We have made tremendous advances in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research as well. Now we have the opportunity to make a national commitment to expand the frontiers of medical research. Stem cell research is a key part of doing that. I know a lot of us agree. The nation that is able to take stem cell research to the next step and use it to truly understand how our DNA works and then to use that information to help find treatments and cure diseases will be in the driver's seat of medical research worldwide for some time to come.

My friend and fellow Delawarean, Congressman Mike Castle, led the way to expand stem cell research. Last year, he introduced legislation that would allow the NIH to support embryonic stem cell research. Congress passed this bill, thanks to the leadership in no small part of Senator Harkin and others in this body. It was vetoed by the President. I disagree with the President's policy on stem cell research. On this front, I think he is wrong.

This year, several of my colleagues, including my friend Senator Harkin, have introduced legislation very similar to the Castle bill that we passed last year. S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, would advance stem cell research by expanding the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for Federal funding. It would also strengthen the ethical rules that govern stem cell research--a concern that I know is on many people's minds, including my own.

Under the administration's current policy, the number of stem cell lines available for federally funded research has continued to shrink. There are only 21 cells now available, I am told. What is more, many of the current lines are contaminated or have reached the end of their usefulness.

A gentleman named Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, recently testified before a Senate panel and made a similar claim that these 21 cell lines the National Institutes of Health has will not be sufficient for the research they need to do at

Mr. President, I want to convey my gratitude to Senator Conrad, our chairman, and also Senator Gregg, our former chairman, and say how much I respect and admire the way they have worked together, whether Democrats were in the majority or the Republicans were in the majority. I think they set an example for the rest of us to follow in the way we deal with each other: with mutual respect, always focusing on the issues, sometimes disagreeing, but doing so in an agreeable way, much the way the Presiding Officer handles himself in these matters.

Amendment No. 538

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that it be in order for me to call up one amendment at the desk, and that is amendment No. 538; that once it is reported by number, it be set aside and that I be recognized to speak with respect to this amendment, as already previously provided for.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I have three amendments, Mr. President, that I will be talking about which I offered with Senator Coburn. Before I talk about the amendments, though, let me take a moment to say, as a lot of my colleagues do, I have a great deal of interest in the budget, the budget itself and also the budget process.

Part of my interest goes back to my former role as Governor of my State, where we drafted, prepared, proposed, and implemented those budgets for 8 years. During those 8 years, we balanced our budget every year. We even put money, I think almost every year, in a rainy day fund to deal with challenges that might confront my successors someday down the line. We were

able to balance the budget during those years in part because we were guided by a simple, basic principle, and that is if something is worth doing, it is worth paying for.

Balancing the budget doesn't mean sitting on our hands and doing nothing. In Delaware, while I was privileged to serve as its chief executive, we cut taxes in 7 out of 8 years, both individual personal income taxes and business taxes. We also invested in our schools to raise student achievement. We sought to improve health coverage for our children. We put in place a prescription drug assistance program. We helped make welfare pay less than work so that people would be incentivized to go to work. We enhanced our transportation infrastructure and paid down some of our debt.

It wasn't just the Governor, it was the legislature, with Democrats and Republicans working together, sort of our tradition in my little State. We set priorities, we saved money where we could, and when something was worth doing, we paid for it. We paid as we went. We balanced the budget, and we did so year after year.

When I was elected to the Senate in 2000, the Federal budget was balanced as well. In fact, our country was enjoying budget surpluses. When I came to the Senate, we were actually on track to pay off our national debt. We were on track to be debt free, as hard as that is to imagine today. I spent most of my first term in the Senate in the minority. It was a very different experience from being Governor of my State. Over the course of my first term in the Senate, I watched the majority pass budget resolution after budget resolution that ultimately dug us further into debt.

In 2000, the Federal budget was on course to run, I think, a $5.5 trillion surplus. The size of the national debt had been falling at that point for a couple of years. Over the last 6 years, we have gone, unfortunately, in the opposite direction. We have run record budget deficits and added some $1.5 trillion to our Nation's debt.

Last year, the American people said enough. This budget resolution responds to the desire of the American people to return to what I call a commonsense approach. There is an old saying--I think it is from Denis Healey, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain. He had a theory on holes. ``When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.'' With this budget resolution, we stop digging.

This budget resolution does, once again, what budget resolutions are supposed to do. It not only charts the course to a balanced budget, it also includes enforcement mechanisms to keep Congress's feet to the fire and, I might also add, the executive branch's feet to the fire. A plan on paper to balance the budget is great, but it does no good if we throw that plan out the window as soon as we start passing spending and tax cut bills later in the year.

This budget resolution requires that new proposals to increase spending or decrease revenues be fully offset with counterbalancing cuts in spending or increases in revenue. This pay-as-you-go requirement is something that I have been advocating, along with a number of my colleagues, certainly Senator Conrad and others, for years. I am very pleased it will soon be adopted, I hope, by the Senate.

This budget resolution takes something called budget reconciliation and restores it to its original purpose. Reconciliation is a special procedure that was created to make it easier to pass legislation that made tough choices to reduce budget deficits. However, reconciliation has been abused in some of these recent years. It has been used to speed the passage of legislation that, far from balancing the budget, actually turned around and busted the budget. It is a little like adding grease to a pig. It makes it exceedingly difficult to get a handle on our out-of-control budget problems.

I offered an amendment a couple of years ago to prohibit the use of reconciliation to expedite passage of measures that do bust the budget. I don't know if that amendment was adopted, but I am glad the Senate will soon take this important step to restore fiscal order.

This budget also includes a new long-term budget point of order. This is vitally important because our short-term budget challenges pale in comparison to our long-term budget challenges. We ought to be taking steps now to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation-- that is my generation and maybe the generation of several of us on the Senate floor today--preparing for our retirement and preparing for the strain those retirements are going to place on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and, I might add, Medicaid. The last thing we ought to do is take steps now that will make matters worse in the future.

The new budget point of order created by this resolution requires 60 votes for legislation that would make our long-term budget challenges substantially worse. This forces the Congress to look beyond the present, even past the next election--something we don't always do--to the future we are leaving to our children and to our grandchildren.

I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. He has inherited a difficult set of circumstances. He has inherited a budget pretty much out of balance. He has inherited a Tax Code that has middle-class tax increases built in, in the form of a rapidly expanding alternative minimum tax. Nonetheless, under his leadership, the Budget Committee has managed to craft what I think is a very sensible resolution. They have provided for our troops in the field. They have provided for investments at home in education, health care for our children, and they have done this in the context of a plan that holds the line on taxes and charts a course to a balanced budget over the next 5 years.

I particularly thank Senator Conrad for managing to provide, consistent with a plan to balance the budget, vital support for passenger rail service in this country of ours. It is becoming increasingly evident every day that passenger rail is a good investment, and one I think that is getting better. It is critical to economic growth and mobility. It is necessary to address traffic congestion and to protect air quality, and it is an essential part of reducing our dependence upon foreign oil.

I will just share what I think is a pretty good ``gee whiz'' factor. We are in Washington, DC, today talking about how rail, passenger rail and freight rail, can help in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We can take a ton of freight, move it from Washington, DC, to the Northeast corridor, to Boston, MA, with 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Think about that. With 1 gallon of diesel fuel you can move a ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA.

There are real economies to be gained, real progress in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That is about as graphic an example as I can think of.

I will be happy to yield.

With pleasure. It is possible to move 1 ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC to Boston, MA, for about a gallon of diesel fuel. That is it. There are similar kinds of efficiencies we could realize by moving people, not just tons of freight by rail but people by rail, especially in densely populated corridors. I am not one who argues--I used to be on the Amtrak board, but I am not one who argues we should run trains in places people don't want to ride them or that we should run them in sparsely populated areas. I don't know that always makes sense. But we have 75 percent of people in this country who live within 50 miles of one of our coastlines. What that does, from the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic, Southeast, gulf coast, west coast, is create a lot of densely populated corridors. They lend themselves to passenger rail, especially for trips of maybe 300 or 400 miles or less.

With respect to Amtrak funding, we need to appropriate levels of capital. That is going to be more important as we consider a comprehensive reauthorization bill for Amtrak, which I hope is going to happen later this year.

I also thank Senator Conrad and the committee for addressing the tax gap in this bill. That is the difference between the amount of tax that is legally

owed and the amount that is actually being paid on a timely basis. The tax gap is estimated to be some $345 billion in 2001. The chairman of the Budget Committee has estimated it will amount to as much as $2 trillion over the course of the 5 years covered by this budget resolution. If we completely closed this tax gap, we would largely eliminate the Federal budget deficit. We are never going to completely close it, but we need to do more to narrow it. It is a matter of basic fairness to the great majority of Americans who do the right thing and pay their taxes they owe on a timely basis.

Together with Senator Coburn, who is the ranking member of the Financial Management Subcommittee I chair, I am offering three amendments to the budget resolution that I believe complement the initiatives in the budget resolution to address the tax gap. Our amendments deal with the spending side of the equation. Based on our work in the subcommittee, our amendments point to ways in which we can and should reduce the deficit by promoting better financial management. I think actually the administration probably agrees with what we are trying to do here.

Our first amendment deals with improper payments. Agencies across the Federal Government spend literally tens of billions of dollars every year on avoidable payment errors.

The most recent Governmentwide estimates from OMB report that agencies made about $41 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2006, most of them overpayments. This total is likely only the tip of the iceberg, since many agencies are not in full compliance with the law that requires them to report on their payment errors--the Improper Payments Information Act.

OMB has plans in place to improve agencies' compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act. In keeping with our oversight role, our subcommittee is working with OMB to ensure that agencies comply with these plans and make consistent progress toward OMB's goal of eliminating up to $20 billion--that's about half the improper payments--in reported improper payments between now and 2011.

The first amendment Senator Coburn and I have submitted would apply such savings as we are able to realize through the elimination of improper payments to deficit-reduction.

The second amendment Senator Coburn and I have submitted touches on recovery audits, a tool at least some agencies use to recover payment errors they make.

Under current law, agencies with at least $500 million in contracts outstanding must regularly go through their books to find overpayments, double payments, and other errors they may have made in paying their contractors.

According to data released by OMB in January, just 2 months ago, agencies used recovery auditing to identify and collect millions of dollars in payment errors made to contractors. Frankly, We would like to see more of this kind of auditing work done.

I intend to work with Senator Coburn, OMB, and others to increase the amount of recovery auditing that occurs at the Federal level. The amendment Senator Coburn and I have submitted today would dedicate the savings we achieve by doing that through these efforts to deficit reduction.

Our third amendment touches on the management of Federal property. Senator Coburn and I have learned through several hearings in our subcommittee that agencies are spending a significant amount of money each year maintaining unneeded property--including buildings that are completely vacant.

Part of this problem comes from the fact that agencies still don't really know what property they own, in some cases, despite some admirable efforts undertaken by the administration. Agencies also aren't given the appropriate incentives under current law to dispose of property they no longer need.

Senator Coburn and I have been working on legislation that would give agencies additional tools and incentives that will encourage them to dispose of unneeded and vacant property. In so doing, it will enable the Federal Government and the taxpayers of this country to save the substantial costs that are incurred when we fail to dispose of these excess properties.

OMB has said that the legislation Senator Coburn and I hope to bring forward this year would help agencies unload some $11 billion in property by 2011. The amendment Senator Coburn and I have submitted today would devote this savings to deficit-reduction.

Again, I commend the Chairman of the Budget Committee and the Full Committee for a job well done. I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution. And I urge my colleagues to join Senator Coburn and me in our efforts, I hope later today, to reduce the deficit through better financial management, by supporting these 3 amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

We heard, a few minutes earlier, from Senator Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. He talked at some length about the tax gap, which some suggest may be costing our Treasury roughly $300 billion this year, last year, and next year as well. These are moneys which are believed to be owed but not being collected by the IRS. When we talk about reducing our Nation's budget deficit--something we all know we need to do--among the ways to do it is to close the tax gap.

Another way to do it is to address what are called improper payments. Senator Coburn and I lead a subcommittee in Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security called the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. We have been exploring the issue of improper payments. We have had for a number of years an improper payments law that says Federal agencies have to not continue making improper payments.

We found out about 2 years ago roughly $50 billion in improper payments were made by Federal agencies--mostly overpayments, some underpayments. Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the iceberg. It turns out improper payments made for the last year have been down to about $41 billion, but it does not include the Department of Defense, it does not include improper payments made by Homeland Security, and it does not include improper payments that crop up in some other parts of our Federal Government.

Senator Coburn and I have been holding hearings. Last year, it was under his leadership as chairman. We held one under my leadership as chairman earlier this month on improper payments. We are going to focus, early this year, particularly on some of the big agencies-- Homeland Security, which still does not comply with the law; the Department of Defense, which still does not comply with the law--to provide a strong impetus for them to begin complying with the law or at least to get on the right track.

Senator Coburn has an amendment he has offered, one that is opposed by the National Governors Association and by a number of other groups. What he would attempt to do--and what I think his purpose is; his goal is meritorious--is to compel the Department of Homeland Security to comply with the Improper Payments Act. He does so in a way that holds at risk State and local governments and their ability to receive homeland security grants, really three out of I think the four major grant programs that are handled by Homeland Security that we are discussing today with this bill.

The reason why the National Governors Association and I think other State and local governmental entities are opposing the amendment is because they could be held at risk of not receiving the grants for a lot of fire departments and other first responders and other State and local agencies, through no fault of their own but because the Department of Homeland Security is not complying with the Improper Payments Act.

Senator Coburn was prepared to offer a second-degree amendment, one I think he and his staff worked on with OMB that I think was a far better approach to getting the attention of Homeland Security to comply with the Improper Payments Act. He is not going to be able to offer the second-degree amendment. As a result, we have no choice but to debate and vote on his initial amendment, which we took up in committee. I asked him not to offer it in committee during the markup. He did not, and today his only choice is to offer that same amendment. Unfortunately, I cannot support it.

He is onto a good idea. The idea is we need to put not just Homeland Security but the Department of Defense--and a bunch of other Federal agencies that are not complying with this law--we need to put them under the gun and say: You have to start complying--and to provide pressure, incentives, sticks, carrots to get them in compliance with the law.

I think we will be holding our second hearing later this month on further looking at the Improper Payments Act. We are going to be bringing before us the Department of Homeland Security to find out what is their problem, why are they unable to comply with the law. Do we need to make changes in the law or do they just need to get on the ball? It may be a combination of the two.

To that end, I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator Coburn. I must reluctantly oppose the amendment--not the amendment he wanted to offer. The amendment he wanted to offer, he is not going to have a chance to offer. But the amendment he is offering, I have to oppose.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I think it has been a good debate. The Senator from Illinois offered a thoughtful amendment, raised some questions, and I think the managers of the bill, the Senators from Connecticut and Maine, have defended well the language in the bill.

For our colleagues who may be watching this--or if they are at committee hearings, perhaps their staffs are watching--I ask a couple of rhetorical questions as we decide how to vote on Senator Obama's amendment.

Should most of the funds for homeland security be allocated on the basis of risk? Sure. Should the lion's share of the funding be allocated on the basis of risk? Certainly, it should. Should all the funding for homeland security be allocated on the basis of risk? No.

What Senator Obama is trying to do is thread the needle and get us closer to somewhere between the lion's share and all the funds being allocated on the basis of risk. We have all heard the old adage that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is risk. Senator Collins talked about some staging that was done by the perpetrators of violence on 9/11 from places such as Stone Mountain, GA; Portland, ME; and maybe Norman, OK. Maybe Senator Lieberman talked about the kinds of targets that terrorists have chosen in this country and others that maybe would not have come to mind, such as the Federal courthouse in Oklahoma City, in a disco or a bus or a train.

I don't think most people think of Delaware as a very high-risk State. As we think what is a target for terrorists, in my State we have a lot of chemical plants. Delaware used to be known as the chemical capital of the world; I don't know if it still is. We have a lot of inviting targets for people who want to do mischief. There are nuclear powerplants across the river in New Jersey, and they are closer to my home than to the Senator's from New Jersey. We have northeast corridor train tracks, not just for passengers, that run up and down my State on which all kinds of hazardous cargo is carried by Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroad. We have a busy Delaware River; hazardous cargo goes down that river every day.

Some people might look at those in my State and say there is not much risk there and, as a result, they don't need extra money. In my judgment, those are risky targets, which invite some mischief. We don't need an enormous amount of money to help prepare for some harm that may come to those targets and the people who live around them, but we need a reasonable amount. The idea that .45 percent of one program, among several that are funded through this bill, is somehow too much, I don't buy that. The real compelling point is that, if you do the math, multiply .45 percent times 50 percent, you come up with .22, .23 percent on the basis allocated by the fact that your State is under the minimum.

When you run through the numbers, as the Senators have said, 95 percent of the money under this funding program, the State Homeland Security Grant Program, would be allocated on the basis of risk. For the Urban Area Security Initiative, I think all the money is allocated on the basis of risk.

That having been said, we can have ``food fights,'' I call them, and debates all day trying to figure out should the minimum be .75 or .45 or .25 percent. Our committee said .75 percent is too much. We believe .25 percent as a minimum is too little. We believe .45 percent, which leads to about 95 percent of the funding under this specific grant program being allocated on the basis of risk, is about right.

I yield the floor.

Before the Senator yields, I have one further comment. I take far greater comfort in the words of my friend from Illinois. But what we heard about Washington, DC,--this place was a target. We had people who lost their lives not many miles from where we are. There was another plane trying to get here. Somehow this place, our Nation's capital, which we acknowledge was a prime target on 9/11, and probably is today, should somehow be allocated less funding under the formulas-- not the one in the bill but allocated less funding--doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. President, today I join my good friend, Sen. George Voinovich, in introducing a bill to study the current state and future needs of our national infrastructure, including rail, airports, wastewater

treatment facilities, waterways and levees.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the Nation's infrastructure to a good condition. Clearly, we need to look at our needs and find a better way to maintain the infrastructure we have, while meeting new demand--all in a way that is fiscally sustainable.

Last Congress, during the debate about the surface transportation reauthorization, we discussed the problems facing our roadways. Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion per year in repairs and operating costs and 3.5 billion hours a year in traffic. Over 27 percent of the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While transit use increased faster than any other mode of transportation--up 21 percent--between 1993 and 2002, the Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain conditions.

In Delaware, while population growth grew a robust 23 percent from 1990 to 2003, vehicle travel on our highways increased 38 percent. And driving on roads in need of repair cost Delaware motorists $160 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. To take a look at what must be done to maintain our highways and transit as well as address future needs, and ways to pay for all of that, Congress created a commission to study these issues in SAFETEA-LU and report back to Congress with recommendations.

But there are more types of infrastructure in need of attention than just highways and transit. Air travel has reportedly surpassed pre- September 11, 2001, levels and is projected to grow 4.3 percent annually through 2015. Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. And the EPA estimates that $390 billion over the next 20 years will be needed to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands.

Further, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints and delays, as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50 percent by 2020 and intercity passenger rail ridership has increased to approximately 25 million a year. To accommodate both freight and passenger rail demand, $12-13 billion a year in investments will be needed.

After Hurricane Katrina led to the failure of floodwalls in New Orleans, Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to inspect other flood control structures to identify other repair needs. The Corps found that 146 levees in 28 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are in danger of failing.

In Delaware, vehicle travel on our highways has increased 38 percent from 1990 to 2003, costing Delaware motorists $160 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs--$273 per motorist. Delaware also has $304 million in drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years and $288 million in wastewater infrastructure needs.

Understanding the problem and plotting a plan of attack are essential for attracting and maintaining business and investment in our economy and communities. The legislation we are proposing today would give the National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States until February 15, 2009, to complete a study of the Nation's infrastructure, in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies as well as private sector stakeholders. The Commission would study the age and condition of public infrastructure, the capacity to sustain current and anticipated economic development, the methods used to finance public infrastructure, and the return to the economy from public works investment.

Many times, when we debate infrastructure needs, people simply call for additional funds. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is losing confidence in the way we invest their tax dollars. Failures, like the floodwalls in New Orleans, harm confidence in the government's ability to protect communities from natural disasters. The fact that we've made no changes to the Corps' flood control program in the wake of that catastrophic failure has further damaged government credibility.

Increasing traffic in spite of the investment of billions of dollars every year in highways and bridges reduces confidence in government's ability to address traffic congestion. Failure to invest in rail while both freight usage and passenger ridership is at all time highs makes the taxpayer doubt that government is spending their tax dollars according to the needs of the people.

Part of the solution is, likely, greater funding. But the American people need to be confident in the products we provide before they are going to sign a check for more funding. That is why the Commission will study innovative financing, such as tax-credit bonds and private investment. But also, the Commission will study the impact of State and local governments' land use and economic development decisions on Federal infrastructure costs, and provide Congress with some insight as to how the various levels of government can better coordinate to gain greater efficiencies from our infrastructure investment.

Stronger coordination, greater investment and creativity are the keys to maintaining our infrastructure and investing in future needs--as well as a healthy and robust economy. I look forward to guidance from this Commission as to how Congress can better do just that.

Mr. President, today I join my good friend, Sen. George Voinovich, in introducing a bill to study the current state and future needs of our national infrastructure, including rail, airports, wastewater

treatment facilities, waterways and levees.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the Nation's infrastructure to a good condition. Clearly, we need to look at our needs and find a better way to maintain the infrastructure we have, while meeting new demand--all in a way that is fiscally sustainable.

Last Congress, during the debate about the surface transportation reauthorization, we discussed the problems facing our roadways. Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion per year in repairs and operating costs and 3.5 billion hours a year in traffic. Over 27 percent of the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While transit use increased faster than any other mode of transportation--up 21 percent--between 1993 and 2002, the Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain conditions.

In Delaware, while population growth grew a robust 23 percent from 1990 to 2003, vehicle travel on our highways increased 38 percent. And driving on roads in need of repair cost Delaware motorists $160 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. To take a look at what must be done to maintain our highways and transit as well as address future needs, and ways to pay for all of that, Congress created a commission to study these issues in SAFETEA-LU and report back to Congress with recommendations.

But there are more types of infrastructure in need of attention than just highways and transit. Air travel has reportedly surpassed pre- September 11, 2001, levels and is projected to grow 4.3 percent annually through 2015. Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. And the EPA estimates that $390 billion over the next 20 years will be needed to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands.

Further, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints and delays, as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50 percent by 2020 and intercity passenger rail ridership has increased to approximately 25 million a year. To accommodate both freight and passenger rail demand, $12-13 billion a year in investments will be needed.

After Hurricane Katrina led to the failure of floodwalls in New Orleans, Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to inspect other flood control structures to identify other repair needs. The Corps found that 146 levees in 28 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are in danger of failing.

In Delaware, vehicle travel on our highways has increased 38 percent from 1990 to 2003, costing Delaware motorists $160 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs--$273 per motorist. Delaware also has $304 million in drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years and $288 million in wastewater infrastructure needs.

Understanding the problem and plotting a plan of attack are essential for attracting and maintaining business and investment in our economy and communities. The legislation we are proposing today would give the National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States until February 15, 2009, to complete a study of the Nation's infrastructure, in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies as well as private sector stakeholders. The Commission would study the age and condition of public infrastructure, the capacity to sustain current and anticipated economic development, the methods used to finance public infrastructure, and the return to the economy from public works investment.

Many times, when we debate infrastructure needs, people simply call for additional funds. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is losing confidence in the way we invest their tax dollars. Failures, like the floodwalls in New Orleans, harm confidence in the government's ability to protect communities from natural disasters. The fact that we've made no changes to the Corps' flood control program in the wake of that catastrophic failure has further damaged government credibility.

Increasing traffic in spite of the investment of billions of dollars every year in highways and bridges reduces confidence in government's ability to address traffic congestion. Failure to invest in rail while both freight usage and passenger ridership is at all time highs makes the taxpayer doubt that government is spending their tax dollars according to the needs of the people.

Part of the solution is, likely, greater funding. But the American people need to be confident in the products we provide before they are going to sign a check for more funding. That is why the Commission will study innovative financing, such as tax-credit bonds and private investment. But also, the Commission will study the impact of State and local governments' land use and economic development decisions on Federal infrastructure costs, and provide Congress with some insight as to how the various levels of government can better coordinate to gain greater efficiencies from our infrastructure investment.

Stronger coordination, greater investment and creativity are the keys to maintaining our infrastructure and investing in future needs--as well as a healthy and robust economy. I look forward to guidance from this Commission as to how Congress can better do just that.

Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the life and service of Army SGT Keith E. Fiscus. Keith epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life--and how we remember him--Keith reminds each of us just how good we can be.

Keith was born to Pamela and Darrell Fiscus in Glendale, CA, in 1980. His family moved to Townsend, DE, in 1998. He was the second oldest of four children and is survived by an 18-year-old brother, Jordan, and two sisters, Korrie, 16, and Dena, 28. My heart goes out to each of them.

Keith finished his senior year at Glasgow High School in Newark, DE, and graduated in 1998. After his graduation, Keith took a job in the produce department at Genuardi's supermarket in Glasgow, DE, and then worked as a customer service representative for a major credit card company. He enrolled in business classes at Delaware Technical & Community College but soon decided that his interests didn't include sitting behind a desk in an office or classroom.

Inspired by his grandparents' service in the Armed Forces, Keith joined the Army in 2002. After graduating from boot camp, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division based out of Schofield Barracks in Hawaii. He was deployed to Iraq and served with distinction for the duration of his 14-month tour.

While serving in Iraq, Keith decided to reenlist in the Army. After returning to the States, Keith received training on how to identify and disarm explosives. Keith volunteered to serve a second tour of duty in Iraq and was deployed again in August of 2006. He was scheduled to return home in February of 2007.

On December 2, 2006, Keith was serving as a machine gunner for an explosive ordinance disposal team on their way to clear a suspected roadside bomb near the city of Taji. An improvised explosive device was triggered near the humvee he was riding in, and Sergeant Fiscus was killed instantly.

Contrary to his tough-looking tattoos and love of heavy metal music, Keith was a fun-loving, caring, and sensitive young man. He was described by those that knew him as a hopeless romantic who loved the camaraderie of the Army and spending time with family and friends. He was also an avid golfer and fisherman.

Sergeant Fiscus was also an excellent soldier. He was an expert rifleman who received numerous recognitions during his Army career: Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Combat Infantryman Badge. The Purple Heart and the Bronze Star were awarded posthumously.

I rise today to commemorate Keith, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss.

Specialist Travis Vaughn

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and commend the efforts of Dr. Shien Biau ``S.B.'' Woo.

Dr. Woo was born in 1937 in Shanghai, China. On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong and the Communist Party took control and established the People's Republic of China. After living under communist rule for nearly 6 years, S.B. Woo and his parents came to the United States in 1955 to begin a new life in America.

S.B. Woo took full advantage of this opportunity and earned bachelor of science degrees in mathematics and physics from Georgetown College in Kentucky.

In 1963, S.B. married his wife, Katy, a gifted and accomplished person in her own right. The Woos have been married for nearly 44 years and they have two children, Chi I. and Chi Lan.

S.B. Woo continued his academic career by attaining his Ph.D. in physics from Washington University in St. Louis in 1964. Two years later, he joined the faculty at the University of Delaware, where he became a professor of physics and astronomy.

Dr. Woo has authored numerous scholarly works in the cutting-edge field of physics, with such titles as ``Role of Core Size in the Photoelectron Spectrum of Ions with Multiple Detachment Orbitals'' and ``Zero Core Contribution Calculation of Photodetachment Cross Sections and Photoelectron Spectra of Transition Metal Anions.'' Now, I'm not exactly sure what these texts are about, but I am sure that S.B. could not only explain them, but that he could explain them in such a way that we would all understand.

In 2002, Dr. Woo retired from teaching, capping a nearly 36-year career at the University of Delaware. He is still rightfully considered by many to be one of the leading experts in the field of physics in our Nation.

While his academic prowess is to be admired, Dr. Woo's greatest contribution has been his steadfast commitment to advancing the cause of Asian Americans in Delaware and across America.

Dr. Woo became the first Asian American to serve in statewide office in Delaware when he was elected lieutenant governor in 1984. With this victory, Dr. Woo became the highest ranking Chinese-American public office holder in the Nation.

Dr. Woo's experience as an immigrant from China gave him a firsthand view of what it is like to come to a new land and begin to build a new life from scratch. While many people would have been satisfied with the success that Dr. Woo found in his chosen fields of physics and politics, he continues his work to improve the way of life for his fellow Asian Americans.

He has worked tirelessly to bring people into the political fold, working to increase voter turnout by reaching out to Asian Americans across the country and encouraging them to become active in the political process.

Today, he also serves as a trustee of the University of Delaware; an Institute Fellow at the Institute of Politics, the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; and as the National President of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

I honor and commend my good friend Dr. S.B. Woo for his continued service to the State of Delaware and to Asian Americans across this great country. He is a remarkable yet humble man who has overcome many obstacles to reach the top of his chosen fields, and he continues to this day work to improve the lives of others. I consider it a privilege to know S.B. and Katy Woo and to be able to stand here today to speak on their behalf in the Senate.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, to follow up briefly on the last item my colleague from Missouri was discussing, health care, the President in his State of the Union addressed it and laid out one approach which was certainly different from anything I had heard before, a tax approach that would call for some people to have to pay some taxes on Cadillac plans that they enjoy today and to use the money generated to help folks who don't enjoy that kind of health coverage. Some people immediately rejected it out of hand. I have not done that. I think we need to study it more closely and understand the ramifications. In the end, whether we agree that is a good idea or not, most of us will agree that it is a good idea to figure out how to harness information technology in the delivery of health care in our own States and in the country, much as the VA has done for veterans who go there for service at their facilities.

Delaware is endeavoring to become the first State to put in place a statewide Delaware Health Information Network which links our hospitals to our doctors' offices to our labs in a free-flowing electronic exchange of information. It will allow the exchange of electronic health records and lead the way, as a little State, to show what we can do for our country to save money and to save lives and improve outcomes and, frankly, to improve the quality of life for the providers as well and the satisfaction they derive from their work.

Climate Change

The second thing I wish to mention is this document which was released earlier this week. It is called ``A Call For Action.'' It was released on Monday by an interesting coalition of business leaders, manufacturers, utility companies, and environmental leaders. The folks who released it are called the United States Climate Action Partnership. I wish to briefly mention the charter members of the group who were here in the Capitol, just down the hall in the LBJ Room, on Monday morning. They include DuPont, a 200-year-old company headquartered in Delaware; Alcoa; BP--used to be called British Petroleum, now they are ``beyond petroleum''; Caterpillar; Duke Energy; the Environmental Defense folks; Florida Power & Light: GE; the NRDC, National Resources Defense Council; Pew Institute; PG&E Corporation, a big utility on the west coast; PNM, which is New Mexico power: and the World Resources Institute. What they have done is said: Climate change is real. Our Earth is becoming warmer. We have something to do with it. They call on us to do something about it--not just us in the Senate but as a nation to do something about it. They have laid out here a series of findings, of principles, and of recommendations.

One of the things I am doing is sharing with each of my colleagues a copy of this document. If we can get the utilities, manufacturers, and a number of our leading environmental groups to agree on a path forward on the principles and the recommendations, that is an important step for our country.

I shared this with the President on Wednesday. He was in Delaware to look at the work going on at the DuPont Company with respect to biofuels, biobutanol, making ethanol out of cellulosic ethanol, out of cornstalks, looking at work being done on fuel cells. I shared with him a copy of this document.

The President had in his speech the other night about one sentence where he talked about global warming and acknowledged that it was real. Then he moved on. But I said to the President during a chance I had to chat with him that there is a parade that is beginning to form, a realization that something

is happening to our planet, that we have something to do with creating this warming, and that we have an obligation to do something about it. I applaud the leaders from the environmental and business communities who have joined forces to say: This is an approach which makes sense. They take what we call a market approach and use in their approach the idea that while we are putting in place a cap-and-trade system to reduce CO2 emissions, why don't we do so in a way that incentivizes clean coal technology with carbon recapture, that incentivizes things such as wind power, maybe incentivizes the next generation of nuclear energy as well.

I commend them. I understand from folks who are involved in this original partnership, they are getting a lot of calls from around the country, from other business leaders, and some from the environmental community who want to know more about it and, frankly, want to join. My message to the President on Wednesday was, a parade is forming. We can watch the parade. We can be a part of that parade or we can lead that parade. We need to lead the parade. President Bush is our President, and he needs to be leading that parade as well.

I wanted to share that.

The third thing I wish to do is comment on the legislation before us and to applaud the efforts of several of our colleagues, including Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, as we have brought this minimum wage bill to the floor and coupled it with small business tax cuts. The President signalled early on that he would be willing to sign the minimum wage bill, after having not supported it for a number of years. It has been a long time. We have heard plenty of speeches in the last week about this issue. It has been a long time since we raised the minimum wage.

As Governor of my State, we raised the minimum wage a time or two. I always contended that if we wanted people to get off welfare, to go to work and to be successful, work has to pay more than welfare. If you take a minimum wage job and you enhance that with an income tax credit and add to that Medicaid benefits, add to that food stamps and food supplement benefits, people aren't going to get rich--help them with assisted housing--but if we do it right, people can actually be better off working than they would be receiving the welfare. An increase in the minimum wage is part and parcel of that.

I am pleased to support this increase, even if it is coupled with increases or changes and modifications to small business tax credits.

We all know--in fact, everybody in the Senate has given speeches, I am sure, saying this--that small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country. I have, and I suspect the Presiding Officer has, as have the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from North Carolina, we have all given speeches saying how important the small business community is. Small business generates new jobs. One of our important jobs in government--Federal, State, and local--is to create a nurturing environment for job creation and preservation. Some of the ways to do that are a well-trained workforce, reasonable tax burdens, reasonable regulations, safer communities, transportation, good infrastructure, and affordable health care. But taxes are important.

What I commend Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley in doing is crafting a series of tax credits for small business that incentivizes them to hire people, some of whom are coming off of welfare and disability, and veterans coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. They have done good work, and I look forward to supporting adoption of the legislation and working out a compromise with the House that includes both the increase in the minimum wage and the tax cuts and, in some cases, credits for small businesses, and then get the President to sign that compromise.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Senior Airman Elizabeth A. Loncki

Madam President, I want to mention today the death of a Delawarean--our 15th Delawarean--whose life has been lost in Iraq. She was the first female whose life has been lost in Iraq and whose funeral I attended a week or two ago. I want to reflect on the life and service of Air Force SrA Elizabeth Loncki.

She was the first female Delawarean to be killed in the line of duty in Iraq. As a bomb disposal technician, Elizabeth performed one of the most dangerous tasks assigned to Armed Forces personnel. She routinely put herself in harm's way with the hope and knowledge that her actions would save the lives of others. I daresay they have saved the lives of hundreds of other people. The steel nerve and extreme bravery required to locate and disarm explosive devices are not traits too many people possess, including us. Only the bravest of our soldiers and military personnel carry out this responsibility, and her ability to perform and carry out this difficult work speaks volumes about her character and sense of duty to her colleagues, comrades, our country, and to the Iraqi people.

Elizabeth epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. She exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to her country, and above all else, honor. In the way she lived her life--and how we remember her--Elizabeth reminds each of us just how good we can be.

Elizabeth was only 23 years old but her competitive spirit and kind- hearted ways touched the lives of all that knew her. She was blessed with a wonderful family--younger sister, Olivia, loving parents, stepparents, grandparents, great-grandparents and many aunts, uncles, and cousins--and countless numbers of friends and comrades.

She was also loved by SGT Jayson Johnson, who was stationed with Elizabeth at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. They had recently purchased a house together and Jayson had made plans to visit Elizabeth's father to seek his permission to ask for Elizabeth's hand in marriage. The sadness of his loss cannot be overstated.

Elizabeth was a 2001 graduate of Padua Academy in Wilmington. She was a natural athlete with a competitive spirit and she excelled at volleyball, basketball and softball. She briefly attended the University of Arizona before enlisting in the Air Force in March of 2003. On February 24, 2004, she graduated from Eglin AFB-Naval Tech Explosive Ordinance Disposal School. She was proud of her training and gladly told inquiring strangers that the ``Bomb Squad'' sweatshirt she often wore was indeed the real thing.

Elizabeth volunteered to go to Iraq before she was officially called and was deployed on September 27, 2006. Her grandfather recalled her saying, ``If I saved one life, it was worth it.'' An Air Force official told the Loncki family that each day her team went out, they probably saved scores of lives. She will always be remembered as a hero who put the safety of others before herself.

On January 7, 2007, Elizabeth made the ultimate sacrifice near Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq, when a car bomb her team was working on exploded while they were trying to disarm it. TSgt Timothy Weiner of Tamarac, FL, and SrA Daniel B. Miller, Jr., of Galesburg, IL also gave their lives while trying to save others on that fateful day. All three were members of the 775th Civil Engineer Squadron at Hill Air Force Base.

Elizabeth was one of the few women who dared to serve as a bomb disposal technician. Her family recently shared a story from a sergeant major who had helped train Elizabeth. I think this goes to the heart of the person she was and what she believed in. I'd like to share a bit of that. He said, ``Elizabeth was an ultimate troop. I am an old Special Forces guy and have been through a lot of action. I have served in three wars. I had the privilege of being in Elizabeth's company. She was involved in extreme combat training and the highest danger. She saved a lot--I repeat--a lot of lives. . . Bar none, she was one of the finest people I have ever trained. I have two boys in the military and have lost troops under my command in the Special Forces and I have never worked with a finer person.''

On January 13, 2007, I attended Senior Airman Loncki's funeral at St. Peter the Apostle Church in New Castle where Elizabeth had been an active member.

Following the service, Elizabeth was laid to rest with full military honors in

the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery. The outpouring of love and support from the many people who gathered for her burial serve as a testament to the positive impact that Elizabeth had on all of those who were blessed to know her.

For her service, Airman Loncki received numerous recognitions during her Air Force career: Air Force Training Ribbon, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Good Conduct Medal, and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award. The Purple Heart and the Bronze Star with Valor Device were awarded posthumously on January 9, 2007.

As I listened to Elizabeth's friends and family speak about the type of person she was, I couldn't help but think about the heavy toll that this conflict has taken on our country. Elizabeth had originally planned for a career in the Air Force but she had begun to express doubts about our role in Iraq. She told her grandmother that the people of Iraq ``don't want us over there'' and had asked her father, ``if people don't want us to help, what do we do?''

If I could talk to Elizabeth, I would tell her that she epitomized what is best in this world. I would tell her that if the day ever comes when the Iraqi people decide to put aside their hatred and come together as a nation--and that day cannot come soon enough--it will be the heroic actions of people like her that made this possible.

Next week in this Chamber I believe we are going to debate a resolution, and the resolution is about what course we should take in Iraq. I think the President and those who don't share his proposal for a surge of our troops share the same goal. The goal is this: How do we convince the Iraqi people to take charge of their lives? How do we convince them to assume responsibility for their country? How do we and others help to convince them to find a way to share power, share the wealth of their country, and to stop killing each other?

The President believes the best way to do it is to send more troops to Baghdad and to other parts of the country. Those of us who disagree, including some of the President's own military leaders with whom I met in Iraq last year, think that maybe the best way to convince them to make the tough choices in Iraq is to make it clear that we are not there forever, that this is not an engagement without an end in sight, and that we have expectations for them to stand and deliver for their own country.

I close simply by saying that sometimes we think these debates are just debates that we have in our Nation's Capitol, and there is a country on the other side of the world, with people we don't know, who are doing things we, frankly, don't understand. But it is also important for us to remember people such as Elizabeth Loncki who are willing to risk it all to try to help them, and our obligation is to do our dead level best to make sure they and we get to the right place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mayor William T. McLaughlin. Bill, as he is affectionately called by his friends--and Bill has a lot of friends--celebrated his 90th birthday on December 22, 2006. During the 90 years that the world has been blessed with Bill's presence, he and his late wife Mary have touched many lives and helped countless people. His contributions have ranged from serving his country during World War II, serving the city of Wilmington for two terms as the city's mayor and for 12 years on the city council before that, and offering continued service with numerous community projects both before and after his tenure in elected office.

William T. McLaughlin was born on December 22, 1916, on Wilmington's east side. One of 12 children, Bill often joked that the Great Depression helped to raise his family's standard of living. When Bill was 16 years old, his father lost his job. Bill's devotion to his family led to his dropping out of high school in order to accept a job cleaning the Boy's Club in Wilmington's Browntown neighborhood. He then went to work at a linoleum plant where, after being turned down for a two-cent raise, he helped organize a union for the plant employees. This type of initiative would be a hallmark of Bill's life.

At the age of 22, Bill signed up for the National Youth Administration, a Federal program he hoped would send him to California. Instead, he was assigned to a swamp drainage program in southern Delaware.

After helping to reduce Delaware's mosquito population, Bill decided to seek more adventurous endeavors and joined the Army Air Force during World War II. He trained as an electrical technician and saw action as a radio operator and tail gunner. He was shot down over the skies of New Guinea but managed to survive and went on to complete 50 missions before returning home to Wilmington.

Upon his return, Bill attended night school on the GI bill. During this time, Bill went to work for DuPont, where he would work for 30 years, mostly as a supervisor in the company's business machines section.

It was during this time that Bill would meet the woman who would become the love of his life. Mary's enthusiasm and outgoing personality were a good counterpoint to Bill's soft-spoken manner and she would have a huge influence on both his future and the future of Wilmington. Together, they raised two sons, William and Donald.

Unlike many elected officials, Bill did not enter politics until the later years of his life. In 1964, Mary encouraged him to run for Wilmington's 9th ward city council seat. Bill won the election and continued to serve on the city council for 12 years. During this time, he became the council's finance chairman. In 1976, he agreed to seek election as Wilmington's mayor after then-Mayor Tom Maloney decided to run for the U.S. Senate.

Bill was elected as Wilmington's mayor and served two terms in that capacity, serving from 1977 until 1984. During this time, his openness and compassion helped him cultivate a renaissance for the city. He held weekly ``open door'' sessions where any citizen could come by his office and voice their concerns or simply chat about local issues.

As mayor, he worked with Governor Pete DuPont and other State leaders to develop the Financial Center Development Act, which laid the foundation for Delaware's rebirth as a financial services center. He also helped lead the efforts to recruit dozens of out-of-State banks to set up shop in Delaware, creating more than 30,000 jobs for the First State.

During his time in office, Mayor McLaughlin helped implement the desegregation of Delaware's public school system in northern Delaware. Bill never forgot the obstacles that he had to overcome during his lifetime and sought to level the playing field for all Delawareans, regardless of the color of their skin. He also increased housing opportunities for people with low incomes, and he worked tirelessly to create new jobs by recruiting potential employers to settle in Wilmington and the surrounding areas.

Bill also played a pivotal role in promoting the Delaware arts community, helping to create the Delaware Theatre Company and the Delaware Center for Contemporary Arts.

What stands out most to me--and for a generation of Delaware's political leaders--is Bill's willingness to mentor young people seeking elected office. When I first ran for State treasurer in 1976, Bill was among the first public officials I reached out to. His support and kindness were instrumental in my first campaign and continue to be a source of inspiration for many of Delaware's elected officials.

After leaving office in 1984, Bill continued to play a vital role in the lives of countless Delawareans. He championed the disadvantaged through his involvement with numerous community service efforts. In 1996, he and Mary founded the William T. and Mary McLaughlin Education Fund, which continues to provide academic support for deserving students in Wilmington and New Castle County. After Mary's passing in 2002, Bill continued their work to help better the lives of their fellow Delawareans.

Bill's hard work and devotion to service have led to countless community service awards. In 1985, on his last day as Wilmington's mayor, Bill was awarded the Josiah Marvel Cup for public service, the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce's most prestigious award. Many people would have seen that award as a capstone, but Bill seemed to view it as a foundation upon which he continues to build his legacy.

Bill is a true friend of Delaware. His compassion, integrity, warm sense of humor and vitality of spirit are a true inspiration for us all. I rise today to commend his hard work, to applaud his devotion to community service and to wish him many more happy birthdays in the years to come.

I ask unanimous consent to be granted an additional 5 minutes from the Democratic side.

Mr. President, before Senator DeWine leaves the floor, he was speaking of a loss that he and his family and others are mourning, I presume in Ohio, where I spent a number of years as an undergraduate at Ohio State University. I would associate myself with his remarks in extending our sympathies from Delaware. We received some devastating news of our own in Delaware a day or two ago with the news that Army SGT Keith Fiscus had been killed in action in Iraq at the age of 26. Our hearts go out to him. I will be talking more about him later.

There is a loss that we mourn as well, not the loss of a life here in the Senate, but the loss of Senator DeWine who will be returning to Ohio and to other challenges in the days ahead. Senator DeWine and I were elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. We came here together with people such as John McCain, Tom Ridge, John Kasich, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, and John Spratt, a remarkable freshman class in the House of Representatives. It was the year we elected a lot of Democrats and not nearly as many Republicans. Somehow, then, Congressman DeWine managed to swim against the tide and to be elected against those odds in Ohio.

He served as a Congressman of distinction, later as the State's Lieutenant Governor where he trained George Voinovich, who served as Governor, and then to be elected to the Senate. It was my privilege to serve with him in the House of Representatives and it has been a privilege to serve with him in the Senate.

On a personal level, I will miss him. I want to say how much it has been a privilege to serve with my friend from Ohio, who has a good mind and a good heart, wonderful family, and is deeply devoted to them and the people of Ohio, whom we both revere.

I do.

I appreciate very much those words and the chance to be a friend of Senator Mike DeWine.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about a couple of things, if I may. In about 15 or 20 minutes, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of a judge. The President has seen fit to nominate District Court Judge Kent Jordan, who serves in Delaware, to succeed Judge Jane Roth who has served for more than a dozen years as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Roth announced early this year that she was going to take senior status, and she has done that. I will talk a little bit about her, and then I will talk about Judge Kent Jordan.

Judge Roth, whom I have been privileged to know for almost as long as I have been in Delaware, whose husband served here in the Senate for some 30 years and was my predecessor, typifies everything a judge ought to be--smart, knows the law, adheres to the law, uncommonly fairminded, treats those who come before her, whether they are on either side of an argument, with respect, has a reputation for providing judicial temperament, a forum where justice can occur. She is somebody who works hard, somebody who has a wonderful sense of humor. Sometimes when people don those black robes, they turn in their sense of humor, but she has never lost hers.

Along the way, in addition to being a district court judge and then a circuit court judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a lawyer and partner in a major law firm in my State, Richards, Layton & Finger. She played a prominent role there for about 20 years.

Prior to that, she served in the foreign service for our country. I believe she served in places such as Iran, and we could probably use her expertise and counsel these days. She served in Rhodesia and in the Republic of the Congo. She married Bill Roth along the way, raised two children, and somehow managed to do it all with grace and aplomb. She continues to serve us as the senior judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We are lucky she does, and we are grateful to her for that service and to her family for sharing with all the people of the country,

not just of Delaware, a remarkable human being.

We are grateful for her service and think of her today as we consider the nomination of her successor Kent Jordan.

I have known Kent Jordan not for as long as Judge Roth, but I have known him. He served on the district court in Delaware for some time. Delaware is a little State. You know almost everybody, if you want to. I have had a chance to get to know him and his family. I think he has earned very high marks as our district court judge, much as Judge Roth did when she was our district court judge.

When I was privileged to be Governor of the State for some 8 years, I nominated a lot of people to serve on the bench. Among the qualities I looked for was people who knew the law, who had good judgment, who were able to make decisions. Sometimes people, frankly, find it hard to make a decision. As a judge, that is not a good thing. You want somebody who knows the law and somebody who has good judgment, who is able to make decisions and follows the golden rule in the way the people treat who come before them, who provides good judicial temperament and a forum, a courtroom, where justice will more likely than not be served.

Judge Jordan in his service on the district court has always shown that those are the qualities he is all about.

He, as Judge Roth, has been a parent, raised a family. I am not sure if I have the right number, but I think he and his wife have raised five or six, maybe seven children. So they have had a lot going on at home, with schools and all kinds of extracurricular activities.

He served before that in a number of other challenging situations. We had a little debate today and there was a cloture vote on whether we were going to vote on Judge Jordan's nomination. Nobody should somehow interpret that vote and the fact that we had to vote on cloture as any question about his integrity, competence, ability, and willingness to serve. He will be a great addition to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will vote in about 15 minutes on Kent Jordan's nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me--and I know I speak for Senator Biden in urging our support--unanimous support for this nomination. He has not disappointed us in anything he has ever done, and I am sure he will not disappoint any of us in this regard either. He has received, by the way, from the American Bar Association--every now and then we talk about the ratings they hand out with respect to nominees. His unanimous rating was ``well qualified,'' which is the highest possible grade. It was a unanimous rating. I think that speaks for itself.

In addition to having served as a district court judge for the last 4 years, he also clerked for a legend in our part of the country, District Court Judge James Latchum. Once he graduated from law school, he became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Delaware District. He has done great things with his life. He has a lot of integrity and great energy. I hope he will be rewarded for those things later today. We will be voting in a very short while.

Independent Regulator For Government-Sponsored Enterprises

As we come down the home stretch on our year's business, there are some things we are going to complete today, or maybe tomorrow-- hopefully, not Sunday--and there are some things we may not complete. I was looking in the local paper in our State, the News Journal, on Thursday when I was coming down on the train. I saw an article that was headlined ``Fannie Mae Restates Earnings, With $6.3 Billion in Profits Slashed.''

I think what the auditors and the Fannie Mae accountants have done is looked at earnings over a 4-year period of time, from 2001 through 2004, and they concluded that Fannie Mae--a huge enterprise, a large Government-sponsored enterprise, like Freddie Mac--overstated their profits by some $6.3 billion.

The reason I bring that up is that I am disappointed that we are going to finish business this year and not provide for a strong, independent regulator for Government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. That has not been questioned--with respect to the way they operate, the accuracy of the financial reporting. Great questions have been raised over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and as we have seen in yesterday's newspaper, there was a huge restatement of earnings.

I think it is unfortunate that we are not going to be able to conclude with a vote on legislation that some people have spent a lot of time working on in the last year or two. The House of Representatives has passed--not unanimously but by a wide margin-- legislation that would provide for a strong, independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Senate ended up breaking down along party lines in the Senate Banking Committee on similar kinds of legislation. We passed out a bill on party lines. It never came up on the floor. In the last month or two, there has been an encouraging discussion and negotiation between Congressmen Barney Frank and Mike Oxley, his staff, and the folks at the Treasury Department, under the direction of Secretary Hank Paulson, to try to narrow the differences between the bill reported out by our committee with only Republican support and the bill that passed with bipartisan support in the House. We have not been able to resolve all of our differences, but progress has been made in the last month. I want to say to both Congressman Frank and Congressman Oxley--who is leaving, as well, at the end of this year, so he will not have a chance to push this ball into the end zone next year but certainly Congressman Frank will be in a position to do that. He will chair the relevant committee in the House. I think great work has been done and good progress has been made.

It is unfortunate that we are not going to complete the job this week. I think we teed the ball up for next month. I hope one of the first things we will do in the Senate Banking Committee is hold hearings and look at the negotiations that have taken place between the House and the Treasury Department and see if we cannot build on those and pass legislation--find common cause with the House of Representatives and the administration and pass the legislation.

Until we do that, there are a couple things that are going to be occurring. One, we are going to have uncertainty for the enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and those who are thinking about selling their stock. There will be an impact on the housing market as well. We don't need that. The regulator for these entities will not have bank- regulator-like powers. This regulator needs that. These entities need a regulator that has bank-regulator-like powers. The regulator will not be independent, and we need legislation which would create a strong, independent regulator. Mission and new product authority will continue to be separate; they should not be. Capital requirements will not be flexible; they should be. Growth of these two enterprises will go largely unconstrained.

None of those things are desirable. I hope we can address them all when we come back and resolve them satisfactorily in a very few months.

Having said that, there is a lot of progress that has been made. If we go back a year or so, we had large differences where folks in the Senate were on a path forward with respect to a strong, independent regulator for Government-sponsored enterprises. We agree on combining the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the Federal Finance Board, which regulates the Federal Home Loan Banks. We agree on that now.

The question of the independent regulator from the appropriations process, we agree on that--that the regulator should be independent of the appropriations process. We also agree that the independent litigation authority for the regulator should be provided. Currently, they have to go through the Department of Justice, and I think we have all come to agree that is not the best course, and the regulator ought to have independent litigation authority. We decided the regulator has to have the power to put them into receivership if, God forbid, the worst should occur. We agree on that today. We have agreed on combined mission oversight and new product authority under one world class regulator, something that a month or a year or so ago we didn't have common cause on. We agree today that the regulator ought to have flexibility for setting capital standards--

the Congress setting standards for risk or minimum capital standards. We should invest in the regulator's authority.

We agree that there ought to be restrictions on the size of the portfolios of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, literally, portfolios that exceed a trillion dollars. That is a lot of money. Enterprises of this size, because of the effect they can have on financial markets here and around the world, deserve a world-class regulator. We want to make sure they get that. That should be an early item of business next January.

Having said that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I concur with many of the remarks the Senator from Maine has made. She has listed a host of people who played critical roles in the adoption of the legislation, hammering out a difficult compromise over the last 4 years. I salute her for her leadership and thank her for her leadership.

I especially say thank you to Ann Fisher, who has served for Senator Collins and really for us, for the great work she has done in the course of this effort.

I have been blessed with my own staff and a young man named John Kilvington from New Castle, DE, who came here with me 6 years ago and became an expert of his own with respect to postal reform, and has worked long and hard, even into this night, to bridge our differences and to get us over one last hurdle.

There is a reason why we only do postal reform once every 36 years, and the reason is that it is tough to do. There are so many competing interests--mailers large and small in areas rural and urban, the labor unions involved trying to do their best to represent hundreds of thousands of postal employees; there are competitors, UPS and FedEx, that didn't exist a number of years ago.

In fact, if you go back in time to 1970 when the current business model for the Postal Service was created by then junior Senator Ted Stevens, who today is our President pro tempore and one of the most senior Senators in the Senate, he provided the leadership in 1970 to create the U.S. Postal Service.

At the time and for many years thereafter, it was the right business model for providing postal service to the people of this country. But a lot has changed since 1970. In 1970, I was a lieutenant JG on the other side of the world in Southeast Asia the year the Postal Service, as we know it, was born.

One of the things different--I think of the current war that many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are waging--in the Vietnam war, we didn't have any e-mails. We had mail call. It was one of the highlights of our day every day. We had no cell phones

with which to communicate with our loved ones. We had no bank by phone. We had no electronic banking. Direct deposits were new. There was no such thing as a FedEx or UPS to provide the kind of competition the Postal Service faces today, and no threat of anthrax in the mail.

The world has changed dramatically, and also the way that we exchange information, the way we communicate with one another has changed dramatically, too. The Postal Service needs to change as well. With the adoption of this legislation, it will.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to our colleagues in the House of Representatives with whom we have served and worked on this challenge, particularly Congressman McHugh who led the fight for a decade or more, Congressman Davis who chairs the relevant committee in the House, and also Congressman Henry Waxman, with whom I served years ago in the House, entered the fray and helped, along with Congressman Davis and others, to get us to the finish line.

I don't want to belabor what this bill does or does not do, but it acknowledges this is not 1970 anymore; this is 2006. We will still have universal delivery for the mail. We will still receive that mail 6 days a week. The Postal Service will still be expected, when somebody builds a new house or starts a new business, to deliver mail to those places.

I am told during the course of the year at least a million new customers come online for the Postal Service, and the Postal Service will be there through rain, sleet, and snow to deliver the mail to all those customers.

The Postal Service under the legislation we have is going to act more like a business. They will have an opportunity to price their products more competitively and overall can put together a whole slew of postal products. Overall, the price of those products cannot go up in a given year by more than the rate of inflation, but individual products can. Product A can go up more than product B and product C more than product D. Over the next 10 years, the overall increase in the cost of postal products can rise above the cost of living. That will provide a measure of stability to the huge industry that relies on the post office and a good postal service.

For those who compete with the Postal Service--and there are very strong and good competitors; UPS and FedEx are among those--they will have the opportunity to continue to compete, but I think they will be on a playing field that is a bit more level where the first-class mail the Postal Service will continue to enjoy a monopoly on will not be able to underwrite the cost of their competitive products with companies such as UPS and FedEx.

One of the things I am happiest about--and I give Senator Collins the credit on this for convincing the administration to agree on two points: One, folks who served in the military to come to work in the Postal Service and eventually earn a postal pension. The mailers, people who buy stamps, mailers large and small shouldn't have to pay for the military service that later accrues to those same individuals when they retire from the Postal Service. It is not fair to the mailers. It is not fair to the public. Those costs should be borne by the Treasury, and under this bill they will be.

And secondly, for many years folks thought the Postal Service was underpaying its pension costs for its employees. A couple years ago the Office of Personnel Management did a study and found that rather than underpaying pension obligations, they are overpaying, and if they continue at the rate they are going, they will be making a big overpayment in the years to come.

This legislation corrects that situation. It says that in the future, the Postal Service, 10 years out, will have access to a fair amount of money that would have gone into overpayments. In the meantime, a lot of money is going to be used to pay down the unamortized cost of health care. Tens of billions of costs will be paid off, and that will put the Postal Service in stronger financial shape going forward.

Lastly, I want to mention the administration. I know Senator Collins has as well. In the negotiations that lasted for years on this legislation, the administration, particularly in the last weeks, especially played a constructive role. I single out among those Michael Bopp, who previously served on the staff for Senator Collins, and his help was critical, as was that of Rob Portman and a number of others in the administration.

Our people said this is perfect legislation. I am not aware of any perfect legislation I have been associated with. This was a hard one to put together. My dad used to say that the hardest things to do are the things that are worth doing. If that is any indication, this is something worth doing. I am grateful to all who played a part.

The hour is late, about 2:20 in the morning. I am ready to call it a day, and I know we will have other business to do.

Again I thank my colleagues, those within the mailing public, the Postal Service, Jack Porter, our Postmaster General, and all who worked to get us to this point in time, and particularly to Patty Murray who worked with us tonight to get past a real tough spot.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my friend for her statement and for her help in moving this critical bill through the Senate tonight. I agree with her that the Appropriations Committee should not bear the burden of funding the Postal Regulatory Commission and the USPS inspector general. While it is important that the Commission and the inspector general enjoy the new independence from postal management that we seek to extend them in this bill, it is unfair to do so by taking scarce resources away from the critical programs overseen by the Appropriations subcommittee Senator Murray will soon lead. Our imprecision in drafting the section of our bill that Senator Murray refers to should not make her already difficult job even harder.

In the coming weeks and months, I pledge to work closely with Senator Murray, her colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee in seeking a permanent solution to the problematic language that Senator Murray has brought to our attention.