Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask to be recognized for 3 minutes.

Madam President, as a former Governor for Delaware and chairman of the National Governors Association, for a long time I have supported full funding for IDEA. In fact, when Senator Gregg was Congressman Gregg, we served together in the House, and we talked about full funding for IDEA. We talked about the Government's commitment to 40 percent of the funding for special education and that we weren't coming close to it. Today, we are actually making progress in getting closer to that number. We are about halfway there. We have a good way to go. Senator Harkin's and Senator Hagel's amendment will take us where we need to go.

I rise to say I would like to be able to offer an amendment to the Harkin-Hagel amendment, but I cannot do it. Under the unanimous consent agreement, this pay-go amendment is precluded. Since I cannot offer it, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I printed this amendment for Senator Chafee, myself, and Senator Feingold, who have been among the champions for the pay-go principle. I think if things are worth doing, we ought to pay for them. If it is worth investing more money in our efforts in Iraq, we ought to pay for it. If it is worth funding special education, we ought to pay for that. I think that argument goes for both meritorious causes.

The thing about pay-go is that it calls for a 60-vote margin in order to bust the budget and the caps. We used to operate under these guidelines throughout the 1990s, when we went from huge deficits to balancing the budget.

Pay-go lapsed in 2001. We need to restore it. One of the issues being discussed and debated now in the conference on the budget resolution is whether to reestablish the pay-go principle. It ought to be restored and reestablished.

Today, rather than being denied the opportunity to offer this amendment

because of the procedures we are operating under, we would be able to cite the Budget Act pay-go principles and automatically have a 60-vote procedure before us. Having said that, we are operating under a rule that will--in this instance at least--require 60 votes, so that threshold of a 60-vote supermajority will apply even without pay-go.

I will vote for this amendment. I just wish we had the pay-as-you-go principle in place so we would not be denied the opportunity to offer this amendment and we could offer it routinely. That is what I wanted to say today. I especially thank Senator Baucus who was in line ahead of me.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator for yielding me 3 minutes 22 seconds.

Mr. President, as we gather for this debate, about 60 percent of the oil we use in this country comes from other places. We are importing all that oil. It adds to a huge trade deficit, about $500 billion and growing. About a third of that trade deficit is related to the importation of oil.

We have the opportunity with the energy provisions that are part of this bill to do some good things with respect to energy independence in this country. We have the opportunity to urge people to buy more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and vans. We have the opportunity to nurture an automotive industry which will provide fuel-cell-powered vehicles that will provide for vehicles that are powered by a combination of electric and internal combustion--maybe a combination of diesel and electric. We have the opportunity to provide incentives for people to use solar energy more frequently and more effectively, to use geothermal energy more effectively, more broadly. We have the opportunity to encourage people to use wind power as a source of electricity, and other forms of energy, through this bill.

Some would say we ought to have a comprehensive energy bill, and these elements ought to be part of the comprehensive energy bill. I will tell you I don't know if we are going to have a chance to debate a comprehensive energy bill. We do have the opportunity today to encourage solar energy, wind power, fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, and we have a chance to do this today.

About 100 miles from here there are fields on the Delmarva Peninsula--in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia--where we are growing soybeans. We use soybeans in my part of America to feed the chickens. We take the hull and we feed the chickens and raise more chickens in Delaware, I think, than anyplace in the country. We use the corn we raise to feed the chickens. We have a lot of soybean oil we don't know what to do with, and one of the things we figured out to do is take soybean oil and mix it with diesel fuel--80-percent

diesel, 20-percent soybean oil--and we use it to power our DelDOT vehicles in the State of Delaware. We use it to power more farm equipment in the State of Delaware that is diesel power.

It works, it is energy efficient, and it is environmentally friendly. People tell me it smells like french fries.

That is one of the things we are more likely do with this bill. The intent and encouragement of this bill is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move to biofuels, including soy diesel. Good results come out of using soybeans for this purpose. It reduces our reliance on foreign oil, it is environmentally friendly, and it gives the folks who are raising soybeans--whether it is Delaware, Idaho, or any other place--the opportunity to have another market for their commodity. That is good for farmers, actually paying them to grow a commodity rather than paying them not to do that. This makes a whole lot of sense.

I wish the Senator from Arizona in offering his amendment had focused on section 29. That is a more narrowly crafted amendment. My hope is this will be defeated and we may reconsider it and come back to address that.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today I recognize Meghan Pasricha and Andrew Bell for being selected as two of the Nation's top youth volunteers in the ninth annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. This is an extraordinary honor. More than 24,000 young people across the country were considered for this recognition each year.

The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards, created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP, constitutes America's largest youth recognition program based exclusively on volunteerism. The awards are designed to emphasize the importance that our Nation places on service to others and to encourage young Americans of all backgrounds to contribute to their communities.

Meghan Pasricha was named as one of America's top 10 youth volunteers for 2004. Selected from more than 2,000 applicants, she received $5,000, an engraved gold medallion and a crystal trophy from her school, Sanford School. In addition, she will have $25,000 in toys, clothing and other juvenile products donated in her name to needy children in the area by Kids in Distressed Situations, Inc.

Meghan Pasricha, 18, of Hockessin, is a senior at Sanford School. Meghan started an antitobacco club at her school that has since developed into a full-blown campaign to educate young people across the country and overseas about the hazards of smoking. When Meghan heard that her State legislature was considering a ban on indoor smoking, she paid close attention. After learning that most smokers start before they turn 18, Meghan founded the Anti-Tobacco Action Club at her school. With a grant from the American Lung Association and the Delaware Health Fund, she recruited a core team of volunteers, led meetings, planned a year-long series of antitobacco activities, created training and presentation materials, and conducted 12 tobacco awareness workshops for school and youth groups. She also set up a tobacco education booth at a school health fair, published a newsletter and helped other Delaware schools start tobacco education programs. And by writing newspaper articles and speaking publicly, she helped mobilize youth support for the enactment of one of the Nation's toughest indoor smoking bans.

On a visit to India, Meghan observed how young people there are targeted by tobacco sellers, so she trained a group of youth advocates to raise awareness in a number of villages. Later, Meghan presented her project at the World Conference on Tobacco in Finland, and worked with youth advocates from nine other nations to prepare a World Health Organization Youth Action Guide and video. ``I am convinced that a single person, even if young and inexperienced, can become a catalyst for change,'' she said. ``Young people are often told that they are `leaders of tomorrow.' I urge young people to become leaders today.''

Andrew Bell of Seaford was selected as one of Delaware's top youth volunteers for 2004. He received a $1,000 award and was congratulated by Academy Award winning actress and comedian, Whoopi Goldberg. He also received an engraved silver medallion and a trip to Washington, DC, for the program's national recognition events.

Twelve-year-old Andrew, a sixth grader at Sussex Academy of Arts and Sciences, helped collect shoes, socks, and shoelaces for needy orphans around the world. Andrew started the project by writing letters to the four elementary school principals in his hometown of Seaford, asking them for permission to collect donations in their schools. He wrote articles for his school newsletters, created handouts and brochures explaining the purpose of his project, decorated collection boxes for each of the four schools, and solicited donations from local department stores. Some 300 pairs of shoes, 83 pairs of socks and 15 pairs of shoelaces were collected for this effort. From there, the items were sent to the Buckner Orphan Care facility in Texas. The items were then distributed worldwide to orphans in need. Andrew felt that this project was important because ``many children on Earth are poor, and not very many people are trying to help them.''

Today, I rise to congratulate Meghan and Andrew. These youngsters inspire examples of community spirit and leadership. They serve as role models not only to their peers, but to all of us, as well as to the people they have touched through community service. They represent the State of Delaware at its very best.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Jim and Sophia Tarabicos, who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on February 28, 2004.

As Jim and Sophia celebrate this milestone in their lives, they will surely reflect on the many changes, successes and accomplishments they have experienced together over the last fifty years. Theirs is a journey of which they can be proud.

Jim is the son of the late Harilaos and Alexandra Tarabicos. Jim attended high school in his hometown of Nafpaktos, Greece. He came to Wilmington, DE at the young age of 19 to work at his uncle's restaurant, Presto, located at 817 Market Street in downtown Wilmington. His wife, Sophia, is the daughter of the late Louis and Georgia Liarakos. She is a native Delawarean who graduated from P.S. DuPont High School and studied at the University of Delaware.

Jim and Sophia met at a church event when they were 19 and 17 respectively. They married two years later on February 28, 1954 at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Wilmington in front of their friends and family.

For over 40 years, Jim and Sophia dedicated their lives to one another and to their businesses. They opened their first store, a luncheonette named Jim's Place at 8th and Orange Streets in Wilmington in the mid 1950s. Several years later, they bought Presto Restaurant from their uncle. They later changed the name to Tarabicos. Jim and Sophia were committed to the success of their restaurant. Owning their own business allowed them to spend valuable time with each other, while at the same time being devoted parents, and major contributors to their neighbors, community, and church. They retired a decade ago, and continue to remain active members of their community.

Jim and Sophia consider their church to be like a second family. Jim was the president of the parish council for Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church from 1971 to 1973. While Jim was president, plans were made to move forward with approving the construction of the community center and the design, financing and use thereof. Sophia is a member of the Philoptochos Greek Ladies Society and served as president from 1981 to 1983.

In addition to the restaurants and church activities, Jim and Sophia were also quite involved with political activities, committees, and fundraisers in the City of Wilmington and were active with the city's merchants association. In their spare time, they enjoy taking walks together at Bellevue State Park, and traveling, especially taking cruises.

They are blessed with three children, Larry, Alexandra, and Georgiean, and six grandchildren, Kristin, Sophia Alyssa, Maria, Sophia Elaina, Michael and Dimitri. They are devoted to each other and to their families. Jim and Sophia are active in their children's and grandchildren's lives, often traveling to visit family members and spending meaningful time with their grandchildren and passing on to them valuable life lessons. They enjoy attending all of their various school functions

Today, I rise to congratulate Jim and Sophia on their 50th wedding anniversary. Both have shown great service and commitment to their family and to their community. They serve as true role models. I know that their years together hold many beautiful memories. It is my hope that those ahead will be filled with continued joy. I wish them both the very best in all that lies ahead.

Mr. President, the question here today is not whether we want to tax people's access to the Internet. We don't. None of us want to do that. That is not the issue.

The question is, are we going to say to State and local governments that have collected a portion of their taxes for years from telecommunications, from telephone services, are we going to take away their ability to do that? We are going to reduce their ability to do that? We are going to reduce their revenue base but at the same time, whatever shortfall they realize, we are not going to make up for it?

Ever since the time of Alexander Graham Bell, State and local governments have been collecting taxes on traditional telephone services. What is at issue here is whether we are going to empty the State and local treasuries to the tune of as much as $20 billion in the years ahead, at a time when they are facing the greatest fiscal crisis they have faced since World War II.

Are we going to empty the treasury of California by another $836 million? It is already empty. Do we want to empty the treasury of the State of Connecticut by some $170 million, or $265 million out of Kentucky's treasury, or $110 million out of Louisiana's Treasury, or $225 million out of Massachusetts' treasury, or $360 million out of Michigan's treasury, or $285 million out of Minnesota's treasury, or $600 million out of New Jersey's treasury, or $370 million out of North Carolina's treasury, or $358 million out of Tennessee's treasury, or $200 million out of Wisconsin's treasury? The list goes on.

I have said on the Senate floor before and I will say it again: If we want to do something good for the telecommunications industry--I do, and I am supportive of a number of other initiatives for the industry-- if we are supportive of tax credits or allowing companies to expense their investments, we should pay for it as Federal legislators. It is wrong for us to say we are going to give a break to the telecommunications industry, or any other industry, and say not only are we not going to pay for it, but we will tell the State and local governments they have to pay for it. In my view, that is wrong. That is not treating other people the way we want to be treated, and it is something we shouldn't countenance today.

We are going to vote on cloture in a short while with respect to the McCain amendment. Let me say this: There is a reasonable compromise between where Senator Alexander and I stand and where Senator McCain stands. There is a reasonable compromise. We will get to that compromise with a ``no'' vote on cloture. I am convinced that we will get it.

I stood here last week and urged people to vote no on the cloture on the Frist bill on asbestos. I said if we do it, we will create a dynamic where real compromise and consensus can be built around asbestos--a very difficult issue. We voted no on cloture, and as we gather here right now, over in SH-216 in Hart there are serious meetings going on to get us to a real settlement on asbestos.

We need real negotiation. A ``no'' vote on cloture on McCain does not end prospects for consensus, but it actually creates it. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

I thank my colleague for yielding. I join Senator Alexander in congratulating Senator Wyden, Senator Allen, and Senator McCain for the vote on the cloture. All week I had a different point of view on how we wanted to approach this matter. Now that is behind us. We want to approach this in the spirit of comity and see if we cannot find a consensus.

I said yesterday and I reiterate again today, there are four areas of contention, as I see them. We are discussing going from a very narrow moratorium to a very broad moratorium and the issue of what is defined as exempt under the moratorium. It is a good deal broader than what we faced in recent years. That is a matter of concern. Going well beyond access fees and discriminatory taxes is a matter of second concern.

I appreciate Senator McCain's offer to go from a permanent moratorium down to 4 years. We were interested in 2 years. I don't know if there is a similar area there for compromise. I think there is a number between 2 and 4 that might work. That would be consistent with the third area of contention where the duration of the grandfather clause for State and local governments is 3 years. They are protected for 3 years, and the length of the moratorium is 4. If we could put those two together, 3 and 3--3 years for the moratorium and stick with the 3 years for the grandfather clause--I think that actually addresses that concern.

In conversation with Senator Wyden, Senator Allen, Senator McCain, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Alexander, everyone says nobody wants to deny State and local governments the opportunity to collect taxes from telephone services that they have collected for decades. I have not talked to anybody who wants to deny State and local governments that have been collecting taxes on telephone services almost since the day Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Everyone says they do not want to deny the ability to collect that for State and local governments. The concern is, as telephone service and commerce communication migrate to the Internet, we want to make sure that as that happens State and local governments do not see those they traditionally rely on cut out.

Those are four areas, and I think there is middle ground--at least on three of them. I don't know if we can ever agree on the breadth and depth of the definition. We will approach it in a good spirit.

I thank Senator Dodd for yielding.

Mr. President, I have listened, and I understand we are debating--actually embracing--the McCain amendment to modify the language that would ensure States which have traditionally been able to derive revenue from telephone communications would continue to be able to do that. As we go forward in time--and those communications are expected to migrate to the Internet--we want to make sure we don't undercut the ability of States to continue to derive some revenues from this.

We had a good exchange an hour or so ago among Senators Alexander, Voinovich, myself, and our friends who have different views on the overall bill. I am pleased we were able to come to an agreement, not just in spirit but in letter as well. We all said we were interested in the same thing. We don't want to undercut the bill. The language in the original amendment did not appear to do that--at least to us. We would rather not have ambiguity going forward.

At a future date, if there is a court hearing and a judge is looking at the language, trying to figure out what we meant, we want the judge to understand very clearly that this body, the Congress, has no interest in taking away the ability of States to raise revenue from a longstanding traditional source--some say it goes back to the time when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. I don't know if the tax has been around that long, but I think this preserves that for the States, and that is important, as telephone communications migrate to the Internet.

I thank my colleagues, Senators McCain, Allen, and Wyden, for working with us. In fact, our staffs helped thread the needle in a very constructive and tough way.

I thank Senator Feinstein for yielding time and particularly for offering this amendment. I would say to my colleagues, I believe we have made pretty good progress, not just today but over the last several weeks, maybe the last several months, in terms of narrowing our differences. I am encouraged by that. I hope others of us are as well.

One of the great concerns some of us had was a moratorium on the ability of State and local governments to collect certain kinds of revenues that lasted forever. I am pleased that is not the case anymore. We have a moratorium of a finite duration, and the duration of the moratorium will be 4 years. I am encouraged that we entered into a healthy negotiation on just how can we make sure State and local governments which traditionally derive revenue from telephone operations continue to do that. We had a good-faith negotiation, and that led to an amendment offered by Senator McCain that was accepted unanimously. That was a very important provision.

There is one more issue I believe needs to be addressed. It is addressed in the Feinstein amendment. If somehow the Feinstein amendment could be adopted, I believe we would have a bill--in fact, we would have a bill I would vote for. I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Alexander, with whom I have worked very hard on these issues, indicated he would very likely do the same thing. For us to come from sort of how far apart we were to the point where we could actually vote for this bill were this change enacted is no small amount of progress.

Some of my colleagues have said to me that this is a complex issue. It is. Some have said to me I don't really understand most of these issues. I have studied hard. I confess there is still a good deal I don't know. But I would share with my colleagues, whether you understand the intricacies of the backbone of the Internet and what DSL means, I think we understand this and I hope we could agree on this: If we are going to say that on the one hand we are going to extend the moratorium for 4 years, and we are going to say to State and local governments there are

certain things you can't do during those 4 years, I think there is a great virtue in saying to those States that are legally collecting revenues that they can continue to do that. They have not violated the law. In fact, the old moratorium enacted in 1998 explicitly said the moratorium did not apply to telecommunications services. That is what it said.

DSL has a telecom component in it. As such, States are not prohibited from taxing DSL. Around 17 States currently do. All we are asking in this amendment is that the grandfather clause, both for dial-up and for DSL, run coterminously with the term in the McCain compromise, and that is 4 years.

If we have a 4-year moratorium, why shouldn't we have a 4-year grandfather in States that are not doing anything illegal but, frankly, exercising their rights as sovereign States? I like that symmetry and balance. What I like maybe even more is it enables those of us who fought very hard over these issues in recent weeks and months to actually come together in the end and vote for this package.

So I say to my colleagues, if you voted earlier today, maybe, for cloture, and you thought in voting for cloture you were voting for a 4- year grandfather for State and local governments, you did not. What you thought you were voting for and what you thought you were getting, you did not get. You have the opportunity now to make amends for that, and I hope you will do that by voting for the Feinstein amendment: 4-year moratorium, 4-year grandfather. It is a good symmetry, and, frankly, it is a very good compromise and one that will enable us to go ahead and proceed on this bill and pass it and ultimately to enact it.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I was watching the debate earlier that dealt with the Internet tax, and I felt it important to explain clearly where Senators Alexander, Voinovich, Enzi, Senator Dorgan, and I are on this issue.

Before I do that, I am compelled to comment on a bit of what Senator Dorgan has said. I missed most of my colleague Zell Miller's comments, but I heard all of what Senator Dorgan said. I am one of those guys who are probably like him, who see this glass as almost full; but even if it were almost empty, I tend to see it as half full.

We were here about a week or so ago debating what to do with respect to the situation we face in this country with asbestos. We all heard the stories that there are people who are sick and dying from asbestos exposure and not getting the help they need. There are folks who may have been exposed to asbestos, and they are taking away money from the folks who ought to be getting it, who are sick and dying.

In the meantime, in the settlements that are taking place, in relation to the transaction costs, the legal fees, maybe half the settlements go for legal fees. That is a situation we face. It is not a good situation. We all know we ought to do something about it. The tough thing is trying to figure out what.

We have the insurance industry in one corner, the manufacturers and the defendants in another corner, the trial bar in another corner, and organized labor, which is a proxy for victims, in yet another corner.

Last week, we voted not to proceed to the bill that Senator Frist had introduced. Some of us thought it was premature, given the negotiations that have been underway for the last couple months, trying to narrow our differences on asbestos litigation reform. As a result, I think 47 of us voted not to proceed to the bill. We did not proceed to the bill.

But a very good thing has happened subsequent to that. The very good thing is, the negotiations, the mediation led by a retired Federal judge from Pennsylvania, a fellow named Becker, who had been the chief judge of the Third Circuit for a number of years, now retired, in his seventies, a fellow whose health is apparently not good. I probably should not say this. He takes chemotherapy, so I think his health is not good. But he is in his seventies and an age where he is retired and he does not have to work. But he has been drawn, by Senator Specter, into trying to mediate the differences between organized labor and the trial bar and the insurance companies and the defendant companies to see if we cannot come up with a better way to make sure people who are sick and dying from asbestos exposure get the help they need, and to make sure people who are not sick but have been exposed--but they get sick--that we help them, too; and for folks who are not sick, who have exposure, to make sure they get their medical costs paid and try to reduce outlays from the settlements that occur so the money goes to the people who need the help, not necessarily to their attorneys.

Judge Becker is here today in Washington. He lives in Pennsylvania, but he is here today. He was here yesterday. He was here the day before. He is leading a mediation that has been anointed, embraced by our leaders--Bill Frist on the Republican side, the majority leader, and Tom Daschle on our side, the Democratic leader.

As I speak right now, Judge Becker is holding forth, meeting, listening, asking questions, probing, trying to move the disparate forces to a consensus. I joined him for a little while over in the Hart Building earlier today and said to Judge Becker: My job, I get paid to try to build a consensus on difficult issues. That is part of what we do in the Senate.

That is not Judge Becker's job. He is retired. He ought to be somewhere taking life easier, and yet he is here. He paid his way down on the train today. He did the same thing yesterday. He pays for his own meals, his own lodging. He does it out of the goodness of his heart because he thinks it needs to be done.

I raise that just to say that every day, in some corner of this Capitol, somebody is trying to make this place work. In this case, it is Judge Becker. There are other people of good will who are in that room with him trying to get through a tough patch and to help us find a way to a more rational, logical, fair way to help people who have been exposed to asbestos.

We voted last week not to go to the bill. I know some people were not happy with that vote, but we simply believed it was not time to go to the bill, given this mediation process. We urged our leaders to embrace that process, and they have done that. I am encouraged--out of that embracing of that mediation process, and the infusion of leadership authority to it--that something good will come of these negotiations.

Mr. President, we will have an opportunity to vote tomorrow on proceeding to the McCain amendment. Senator McCain has sought to find a compromise on the Internet tax legislation.

Let me back up for a moment and talk about it, if I can. When Senator Voinovich and I were Governors of our respective States, we worked with the Congress--House and Senate Democrats and Republicans--and encouraged then-President Clinton to sign legislation that said the Federal Government ought not tell the States to spend money on something and not provide that money. The Federal Government should not undercut the revenue base of State and local governments without making up the difference.

In 1998, the Congress passed a little bitty unfunded mandate that said States could not tax access to the Internet. If you were already doing it, you could continue to derive your tax, if you are a State or local government, and tax access to the Internet. But the States could not have multiple taxes; they could not have discriminatory taxes on the Internet. That was the legislation passed in 1998 and extended in 2001, and that moratorium lapsed last fall, as we know.

Since that time, States have not jumped in to pass new taxes on access to the Internet. They have not passed discriminatory taxes or multiple taxes with respect to the Internet. They have been sort of sitting back biding their time, waiting to see what we would do.

I think there are four areas of contention that exist with respect to the proposal that Senator McCain has offered. One is the definition of what is tax exempt under any moratorium we negotiate. On our side, Senators Alexander, Voinovich, Enzi, myself, and others believe the existing moratorium actually nails it pretty well, and the idea that folks should not have to pay a tax on accessing the Internet on their AOL bills, if you will. Whether they access their e-mail, their Internet by cable, by DSL, or by wireless, we think folks should not have to pay that kind of tax.

We do not believe folks should have to pay multiple taxes by different levels of government on the Internet. We believe there should not be discriminatory taxes on purchases, for example, that are made over the Internet.

But we have a clear difference of opinion with respect to defining what is to be tax exempt--free from taxation--by State and local governments. Our friends on the other side are interested in doing a whole lot more than stopping access fees that we pay as consumers. We don't want anybody to pay those either.

They want to go well beyond the moratorium against multiple fees on use of the Internet. They want to go beyond discriminatory taxes. What they want to do, really, is take away from States and local governments the ability, if States want to, to impose business-to-business transaction taxes that might involve the Internet. I am not interested in taxing those as a Federal legislator, but I don't know that it

is our part, as Federal legislators, to say to State and local governments that they can't do that unless we are willing to make up the revenue shortfall that may come as a result.

So the four areas of difference: One is the definition of what is tax exempt under the moratorium we adopt. A second area of difference that we have is with respect to the duration of the moratorium that we might extend. I said earlier, the first moratorium we passed was 3 years in duration from 1998 to 2001. At that time, Congress passed, almost unanimously, a further 2-year extension of that moratorium that lasted until last fall. Now that moratorium has lapsed.

I think we have seen suggestions in S. 150, introduced by Senator Allen and Senator Wyden, that they wanted to make the moratorium permanent, an extension of the moratorium not 2 years, not 3 years, but to make it permanent. They define very broadly what is to be exempt from taxation under that permanent moratorium, even if it cuts into the revenue bases of State and local governments, and even if we do not make up the shortfall they may then face. So the second area of contention is the duration of the moratorium.

The third area of contention deals with whether we should grandfather in the rights of State and local governments, so if they have already put in place some kind of tax on the Internet, our previous moratoriums grandfathered them in, protected them, for a period of time, from losing those revenues. It held them harmless, if you will. And the question is, if we go forward and we have a grandfather clause to protect the States that already have imposed some kind of tax measure, how long do we extend that grandfather clause for those State and local governments that are going to be deprived of revenues they currently collect, and that we are not prepared to make up?

The suggestion has come forward, in Senator McCain's proposal earlier this week--maybe yesterday--that there should be a grandfather clause to hold the States harmless for a while but not for as long as the duration of the moratorium. And that is problematic.

The fourth area of contention deals with the application of the moratorium to what I would describe as traditional taxable voice communications, taxable by State and local governments, but the application of the moratorium to those traditional taxable voice communications when those communications are routed over the Internet. It is called VOIP.

Is it possible to bridge our differences on those four areas? It may or may not be. But having clearly defined them, our side is certainly willing to discuss them with those who have a different view of these issues than we do. One thing we all agree on is, whatever we do, we should try to hold the States harmless.

Somewhere in my talking points today, I have a discussion of why it is important that we hold the States harmless. If I can just take a minute or 2, I want to share part of this.

Our States are clearly facing extremely difficult times. We all know that. States have cut services and raised taxes over the last 3 years as they have scrambled to fill a budget shortfall that approaches $250 billion. Many States still face significant revenue shortfalls. California alone must fill an estimated $16 billion shortfall. New York faces a $4 billion shortfall. Both Michigan and Florida still have projected deficits of $1 billion. Some States are being forced to make cuts that are not only painful and unpopular but which ultimately undermine our efforts as part of welfare reform to make work pay. Some 34 States have adopted cuts that are causing anywhere from 1.2 million to 1.6 million low-income people to lose their health insurance. Alabama, Colorado, Maryland, Montana, and Utah have all stopped enrolling children in their children's health insurance programs. Florida has done the same and has built up a waiting list of more than 10,000 children.

Meanwhile, Connecticut is cutting coverage for more than 20,000 parents, and Georgia is cutting coverage for 20,000 pregnant women and children. In Texas, the State is actually ending coverage entirely for nearly 160,000 children and working families.

Besides health care, childcare is also on the chopping block. Some 23 States have cut back on childcare for working families. Florida, for example, has more than 48,000 children on a waiting list for childcare. Under the State's formula they are actually eligible, but they are not able to get it given the State's fiscal challenges. Reducing the waiting list is not even an option. I am told the budget in Florida is moving through the statehouse and they have cut childcare even more, by another $40 million.

Tennessee faces similar cuts. Tennessee has begun declining applications for childcare from all families who are not actually receiving welfare payments.

Altogether, in about half of all States, low-income families who are eligible for or in need of childcare assistance are either not allowed to apply or are placed on waiting lists. In California alone, over a quarter of a million kids, 280,000 children, are on waiting lists in that one State.

I won't go on. The point I am trying to make is just a reminder. States face terribly difficult choices these days, whether it is health care, childcare, size of the classrooms, or the ability to hire teachers and to pay them what they need to attract good math and science teachers. States are in a bind. I was Governor in the good years, from 1993 to 2001, when we were rolling in money. The States are not rolling in money anymore.

The father of the Presiding Officer is Governor. He will tell us they are not rolling in money up in Alaska any more than they are in California.

If States were rolling in money, Senator Alexander and myself, Senators Voinovich, Enzi, Hutchison, and others would not be making this big fuss over what we believe is an unfunded mandate for State and local governments that is represented by S. 150 and, we believe, by the alternative offered by Senator McCain. If the States were rolling in money, we wouldn't be doing this. If we were providing some kind of offset to the revenues that State and local governments would lose, we wouldn't be making a big fight about it either. If States could be held harmless, we could probably work our way through this. Maybe we ought to. I believe we should.

One thing I know for sure, there is agreement to extend the moratorium. I think if we were to vote on a simple 2-year extension of the moratorium that expired last November, there would probably be votes to pass that.

I am concerned about the vote on cloture tomorrow on the McCain proposal. I urge my colleagues not to vote for it. Last week I urged my colleagues not to vote to proceed to the bill on asbestos that Senator Frist had introduced, not because I was not interested in getting a conclusion or consensus. I believed that by not bringing the bill to the floor, it actually increased the likelihood that we are going to get consensus on asbestos litigation reform. We are moving in that direction, and I am encouraged that we are on the right track.

I believe if we go to the McCain bill tomorrow, we would be acting prematurely. There are still negotiations that can take place and should take place around the four elements I discussed. If we are forced to take up the bill at that point in time, we foreclose what could come out of those discussions, some of which have borne fruit already, some which still could.

There are a number of Senators on my side who want to offer amendments of their own. It is ironic. We have on the one hand people on the other side of this issue--from Senators Alexander, Voinovich, Enzi, and myself--who contend that they want to support the telecom industry. I believe in their hearts they want to promote the industry. It is a good industry with good people. But there are also folks on our side and on the Republican side who have a whole bunch of ideas they would like to present and to offer as amendments. I will mention a few that might be appropriate.

If we want to help the industry build a market broadband network, there are any number of viable options. Senator Hollings has introduced legislation, with a number of cosponsors, that would provide block grants to support State and local broadband initiatives.

Senator Dorgan, the floor manager on our side, has legislation to make

low-interest loans available to countries who would deploy broadband technology in rural areas. Senator Rockefeller has introduced legislation, with 65 cosponsors, to provide tax credits for companies investing in broadband equipment. Senator Burns of Montana has legislation that would allow the expensing of broadband equipment. Senator Boxer has legislation that allocates the additional spectrum for unlicensed use by wireless broadband devices. Senator Clinton and others have legislation.

To the extent that we vote for cloture tomorrow on the McCain proposal, many, if not all, of these proposals will not be made in order, even though they are germane and they relate to the issue. These amendments and, frankly, a lot of others like them could not be offered.

I am not suggesting that all of them should be offered, but some of them should. Members who have a strong interest and have worked on the issues for a long time deserve that right. They believe strongly.

As my collegues think about tomorrow's cloture votes, I realize this bill has gotten off track. What somehow started off as an Internet tax bill and figuring out how we can extend the moratorium and then paying a user fee for access to the Internet got off on another side rail on energy policy, ethanol, and a number of other things. I think Senator Domenici has introduced as an amendment the entire Energy bill. Eventually, I hope we will work our way through that. In the meantime, I hope we will use the hours ahead and maybe the next couple of days to join in a negotiation with our colleagues on the other side of this issue and try, maybe one last time, to see if there is someplace in between where we are and where they are.

In the end, if there is a push for the approach Senator Alexander and I introduced, which is the straight-ahead, 2-year extension of the moratorium, to make sure it is not biased against DSL, we can just have that vote. We are not there yet. We have about 24 hours to consider it, and maybe cooler heads will prevail. If it comes to it, I will vote against cloture, not because I am not interested in finding a solution--I think we can. The time just may not be right. It could be close.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for yielding the time. Let me say how much I enjoyed the opportunity to work with the Senator on this issue and, frankly, on a number of other issues. I think he has shown a lot of courage, and I am grateful to him. I thank him for the opportunity to be his partner.

I take some time this morning to address one of the important arguments made by our colleagues on the other side of this debate. Proponents of the legislation argue the only way to encourage broadband deployment is to provide subsidies to telecommunication industries with no strings attached. Furthermore, they argue the only way to create such subsidies is to pass a large, new, unfunded Federal mandate. I submit if what all of us here want to do is determine the taxes and spending policies of our State governments, then we should do what Senator Alexander did, what Senator Voinovich did, what Senator Hollings, I, and others did. We ran for Governor. We were elected. As a result we had the opportunity--in my case for 8 years--to decide what the taxing and spending policies of our States' governments should be. That is what we did.

The authority we are granted here in the Senate by the Constitution is to decide the taxes and spending policies of the Federal Government, not the taxing and spending policies of the State governments, and not the spending and taxing policies of local governments. Our job is to determine the taxing and spending policies of the Federal Government.

That being said, it is not as if we the Senate are somehow without the power to create incentives for industries to encourage certain activities we deem to be desirable. Senator Alexander mentioned a couple of areas where we are involved with tax policies in other cases and with spending policies to encourage the development of fuel cell vehicles, or to develop the creation of leaner burning diesel vehicles, or to incentivize creation of coal-fired plants that don't pollute a great deal. We have that spending and taxing authority, and we are using it--some would argue not to great effect, but that is our responsibility. We have the authority, after all, of a Federal budget. It is over $2 trillion.

If we believe telecommunications companies need more money to build and market their broadband networks, and if we believe we can do better than the private sector in providing that money, then there are any number of ways we can provide money at the Federal level. After we do that, first of all,

we could provide Federal grants. We can provide Federal tax breaks. We can provide loan guarantees. We can provide additional spectrum for unlicensed use. The only reason not to provide the money in these ways, if it is needed, is because Congress would have to find a way to pay for it rather than simply sending the bill to our friends in our State and local governments. If we pass a new unfunded mandate this week or next week, it will be a matter of choice rather than a matter of necessity.

In case anyone doubts that, I would like to bring to the attention of our colleagues here in the Senate a few of the many bills that have been introduced in the Congress to create Federal incentives for broadband deployment. These bills have already been written. These bills have already been introduced. Many of them have a rather broad cosponsorship. If we wanted to, we could bring one or several of them to the floor today, debate them, and perhaps pass them.

I will mention a number of those bills. I want to start first with bills that have been introduced by Senators who have joined us in opposing the unfunded Federal mandate we are debating here today. I do so because there has been some suggestion made by our colleague on the other side of this issue that those of us who oppose unfunded mandates also oppose the Internet, or oppose efforts to encourage the development of broadband. That is not true. While I doubt many of our colleagues believe this to be the case, I do believe it is important we clarify matters for the record.

Let me start with a bill authored by Senator Hollings, a distinguished ranking member of the Commerce Committee. One year ago, Senator Hollings introduced the Broadband Deployment Act. It is a true Federal broadband bill, and as such it would be a much more appropriate piece of legislation for us to be debating here today. Instead of handing State and local governments an unfunded mandate, Senator Hollings' bill would provide broadband to support State and local broadband initiatives. Rather than being unfunded, Senator Hollings' proposal would be financed by moneys from the Federal telephone access tax.

Besides block grants, Senator Hollings' bill would also provide direct grants for broadband deployment. It would also support university research on next-generation broadband technology and pilot projects deploying new wireless broadband technology. I think that sounds like a worthwhile proposal.

However, for Senators who are opposed to providing outright grants, perhaps we should consider another proposal; that is, one by Senator Dorgan.

His proposal is to make low-interest loans available to companies that are deploying broadband technologies in rural areas such as North Dakota. We have rural areas in Kentucky. There are rural areas in Tennessee. Believe it or not, we still have rural areas in Delaware. That proposal might be of some interest to a lot of us, and I suspect to other of our colleagues.

On the other hand, if Senators would rather provide tax incentives and either grants or loans, then perhaps we should be debating Senator Rockefeller's Broadband Internet Access Act. Senator Rockefeller's legislation would provide tax credits for companies investing in broadband equipment. It would provide a 10-percent tax credit for investments in so-called ``current generation'' broadband services.

For investment in higher speeds for next-generation broadband services, his bill would provide a 20-percent tax credit.

If it is a Republican tax proposal my colleagues are looking for, we could always turn to Montana and Senator Burns' proposal to allow the expensing of broadband investments by companies. That might work. I find that attractive.

If party affiliation is not the hangup, but Senators are uncomfortable with providing tax incentives directly to companies, perhaps they would prefer the approach suggested by our colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. She proposes a different approach. She proposes providing an income tax credit to holders of bonds that are used to finance the deployment of broadband technology.

Finally, if Senators don't want to provide grants, loans, or tax incentives, they can consider an approach advocated by one of our colleagues who happens to represent, among other places in California, Silicon Valley; that is, Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer has proposed we allocate additional spectrum for unlicensed use by wireless broadband devices.

Those are only a few of the proposals that have been made, introduced, discussed, and in some cases subject to hearings, and which have cosponsors.

Those are a sampling of the things we can do as Federal legislators in a proactive way if we are interested in strengthening the ability of companies to market and extend their broadband systems.

What I think this array of proposals indicates is there is no limit to the ways in which we could act, if we wanted to, to encourage broadband deployment at the Federal level. The Senators I have mentioned--I mentioned five of them--span the ideological spectrum, from liberal to conservative. They come from different parts of our country. Their proposals reflect their ideological diversity. Some would increase spending; others would cut taxes. Some would finance their proposals by reallocating existing resources; others would add to the deficit.

But what is clear is all these proposals are harder to pass here in Washington than an unfunded mandate because we would have to pay the bill ourselves. We could not stick anyone else with the tab. We would have to pay the tab.

Admittedly, at a time when our Federal budget deficit is out of control, I have to confess passing the buck does have a certain amount of appeal. But it is not as though State and local governments are in much better shape financially than we are. State and local governments are struggling to cope with the worst financial crisis they have faced, I am told, since World War II. Classrooms are becoming overcrowded as school budgets are cut. Prisoners are being released from jails as correction budgets are cut. Governors and mayors are pushing through unpopular and frequently regressive tax increases.

New industry subsidies can be created for all sorts of wonderful purposes, but if they are conceived in Washington, and then the cost of those subsidies is passed on to State and local governments, what it all amounts to is political welfare. We spend, they pay.

If we are going to pass on our costs to our friends in State and local governments, we ought to at the very least have the courtesy to tell them how much expense we are planning to run up on their tab. Perhaps the worst part about this new unfunded Federal mandate we are proposing is we cannot honestly look our Governors in the eye, we cannot honestly look our mayors in the eye, we cannot honestly look our State legislators in the eye, and even tell them how much this unfunded mandate is going to cost them and their State or their city or their county. We cannot do that because, in truth, we have no idea.

I would ask how my colleagues would react to the following proposal from me: Suppose I proposed a bill to create new Federal subsidies for the poultry industry.

The poultry industry is big in our State and the entire Delmarva Peninsula. In fact, for every person living in Delaware, there are 300 chickens. Let's say I proposed a bill to create new Federal subsidies for the poultry industry, or any industry, for that matter. Suppose these subsidies would be provided in the form of mandatory spending outside the control of annual appropriations. Suppose CBO evaluated my proposal and indicated they could not estimate, they could not even guess how much my proposal would cost, except to say: We believe it could grow to be large. We believe it could grow to be large.

That is what CBO has said about S. 150: We believe its cost to State and local governments could grow to be large. But they are unable to say how large and how soon.

If I proposed some kind of proposal that helped our poultry industry, and CBO said, ``We don't know how much this is going to cost,'' would my colleagues in the Senate pass that kind of a proposal? Would they even allow it to be considered on the floor of the Senate? As convincing as I might be, I do

not think they would. Yet this is exactly what we are asking our Governors to accept from us. This is why the Governors united-- Republican and Democrat alike--in opposing the subsidies in the underlying bill we are debating today.

If my colleagues have not yet read CBO's analysis of this bill, I urge they do so. The Congressional Budget Office tells us this legislation is written in a way that is so broad and so vague they cannot even give us a rough estimate of what its effect will be on State and local governments, except to say: We expect it to grow to be large. They say the language in this legislation is so confusing that lawyers will ultimately have to get involved, and we will not know what the implications for State and local budgets will be until it all gets sorted out in the courts.

My friends, that is unacceptable. It is beneath us as the world's greatest deliberative body. It is an abdication of our responsibility as the body our Founders created in part to protect the interests of the respective States of our Union.

We can do better. We all agree the current moratorium on Internet access taxes should be extended. I say ``the current moratorium.'' It is a moratorium that was in place for 5 years and expired last November. But we agree the moratorium should be restored. We disagree, though, on what should be done beyond that. But we all agree the moratorium should be extended.

If we are going to write this bill on the floor rather than negotiating a compromise everyone can live with, we ought to begin with what we can all agree on, and debate what to do beyond that. We ought to call up a bill that simply extends the old moratorium.

I want to expand that moratorium to make it technology neutral. Along with Senator Alexander, I expect to offer an amendment to do that. If others want to add billions in new subsidies to the bill on top of that, then they can offer their own amendments. If we want to propose ways to pay for such subsidies, as others may propose, and to do so here at the Federal level rather than passing the bill to the States, then we should put our proposals forward. If others want to propose different inducements to industries, such as low-interest loans or allocations of spectrum, then they should bring those proposals forward as well.

That seems, to me at least, to be the fairest way to proceed. If the goal is to have a genuine debate on this issue and to let the Senate work its will, we would welcome that. On the other hand, if the intention is to proceed to a fundamentally flawed bill, and then immediately file cloture to close off debate, we have no choice but to use every procedure available to us to protect our rights and to protect the interests of our States.

My hope is we will still be able to work this one out and reach an acceptable compromise, one that extends the moratorium and makes it neutral with respect to technology, but also one that first does no harm to State and local governments, that are struggling to cope, as I said earlier, with their worst financial crisis since World War II.

In 1995, when the Senate debated and, along with the House of Representatives, passed the unfunded mandates law, I was not working in the Senate. I had been a Member of the House of Representatives, but I left at the end of 1992. Former Governor Mike Castle and I sort of swapped jobs. He became a Congressman from Delaware, and I was privileged to become its Governor.

Starting in 1993, my first year as Governor, I began working with other Governors, including Senator Voinovich. What we sought to do was to work actually initially with a bunch of Republicans who were part of the so-called ``Gingrich Revolution'' which was able to capture the majorities in the House and Senate in 1994. One of the platforms of the ``Gingrich Revolution'' was the Federal Government should not tell the State and local governments what to spend their money on, and then not provide that money; nor should the Federal Government tell State and local governments what they could or could not tax without providing some offset if we cut their revenue base.

One of the first laws enacted in the year 1995, signed by then- President Clinton, is one that said: Unfunded mandates are wrong, whether they are on the spending side or on the revenue side.

In 1998, the Congress passed an unfunded mandate, not a big one but a little bitty one. The reason they did it, they said, was to make sure the Internet has an opportunity to get up on its feet and successful because we think it could mean good things for our economy. It has.

At a time when State and local governments were beginning to put taxes or fees in place on access to the Internet, the Congress and President Clinton said: State and local governments, if you are already imposing some kind of tax on access to the Internet or some fees on access to the Internet, essentially your AOL bills of consumers, if you already have one in place, you may keep it in place, but if you haven't done it, you are not going to be able to do so. So a moratorium was put in place in 1998. Most people thought it was a good idea. States went along with it. They were not crazy about the idea, but they went along with it.

After 3 years the moratorium was supposed to expire. When it was about to expire, it was extended, almost by acclamation, in 2001. The States were not crazy about the idea, but there was not a whole lot of push back. Then late last year, that 2-year extension expired.

With Senators Alexander, Voinovich, Graham of Florida, Feinstein, Dorgan, Enzi, Hollings and I, and others opposing the underlying bill, I don't believe you would see that kind of opposition if some things were different.

If there had never been an unfunded mandates law in 1995, we may not feel so strongly, although the idea that the Federal Government is telling the States what to do and to pay for it, the Federal Government is taking away the revenue base of the States and not making up the difference, that still rubs me the wrong way. I find it galling. But if there were no unfunded mandates law, we would probably not be making this kind of fuss today over this issue.

If the Internet were still in its infancy, still struggling to hit its stride, not yet making the impact it does today in our economy here and around the world, we probably wouldn't be making the fuss we are today in opposition to the underlying bill.

If States today were awash in money and not facing the largest fiscal crisis they have faced in over 50 years, we probably would not be making the kind of noise we are in opposition to the underlying bill.

If telecom companies were not beginning to enjoy very decent profits as they are today--and the prospect is for more of the same--then we might not be making the kind of fuss we are in opposition to the underlying bill.

As it turns out, there is an unfunded mandate law, and even if there were not, what we are seeking to do in my judgment is morally wrong. The Internet is no longer in its infancy. It is a grown child, not just trying to walk or crawl. This grown child is running at full speed. The States are not awash in money. They are hurting. They are hurting in ways we have not seen in a long time.

It is not just the classrooms that are crowded. It is not just the prison doors being opened to let people out who frankly should still be incarcerated in many cases. It is not just the caseload burdens of folks whose job it is to work with families in trouble. All of those problems are facing State and local governments, and they do not have the revenues to cope with them in many cases.

The telecoms are doing pretty well these days. They went through a tough patch, but they seem to be coming through it.

I don't know if Senator Alexander still has to go somewhere or not. Is he able to stay on the floor a bit longer?

Let me yield before the Senator leaves, if he would like to make some comments. I have a few more things I would like to say.

You have heard some of this before.

Mr. President, it is ironic. The Senator talks about some of us here who would like to almost usurp the responsibilities of our State and local officials.

I always describe myself, when people ask what I do, as a ``recovering Governor.'' Although I love being in the Senate and working with particularly the folks we are engaged with on this particular issue, we are not Governors, we are not mayors, we are not county executives, and we are not State legislators; we are Federal legislators. We have the ability, the power, through the Federal purse, through our appropriations process, to offer grants and provide tax credits. We are in a position to nurture industries, promote them. We have talked about some of them today. This is one industry that should be nurtured and strengthened. We can do that and we should do that on our dime.

I see the Senator from New Hampshire on his feet. I will make one more comment and then I will yield the floor.

Senators Alexander, Voinovich, and I just returned from a press conference upstairs a couple minutes ago. We were asked about the proposal Senator McCain has offered. I have a huge respect for him. We were colleagues in the House together, and we served in the Navy at about the same time. I believe what he submitted is a proposal made in good faith. However, I also ask my colleagues to keep this in mind. Whether you look at the underlying bill, S. 150, considering the alternative Senator Alexander and I offered, also on behalf of other colleagues, and consider what Senator McCain offered and other proposals that may come to the floor, there are really four areas of contention. They include, No. 1, and maybe most important, what is the definition of what is tax exempt under the moratorium? I will say that again. The first area of contention may be the most important. It is the definition of what is tax exempt under whatever moratorium is being proposed.

Other areas of contention, though I think not as important, include the duration of the moratorium. Should it be 15 months, 2 years, 3 years, or 4 years? That is an area of contention. But it is not as critical as the definition of what is tax exempt under whatever moratorium is being proposed.

The third area of contention is, what is the duration of the grandfather clauses for State and local governments which would be deprived of revenue that they currently collect?

Finally, what is the application of the moratorium to traditional taxable voice communications, when those communications are routed over the Internet? Those are really the four areas of contention.

If you look carefully at the proposal submitted by Senator McCain, the definition of what is tax exempt under his proposal looks a whole lot like that which is included in the bill authored by Senators Allen and Wyden. While the duration of the moratorium is a little different, it is shorter. That, in my judgment, is not really the key factor here. Of interest, though, is the duration of the grandfather clause. I think the moratorium under the McCain proposal is 4 years, but the grandfather clause protecting State and local governments is only for 3 years. There appears to be, superficially, an effort in the McCain bill to address the issue of the application of the moratorium to traditional taxable voice communications when those forms of communications are routed over the Internet. On the one hand, the legislation appears to address, with some sensitivity, that concern. But on the other hand, it takes it back. We have to look at the entire language as it pertains to this provision.

These are not easy issues to understand. I have spent a fair amount of time on them and they are not easy for me. For those of us not on the Commerce Committee and have not had the benefit of the extensive hearings, these are not easy issues. I have tried to come up to speed on these issues, and the rest of us in this body have struggled to come up to speed. I want to make sure we use the time before us this week, and maybe next week, to provide the kind of primer that I have been privileged to have for others of our colleagues, so that at the end of the day, when we vote, we are casting an informed vote.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I am delighted to be on the floor with you and particularly pleased to be with Senators Voinovich and Alexander.

I wish to ask a question of Senator Voinovich, if I could--I know, before he was the Senator from Ohio, he was the Governor of Ohio. We served together at that time--to what other elective positions Senator Voinovich has been elected by the people of Ohio? As I recall----

I would say, Madam President, Senator Voinovich is not a Johnny-come-lately on this subject. I recall, early in my time as Governor, working through the National Governors Association, the kind of leadership he provided, encouraging the Congress, the House and Senate, and then President Clinton, to pass and enact an unfunded mandates law. He played a major role in getting that done.

It is kind of ironic that a decade or so later, we are back again and the issue is very much the same. I am pleased to see we stand today where we stood then. I am honored to be involved in this battle on the same side with Senator Voinovich and Senator Alexander.

We have been joined on the floor by the former mayor of San Francisco, Senator Feinstein, and I see we have been joined on the floor by another former Governor, Governor Allen, who in this instance is our adversary but remains our very good friend.

That having been said, I do have some other comments I would like to make. Let me observe we have gotten into some very bad habits here in Washington. We all know we are living beyond our means. We all know about our growing budget shortfall and our escalating level of indebtedness. We all know the most popular way to pay for things around here is simply to issue more and more debt on our Nation's credit card and on our taxpayers' dime.

Moreover, we all know that our budget shortfall is actually bigger than we report it to be. We all know we are using Social Security funds to mask the actual size of our Federal budget deficit.

We are using the payroll tax contributions that working Americans pay into Social Security, and employers pay, to pay for other Government spending and to partially offset corporate tax breaks and reductions in taxes on inherited estates.

What we do not talk about very often is that piling up more debt and drawing on Social Security are not the only means we are resorting to these days to continue to spend more than we take in. The other way we found to spend without constraint or accountability was to pass the buck to our friends in State and local government.

If you think about it, it is a sweetheart deal. We order up a feast here in Washington of more spending or more special interest tax breaks and more corporate subsidies. Then we stick the Governors, mayors, and State and local taxpayers with the tab. It is not surprising that we do this. In doing so, we get to take credit for helping an array of different groups and businesses represented here in Washington. Yet we don't have to raise a single tax or cut a single program to pay for it.

In government as in business, however, there is no such thing as a free lunch. This policy of passing unfunded mandates has not been nearly as convenient for our Governors, for our mayors, and State and local taxpayers as it has been for us here in our Nation's Capital. I don't have to tell my colleagues their States and localities are struggling to cope today with the worst fiscal crisis--some say since World War II. Classrooms are becoming even more crowded as school budgets are cut. Prisoners in a number of States are being released from jail as corrections budgets are cut. Governors and mayors are pushing through unpopular and frequently regressive tax increases because they have a constitutional mandate to balance their budget.

We all know this. Yet when it comes right down to it, we proceed to act here in Washington as if we are oblivious to what is going on all around us. We continue to treat State and local budgets almost as piggy banks that we can break in order to pay for our own priorities.

Just about everyone in this body supports a moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access. In 1998, the Congress passed such a moratorium. In 2001, we extended that moratorium. In fact, I believe we did so just about unanimously.

Last year the Internet tax moratorium expired. There was no reason why that should have happened. If the bill had been brought to the floor of the Senate simply to extend that moratorium once again, it would have passed once again by acclamation. The American people support the moratorium. I support the moratorium. All of us want to see it extended.

However, as was the case last year, the bill we are debating this week does not simply extend the expired Internet tax moratorium. I wish that it did. Instead, what this bill does is to take advantage of the need to extend that moratorium to attach billions of dollars in new subsidies for the telecommunications industry.

Such a bill would not normally stand much of a chance of passage in the Senate.

The simple truth of the matter is we don't have the money at this time of budget deficits at home and war abroad to pay for billions of dollars in new subsidies for what is already a highly profitable industry. But the proponents of this legislation have discovered an easy solution to their problem. Why pay when we can send the bill back home to our Governors and to our mayors? Just think of it as political welfare. We spend and they pay.

Passing the buck in this way is bad enough, but it gets worse. Believe it or not, we can't actually say what this legislation will cost our friends in State and local governments. We know it will not cost us a dime here in Washington, but the truth is we do not know how much it will cost in Dover, DE, in Raleigh, NC, in Richmond, VA, in Columbus, OH, in Nashville, TN, or in Sacramento, CA.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us this legislation is written in a way that is extremely broad and vague. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office cannot even give us a rough estimate of what the effect will be on State and local budgets except to say this:

We believe it could grow to be large.

Here is what we are saying in effect to our Governors and to our mayors: We are extending to you the great honor of picking up our dinner tab tonight. We can't tell you exactly how much we have ordered or what the final bill will be, but we believe it could grow to be large.

At times like these when property taxes are being raised, when sales taxes are being raised, when school budgets are being cut, when prisoners are being released prematurely, our first responsibility in dealing with our partners in State and local government should be to do as Senator Voinovich has already said--no harm. Indeed, that is the pledge our Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, made to our Nation's Governors when he spoke to them back in February, a couple of months ago, when they were here in town. As a doctor--and a good one--the majority leader said his approach to legislation would be, ``First, do no harm.'' This, it seems to me, at least is a sensible approach. My hope is that rather than wasting time with an unproductive fight here on the floor, we will return to the negotiating table and work out a compromise that keeps faith with this Hippocratic pledge to do no harm.

Unfortunately, the way it stands, we are choosing the way of lawyers around here rather than the way of the doctors. The Congressional Budget Office says the language of the legislation we are proceeding to here in the Senate is so confusing lawyers will ultimately have to get involved and we will not know what the implications for State and local budgets will be until it all gets sorted out in the courts.

If we had to choose between extending the Internet tax moratorium and keeping faith with our pledge to do no harm, we would truly be faced with a difficult decision. But in reality, that is not the decision with which we are faced. We can extend the Internet tax moratorium. Nobody I have talked to is opposed to that. States and localities have been living under the Internet tax moratorium for more than 5 years now. None of them are counting on revenues from taxes prohibited under the Internet tax moratorium.

Extending the Internet tax moratorium is not what creates a large, new, unfunded mandate. What creates a large, new, unfunded mandate is using the occasion of the Internet tax moratorium renewal to create new industry subsidies and then emptying State and local treasuries to pay for those subsidies.

This bill departs from the original intent of the previous moratorium which was to ensure the monthly bills our constituents receive from their Internet service providers remain tax free. Instead, this legislation picks the pockets of State and local taxpayers who have already suffered their fair share of tax increases over the past 3 years.

Senator Alexander and I are Senators. Like all of our colleagues, we have constituents who use the Internet and who want the Internet tax moratorium to remain in place. Like most others in this body, we want to extend the Internet tax moratorium. But Senator Alexander and I are also former Governors. We know what it is like to be on the receiving end of unfunded Federal mandates, as do my colleagues Senator Feinstein, former mayor of San Francisco, and Senator Hutchison, a former State treasurer from Texas.

Senator Alexander and I, together with Senator Voinovich, Senator Graham, Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein and others, have offered what we believe is a straightforward, commonsense alternative. As we did in 2001, let us examine the Internet tax moratorium for another 2 years. If we need to expand the moratorium slightly to ensure all consumers can access the Internet tax free, regardless of whether they choose cable or DSL, then let us do that. But beyond that, let us do no harm.

Let us do no harm because doing harm is not necessary to ensure consumers can access the Internet tax free. Doing harm is only necessary if we believe the telecommunications industry needs billions of dollars in new subsidies. Beyond that, doing harm is only necessary if we believe Congress cannot or should not pay for such subsidies it decides to create.

Senator Alexander and I, together with Senators Voinovich, Feinstein, Hutchison, Graham and others, have been working in good faith with our colleagues on the other side of this issue. We are committed to reaching a reasonable compromise. We are willing to meet every day if necessary to work out such a compromise. However, what we are not going to do is turn our backs on our former colleagues in our Nation's State houses and our Nation's city halls. We are not going to stand by as yet another unfunded mandate gets passed down and wreaks havoc on the operations of State and local governments.

We don't think it is constructive to try to write this bill on the floor. Furthermore, we believe we should only proceed to consideration of a bill that adheres to the principles of doing no harm.

If our colleagues want to attach industry subsidies to an Internet tax moratorium, they should offer an amendment to do so, and that amendment should be debated openly here on the floor of the Senate.

If the majority leader wants to try to write this bill on the floor despite our reservations, then we are prepared to go through that exercise.

We have many specific concerns with the bill that has been called up. We have a number of amendments we will offer for our colleagues' consideration, including amendments to return to the original intent of the moratorium and to require any new subsidies be directly passed on to consumers in the form of reduced rates.

We will also offer our colleagues an opportunity to pay for the billions of dollars of subsidies that have been added to this bill.

If this body does not believe the resources exist at the Federal level to pay for these subsidies, we will raise a point of order against the bill.

As the Congressional Budget Office has already indicated, this bill violates the promise Congress made in 1995 that we would not continue to pass large, unfunded mandates. The Senate has the power to waive the point of order that is supposed to prevent Congress from passing large, unfunded Federal mandates. If we are going to do so, however, Senator Alexander and I believe the Senate ought to be put on record as acknowledging our continued reliance on unfunded mandates as a chosen means to avoid our fiscal responsibility, and it should not have to come to that. Our hope is it will not come to that.

We believe the negotiations we have had with our friends on the other side, though they have been limited, have been productive, and we have tried as fully as we can consistent with our principles to address industries' demands.

We believe we have come a long way since this debate began early last year. We are committed to continuing that process. If that process is short circuited, however, as it seems it will be, at least for now, we will insist upon a serious and informed debate in the Senate this week.

This is the body that our Founding Fathers created to represent the interest of States. This is the body that must defend our Federal system of government and stand against the trend of passing more and more unfunded Federal mandates.

Win or lose, Senator Alexander and I are committed to ensuring that this is one unfunded mandate that will not be passed silently in the dead of night.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President and my colleagues, in a few minutes we will vote on whether to proceed to debating and amending this legislation on asbestos. It is an important issue and an important vote.

Before I say anything else, I wish to express my thanks to Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy and others on the Judiciary Committee who have worked on this issue for years. I express our thanks for trying to help us narrow our differences. I think they have been narrowed.

I spent a good part of the 2 years myself learning about this issue and coming up to speed on it so I might be able to participate in a constructive way. I have certainly learned a lot and hopefully made at least a modest contribution.

As we have tried to develop consensus on this issue, I think there are about four basic principles that we can agree on and ought to agree on.

One is that when people are sick and dying from exposure to asbestos, they ought to get the money they and their families need and they should get it now.

When people become sick later on from an earlier exposure, they should receive reasonable compensation and it should come promptly.

People who are not sick, who may have had an exposure to asbestos and may not become sick, they should have medical monitoring at no cost but they should not be siphoning off the moneys from folks who truly are sick and are in desperate straits.

Finally, the last principle is we ought to reduce the transaction costs, essentially the legal costs, that are involved in this whole process.

Those are four basic principles. My guess is if we could vote on those principles, we would all vote for them. We are not ready to vote yet on bringing this bill to the floor. I say that with some reluctance.

I have these four core values. The Presiding Officer and I talked about core values before. One of my core values is just never give up. I have another way of saying that. I say sometimes: ``No'' means ``find another way.'' The ``no'' vote I am going to cast--in the ``no'' votes that are going to be cast, I want to be clear what ``no'' means.

First, I will say what it doesn't mean. ``No'' doesn't mean let's give up. ``No'' doesn't mean this bill is dead in this session. So it doesn't mean that asbestos legislation is dead for all time.

This is what ``no'' means. ``No'' means let's build on the work that has been done, the good work that has been done within the Judiciary Committee. ``No'' means let's build on the good work that has been done in the so-called Specter-Becker process, involving retired Federal Judge Becker. Let's build on that.

There are a number of important issues that still have to be resolved. This is not a bill to write on the floor. I think among the issues we agree on is that this is complex stuff. I know it is for me and for a lot of our colleagues. This is not a bill to be written on the floor, and there is still too much that needs to be written for us to take the bill up today. There is a process taking place that yesterday, my leader, Senator Daschle, and the Republican leader, Senator Frist, have bought into. I have urged them both for some time to build on the Specter-Becker process, which has focused mostly on administrative issues and with some real success, but to build on that process, given the kind of role Judge Becker has come to play as a mediator, one trusted by labor, by the trial bar, by the insurers, by the manufacturers, and by many of the defendants in these legal cases.

This is not something we ought to start doing next month or maybe in June or July. This is work that needs to continue today, tomorrow, next week, and in the weeks that follow.

There is an old saying that work fills up the time that we allocate to do a particular job. If we say we will take a year to do something, we will take a year to do it. In this instance, we need to keep our focus and our energy concentrated on resolving most of the outstanding issues. I don't think the Specter-Becker process will resolve all of the outstanding issues, but I think it will get us a lot closer to resolution to enable us, on the floor, to then finally debate, amend the bill, and send something good, something solid to the House of Representatives.

Let me close by saying there is too much at stake.

By the way, Judge Becker said he has cleared his schedule starting next week, next Monday. He was here several days this week. He addressed our caucus yesterday. He met with leaders on both sides and talked to any number of our colleagues. He met with manufacturers, insurers here, organized labor, the trial bar, just this week in this building. We need to not let one bit of our momentum on this issue go away with a ``no'' vote today. What we have to do is build on that momentum.

Let me close by saying there is too much at stake for us not to do just that. There are too many people who are sick. They are counting on us doing something about it and helping them now. Too many companies have gone bankrupt. Some 70 companies have gone bankrupt. I understand some 70,000 people have lost their jobs.

That doesn't even begin to say how much people who were working for those companies that have gone bankrupt have lost in their 402(k) plans. They have lost it all. How about the common stockholders? They have lost everything because the company went bankrupt. There is a great need there.

Finally, the other thing at stake is the loss of manufacturing jobs. We have seen an erosion of over 2 million jobs in this country over the last 3 years. That is a lot of manufacturing jobs. One of the reasons is because of the legal problems we have in this country. We have lost our sense of balance. We can do better, and we need to.

What does ``no'' mean? No means get to work and let us resolve these issues. Before we break for Memorial Day, I hope we can bring this bill to the floor and vote yes. Let us get it done.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am voting against cloture on S. 2290 because I do not believe that it is fair to asbestos victims or meets their needs for compensation adequately.

Asbestos kills 10,000 Americans every year. For more than 50 years, manufacturing companies, asbestos producers, and insurance companies ignored evidence of the threat of asbestos to their employees and their families, as well as the public. They failed to warn their workers and must be held responsible for thousands of deaths and thousands made ill.

Asbestos victims are people not statistics. Bill and Geneva Hornsby from Fontana, CA are not a statistic. Geneva was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1998. It was caused by asbestos that her husband brought home from work on his clothes. Then, in March 2003, her husband Bill was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Again, it was cause by exposure to asbestos at work. Three weeks after the diagnosis, Bill died.

Angela Ruhl from Long Beach, CA, is not a statistic. She was exposed to asbestos through the work clothes of her uncle who worked in the Navy. Now she has peritoneal mesothelioma. She has undergone three surgeries and two rounds of chemotherapy. She deserves justice.

Sam Silvestro from San Mateo, CA, is not a statistic. He was exposed to asbestos for decades, diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in June 2001, and died in November of that year. His wife Doris still lives in San Mateo.

The issue is not whether we do something or nothing. Most Democrats, if not all, could support an asbestos resolution fund that was fair to victims. But this proposal is not fair.

First, the funding proposed in this legislation is inadequate. The FAIR Act provides $29 billion less in funding than the bill that was approved by the Judiciary Committee.

Also, the FAIR Act would delay for years compensating victims with terminal cancer, mesothelioma, and other asbestos diseases. That is because while asbestos companies would be required to pay $2.5 billion annually into the fund, the fund will immediately be hit with 450,000 claims representing a cost to the fund of $54 billion in its initial years. That means victims with claims today will have to wait until the fund acquires enough contributions to compensate them.

This legislation also creates a windfall for large corporations. Many companies that failed their workers and owe asbestos victims under settlement agreements would have those agreements suspended and the settlements voided under this bill. Halliburton, for example, would pay only a small fraction of the billions of dollars it has already agreed to pay asbestos victims.

And, most important, the compensation for victims proposed in this legislation is inadequate. Even the sickest victims--those with mesothelioma and other fatal cancers--would receive less compensation under this bill than under the current system. And the tens of thousands of people with non-fatal diseases caused by asbestos, such as permanent repressive lung damage, would receive wholly inadequate assistance.

For these and other reasons, we need to go back to the table and negotiate a bill that would really be fair to victims.

Mr. President, yes, I want to mention to Senator Frist, as I did to Senator Daschle in the last few minutes, my appreciation for the way each of them are, as leaders, engaging in a bipartisan way to address the asbestos issue as something we have to get done; we can do better than the status quo and take up the bill under the good work of the Judiciary Committee and the Specter-Becker process. There is a good process in place showing results, and I am delighted both Senator Frist and Senator Daschle are embracing that process and enabling us to work together and resolve the remaining issues.

I mentioned when Senator Frist was not here that work has a way of expanding to fill the amount of time we allocate to a project. Senator Frist

knows that better than I do. If we say we are going to take the rest of the year to resolve the asbestos bill, it will take the rest of the year. There is value in setting a date certain. Senator Frist may want to consider returning to this bill right before the Memorial Day recess. That gives us 3 weeks to buckle down, get the interested parties in a room together, and Senators who want to participate and their staff, along with Judge Becker, our leaders, and let's get this job done.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Just for 5 minutes.

Before Senator Specter leaves the Chamber, I express my thanks to him and certainly to Judge Becker for the willingness to enter into what many people describe as one of the most complex issues we will face this year or any year in the U.S. Congress to try to see if there is a way to ensure that people who are sick and dying from asbestos exposure get the help they need; folks who are not sick, who become sick, get the help they need, and that the companies which have a fair amount of exposure, whether they be manufacturers or insurance companies, get some certainty with respect to their financial obligations.

I am more encouraged at this moment than I have been for some time that we may have the beginning of a negotiating process. I realize these negotiations are going under the sponsorship of Senator Specter and the leadership of Judge Becker. If we are fortunate enough to get the buy-in from both leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, these negotiations, led by Judge Becker, should be the vehicle.

We do not have to go out and invent a new negotiation process. This is one that works. Judge Becker is smart as a whip. He got the involvement of the leadership staff on both sides. Senator Hatch's staff, Senator Leahy's staff, Senator Dodd, myself, and others have been actively involved in these negotiations through Judge Becker.

This is a good process. We ought to build on this process. I have encouraged our leader to take ownership of the process--not to take away from Judge Becker but to ask him to continue to work. Judge Becker, for reasons that are beyond my pay grade, enjoys the confidence of labor. He enjoys the confidence of the insurers. He enjoys the confidence of the manufacturers, the defendants in these cases, and I think the respect of the trial bar. What we need to do is take him up on the offer, on his willingness to stay here and work with us.

My hope is we will end up with a negotiation that will lead not to further negotiation but a bill, another bill in the Senate, building on what has come to the Senate already.

I had a chance to talk with Senator Hatch a few minutes ago off the floor. He expressed a willingness to wait for as much as a month before we actually take up the bill. That gives this negotiating process another 4 weeks to bear fruit, further fruit--it has already borne a lot--and for us to take up at a date certain--I suggest maybe the week before the Memorial Day recess--to take up the bill, to negotiate, to debate, to amend it, and to pass it.

I am, again, more encouraged than I have been in some time. I express my thanks, again, to the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership.

I thank Senator Hatch. I know this is near and dear to his heart, and Senator Leahy and both of our leaders. We can get this done, and we have to.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Marine PFC Anthony P. Roberts. Anthony 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--Anthony reminds each of us how good we can be.

A resident of Middletown, Anthony's passing has deeply affected the community. A 2003 graduate of Middletown High School, Anthony was the son of Emma Roberts and the late William Roberts, Jr. Friends, family, and school officials recalled Anthony Roberts as a bright young man who saw military service as a way to give something back to his country. He viewed the Marine Corps as an opportunity to get away from a small town, meet new people, and start a career.

Anthony always had a strong interest in the military. He was a member of Middletown High School's Air Force Junior ROTC program. His participation in that program enabled me to meet him and many of his fellow cadets several years ago when I visited their high school. Friends and family remember Anthony as standing extra tall after earning his Marine Corps uniform.

After graduating from school, Anthony underwent basic training at Camp Lejeune, NC, before being stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. Anthony became a member of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. He died in fighting around Ramadi.

Anthony was a remarkable and well-respected young soldier. His friends and family remember him as an honorable man. He enjoyed spending time in Philadelphia, writing rap music lyrics, reading automobile magazines, and playing computer games.

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

1LT ROBERT HENDERSON II

Mr. President, before Senator Byrd leaves the floor, I wish him a joyous Easter and thank him for reminding us of what Easter is all about.

When Members reflect on the diversity of the religious views of our constituents--some are Protestant, some are Catholic; some folks in West Virginia or Delaware are Jewish, as some here are. We have folks in our States who are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist. There is a wide diversity of religions in this country. It is a sign of our strength, not a sign of weakness.

We are reminded that one of the reasons we are strong is because we respect the right of everyone to worship God as he or she sees fit, or to not worship at all.

Ironically, whether we happen to be Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or some other faith, it is interesting how often we agree on a premise, a principle laid out in the New Testament.

I don't think Senator Byrd read it today, but we call it the Golden Rule. The idea there is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. I am not enough of a religious scholar to know where that scripture appears in the New Testament. It may also appear in the Koran or the Torah or any other religious text of other religions around the world. But my guess is it does say, in so many words, we should treat other people the way we want to be treated.

I want to talk about that principle and how it might apply to what we do in the Senate. I apply it to an issue we may address as soon as we return April 19.

Majority Leader Frist has said, when we return immediately following the Easter holiday, the first issue of any consequence he would like for us to address deals with asbestos litigation. This is something I have worked on, along with many of my colleagues, for most of the 3 years I have been in the Senate.

My first year in the Senate, about a year or two before the Presiding Officer arrived, I remember visiting Senator Byrd. I asked how this place works and he gave me some pointers. He was a great mentor then and he continues to be a great mentor today.

Among the pieces of advice he gave me: When people want to talk to you, talk to them.

It turns out one of the calls my first year was from a fellow named Frank Macher. He is somebody my wife introduced me to. She worked at DuPont at the time and had dealings with Ford Motor Company. Frank Macher was a fairly senior official at Ford Motor Company. He retired from Ford Motor Company.

I lost track of him for a few years and he called to say he had assumed a new position with a new company. I asked, ``Who is that,'' and he told me he had just become the CEO of a company called Federal- Mogul. I was not familiar with the company. He said I was probably familiar with some of their products. They manufacture or sell and distribute, among other things, Champion spark plugs and a variety of other products used in the automotive industry.

He said: Sometime when I come to Washington in my new role I want to be able to come and see you; it is good to renew a friendship. I said: Come on over.

Lo and behold, a month or so later he came. We had a great meeting. It was a good moment. He headed for home. I said: If you are back this way, let us know.

After 6 months or so, he called me again. I said: How are you doing?

He said: We have a problem.

I asked: What is that?

He said that somewhere along the line, before he became CEO of this company, Federal-Mogul had acquired a subsidiary, I think it was a British subsidiary, for a period of time, not a long period of time but maybe a couple of years.

He said because of that relationship--they acquired it and sold it within a couple of years--his company, Federal-Mogul, had been exposed to all kinds of litigation with respect to asbestos because this subsidiary that they owned years ago for a short period of time had a position or presence in the asbestos business.

We met and talked. I said: Since you live in Michigan, maybe you ought to spend some time with your Senators. I think he visited his two Senators. I suggested he visit with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, Senator Leahy. He was good enough to meet with Frank Macher.

What proceeded from there, about a year or so later, is Federal-Mogul ended up going into bankruptcy. Ultimately, it was reorganized and emerged from bankruptcy.

I don't know the effect on the employees within that company. I do know this: The shareholders in the company lost, as far as I understand, the entire value of their shares. The employees of the company who had money in a 401(k) plan that included company stock lost the value of that company stock. The pensioners from Federal-Mogul who were retired, or trying to retire, probably lost some of their pensions as the company went in and out of bankruptcy.

We know what happens all too clearly--in fact, I am reminded of legislation we worked on today--to employees or retirees of companies that go into bankruptcy and how that can adversely affect the size and amount of their pensions.

In any event, that experience with Frank Macher and with Federal- Mogul acquainted me with an issue that, frankly, I had not thought about for one minute before I came to the Senate.

Fast forward for several months, subsequent to that initial meeting with Frank Macher, a second meeting with Frank Macher from Federal- Mogul, to a conversation, a visit I had from an attorney from the west coast. I can't recall his name off the top of my head, but he was a good person, a trial lawyer. His particular specialty was representing people who were afflicted with mesothelioma. Apparently, mesothelioma is something folks contract from exposure to asbestos. There is no known cure. There are several thousand people who will die each year from that disease.

The attorney who came to meet with me talked about his clients. Those who were fatally stricken and soon to die, and how in many instances they or their families were not receiving the compensation for what they were going through and for the loss of life.

He said the current system we have is broken. It ought to be fixed. In too many cases, the way the current system works is that the people who may have mesothelioma or a serious asbestos-related disease, lung cancer that has grown from exposure to asbestos, these individuals or their families are receiving pennies on the dollar for what they should be getting for pain and suffering and loss of life.

Meanwhile, in too many instances people who may have had exposure to asbestos but are not impaired, are not sick, are taking away, siphoning off, some of the money that ought to be going to people who are impaired or seriously ill and may ultimately die. Instead of the money actually getting to the victims, I am told maybe half goes to other parties in transaction costs.

That is not a good situation. It is not a healthy situation. Almost everybody here familiar with this situation would say if there is anything we ought to fix this year, this is near the top of the list. We should fix it. We can fix it.

I have been here about 3 years and for most of those 3 years people on both sides of the aisle have been trying to do that. Progress has been made. The Judiciary Committee marked up and reported out a bill last year, a bill that has been criticized by a number of people, a number of parties that are involved in this issue. Nonetheless, it represents an effort to try to address a situation we all know needs to be addressed.

The bill was reported out of committee last year. Since November of last year, there have been a series of negotiations that have taken place involving, among others, organized labor, as a proxy for the victims and the workers, insurers, manufacturers; and, from time to time, the trial lawyers have been involved in those discussions. Those discussions were intended to try to bridge the differences that separated them and us from legislating successfully on this issue and establishing a procedure and funding to make sure people who are sick and dying get the help they need, and folks who are not sick but may have had an exposure have their health monitored, and if they do become sick, they get the financial help they and their families need, to try to reduce the transaction costs so it becomes pretty much a no-fault system.

While some progress has been made, there is more work to be done. I spoke yesterday with Majority Leader Frist, whom I respect very much. In fact, the conversation I had with him yesterday is similar to one I had with him the week before, and I think probably the week before and the month before that. I have suggested to him, in strong terms, that as we return from the recess that begins tomorrow--and we return in about 10 days--that the first bill we take up be legislation about which there has emerged a bipartisan consensus.

Again, it involves legal issues, but the first bill that we take up, in my judgment, should not be asbestos litigation reform. It should be class action reform. We have debated it to some extent on the floor. We had a cloture vote on class action legislation last year. We ended up one vote short of the 60 we needed to proceed to the bill and take it up.

In the time since then, three other Democratic Senators have stepped forward and been part of a negotiation with our friends on the other side--negotiations in which Senator Kohl and I participated. I think out of those negotiations has emerged a significant improvement to the class action bill that came to the floor last year and is a path forward to enacting that legislation in the Senate the week after we return from this upcoming recess. We should take it up. We should provide a week to debate it. We should let it be like a bottle of wine, to breathe on the floor, if you will, to give Members the opportunity to offer amendments, hopefully, mostly germane. And I know there are some Members who have constructive amendments to offer. There are others who would like to offer some nongermane amendments, and I hope the other side would allow some votes on those nongermane amendments.

After a reasonable period of debate, we ought to be able to go to final passage and send that bill to the House of Representatives.

I do not believe we are at that point yet with respect to asbestos litigation. I urge Senator Frist not to lead with asbestos litigation on April 19. Progress has been made in recent months, particularly since November, in a negotiation begun by Senator Specter and overseen by Judge Becker. They have been successful in getting organized labor, insurers, and manufacturers to agree on the administrative structure: Where should this fund be housed? How should people go about applying for money if they are sick or impaired? How do they go about, in a practical way, getting the help they need?

It has been a very constructive negotiation. Out of that negotiation I think a sense of trust and confidence has grown among the parties who have been negotiating under the auspices of Judge Becker and Senator Specter.

Previously, when the legislation was voted on, debated in committee, among the very positive things the committee did was to agree on medical criteria. It is a tough issue. They reached consensus. We have the medical criteria agreed to by the committee. We have agreement on the administrative issues, which is important. My hope is they will be agreed to by the Senate.

But there are other issues that still remain to be addressed, and they need to be resolved. I am not convinced, by a long shot, that our best bet and our smartest course is to try to resolve all of these issues, and a number of others yet to be resolved, on the Senate floor.

Let me mention a few. How much money should each individual victim receive? How much money should be contributed to the fund? How much from the insurers? How much from the manufacturers? How do we treat the several hundred thousand current claims--more than a quarter of a million current claims? What kind of

screening should be provided for workers? How do we treat railroad employees who are covered under a unique compensation system of their own? What happens if our assumptions are wrong, and the fund runs out of money 10 or 15 years from now, and people are still getting sick from their exposure to asbestos?

Those are big issues. Those are important issues. They are central to the overall premise of this bill. And despite the best efforts of all sides thus far, we do not have consensus on them, at least we do not have consensus as yet. That certainly does not mean we ought to give up, not by a long shot; quite the contrary.

Senator Frist has said the bill he has recently introduced is not a take-it-or-leave-it offer. He said he is willing to work with Senators on both sides to improve the bill and to improve its ultimate chances of passage.

I would say again to Senator Frist, I am anxious to be part of this solution. I know others on my side, and certainly on the Republican side, are anxious to be a part of that solution. I would call on him today to join with Senator Daschle in a bipartisan effort where they convene, under their auspices a negotiation that includes, among others, organized labor, the insurers, the manufacturers, and perhaps the trial bar, and get people in a room who can make some decisions, and to keep them there until most of the issues I have just gone through--at least those--are, for the most part, worked out to the satisfaction of the parties.

We hear from organized labor that more money needs to go into the fund. And $114 billion--now I think a lot of people are suggesting that is enough. It may be; it may not. On the other hand, organized labor says a number closer to what was reported out of committee--I think $153 billion--might be enough. But whether the number is $114 billion or $154 billion, there is some point there between $114 billion and $154 billion where we ought to be able to agree that those dollars-- whether it is $124 billion, $134 billion, $144 billion--that those dollars are likely to be sufficient to meet the legitimate claims that are going to be submitted for people who are sick from asbestos exposure.

And there needs to be a provision that says: If somewhere down the line the fund does run out of money, there has to be a way for people who are still getting sick from their asbestos exposure to have a way to be compensated.

Some have suggested that maybe the way to do it is to let those people back into the tort system. I would suggest not this tort system, through State and local courts, but through the Federal court. So if the money ever runs out--and I hope it doesn't--people would have the opportunity to come back into the tort system.

If we take up asbestos litigation legislation that has been introduced by Senator Frist on April 19 and immediately ask for a cloture vote, we are going to get an objection from this side for moving forward at that time. We accomplish nothing. We could take up class action on the same date. We have the votes to go to the bill. We have a bipartisan consensus to do something to make sure that when national class action litigation is brought of a national scope, of a sufficient financial magnitude, that it would be heard in a Federal court, particularly when the defendant is from a different State than the plaintiffs. We can pass that bill. We ought to. We should send it to the House and hopefully they will find favor with it. I believe they will.

But if we take up asbestos litigation at the beginning of the next period in which we are working in the Senate, we are going to end up making people angry, turning people off, raising further the sense of distrust that permeates this body. We will make no progress. My fear is we may poison the well for our ability to pass a class action bill that should move through here pretty easily.

Again, I say to Senator Frist, reach out to Senator Daschle, to my leader, engage him earnestly, the two of you pulling interested parties together. I am not kidding, get them in a room and get them to stay there. If some of us can be in the room, fine. Some of our staffs that are very knowledgeable on these issues and want to see this legislation worked out, get them in the room, too, to keep the negotiating parties honest and to keep them moving. But let's put some focus on getting that negotiation done so the issues around the amount of money we need and where it should come from, what to do with those hundreds of thousands of claims that are pending, so that we can resolve those issues before we bring the bill to the floor.

Senator Cornyn has been here a little over a year now. I have been here a little bit longer than he. We both have been here long enough to see bills come to the floor that are literally worked out on the floor because the committee was not able to do it, maybe it was not possible, and we ended up writing the bill on the floor. Sometimes that works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

If we try to write the asbestos litigation on the floor on April 19, we are not going to work it out. There is value in setting a date certain when we are going to take up this bill. I don't have a calendar with me, but I think that Monday, May 17, is the last week we will be here before the Memorial Day recess. I believe that is the date we should set. I urge us then to take up asbestos litigation legislation the week of Monday, May 17.

Maybe if we have had a chance to already do good work on class action legislation in April, that will be helpful in dispelling some of the distrust and mistrust that characterizes so much of what goes on in this body and in this building these days.

A lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans--going back to the adage we talked about in the New Testament--understand that we ought to be trying to treat other people the way we would like to be treated, whether they happen to be folks whose health is impaired, maybe their lives are threatened because of asbestos exposure, or maybe they are a company that is like Federal-Mogul that went bankrupt or an insurance company, some of which are, frankly, pretty close to the edge of remaining solvent because of their exposure over this issue. Maybe we can put ourselves in the shoes of all those different parties and make sure that whether you happen to be impaired, injured, or you happen to be an insurer or an employer, that we try to treat them with a compromise bill where we treat them the way we would want to be treated ourselves.

It is critically important that people who are sick and dying get the help they need now and that it be generous. It is important that people who may have had an exposure, who become sick from asbestos exposure, if they become sick, they get the help they need, that it is fair, generous, and prompt. It is also important that people who may have had an exposure but are not sick, as they go forward in time, their health be monitored, and that, frankly, somebody pay for that monitoring for them, and that this fund we would create under this legislation pay for medical monitoring costs so if those folks become impaired or develop the symptoms that have costs the lives of too many people, they can get the help they need and get it promptly.

By the same token, we have seen a whole lot of companies go under. They have gone into bankruptcy. Some will say: Well, they will reorganize. Everything is fine.

It is not. It is not fair to the people whose 401(k)s are in company stock, if it is gone. It is not fair to the retirees whose pensions have been reduced. It is not fair to the employees who may have lost their jobs at those companies. It is not fair to the shareholders who have lost almost everything they invested in those companies.

Finally, as we bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs--and we have seen literally millions more manufacturing jobs lost just in the last 3 or 4 years--it is important for us to create an environment in this country where manufacturing jobs can continue to exist and we don't lose even more jobs. I am convinced there are a couple things we could do to help reverse this trend, or at least stop it in its tracks. One of them is to provide a legal system, a system of justice that makes sure when people are hurt, they are compensated and they are compensated fairly; that the folks who damage them, who have hurt them, pay their fair share.

It is also important as we do that work that we do it in a way that is fair and does not make our country an even less attractive place for companies to be in business, manufacturing businesses especially. We have to be smart enough to figure this one out.

We need to set a deadline for action, action to take the bill up here. In the 3 or 4 weeks before we do that, there needs to be continued negotiation. My view is that negotiation should be fostered and overseen by the majority and minority leaders. We don't need to take this up and do this on April 19. We need to take it up and we need to change it and improve it. We need to infuse that legislation with more consensus that may grow out of the negotiations I am encouraging. If that happens, we can pass a bill Delaware and Texas can be proud of. It will really put truth to the notion that we treated other people the way we want to be treated, whether they happened to be an asbestos victim or the company that is required to pay for their treatment.

I yield the floor.

He sure is.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

I spoke several weeks ago as we were taking up the budget resolution. I quoted a fellow from Great Britain, Dennis Healey, who used to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Dennis Healey used to talk about the theory of holes. The theory of holes is pretty simple. It says, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

In 1990, we as a country were in a pretty big hole with respect to our budget deficit. Some people in the House and the Senate, the White House, Democrats and Republicans, decided to stop digging. What they decided to do was to adopt a commonsense approach to budgeting, which we call ``pay as you go.''

The idea is if Senator Coleman, our Presiding Officer, were to come to the Senate and propose new spending, he would have to come up with an offset, either cut spending some place else or raise revenue to offset it. Or if Senator Carper came up with a tax cut, I would have to come up with an offset to make sure we did not make the hole any deeper. For about 12 years, it was the law of the land.

During those 12 years, from 1990 to 2002, we actually were able to reduce the deficit and for the first time in 30 years we actually balanced the Federal budget for several years in the late 1990s and the beginning of this decade.

That law lapsed in 2002. We voted in the Senate that it should be reinstated. They very nearly voted in the House yesterday, kept the vote open over an extended period of time so they could twist some arms on the other side in order to defeat the effort to instruct the House conferees to go back and adopt this pay-as-you-go principle.

We ought to do that. If the House conferees will not, we should at least adopt those provisions, this standard, for the Senate, for the way we conduct business.

There was a great editorial in the Washington Post called ``Dodge as You Go.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed for the Record.

I will quote one or two sentences out of the editorial.

Other principles used to carry some weight in the U.S.

House of Representatives: allowing lawmakers to vote their

consciences, not manipulating voting rules to get the desired

result, and opposing a reckless amassing of budget deficits

selfishly left for other generations. But that was the

leadership of other speakers, and other Presidents.

We can do something about it. Our conferees can do something about it. My hope is they will stick by our guns

to try to make sure at least for the Senate we adopt those rules that served us so well for 12 years.

If I could respond, the answer is absolutely no.

My dad used to say something to my sister and me when we were kids growing up. The Senator's father and mother probably did the same thing. Senator Nickles' mom and dad probably did the same thing, as well as Senator Coleman's. They harp on something over and over again. When my sister or I used to pull some boneheaded stunt, my dad would always turn to us and say, just use some common sense. He must have said that to us, because we pulled a lot of boneheaded stunts, day after day, week after week, year after year. Finally, it worked and internalized.

Whenever we approach an issue in the Senate or when I was Governor of Delaware, I would oftentimes say to my cabinet, just use some common sense.

Pay as you go is common sense. It is flat in-your-face common sense. It works in State governments. Frankly, it worked here for about 12 years and it will work again. It is not the only thing we need to do but, by golly, it is a big part of it.

Ten minutes.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of the amendment offered by Senators Kennedy and Boxer to raise the minimum wage over the next 2\1/2\ years.

My staff provided me with some information about the history of the minimum wage. One important date cited is 1968, which was my senior year at Ohio State University. I had a couple of jobs then. I was the pots-and-pans man at the Delta Gamma sorority house. I also had a part- time job at the university bookstore. I was paid the minimum wage for both jobs, which at the time was $1.60 per hour. If you adjust $1.60 for inflation, then the minimum wage would presently be $8.50 per hour.

Senators Boxer and Kennedy propose that we gradually raise the minimum wage over the next 2\1/2\ years. They recommend raising it from the current level of $5.15 per hour to $5.85 in the next 60 days, from $5.85 to $6.45 a year later, and finally from $6.45 to $7 the following year.

Some have said that such an increase goes too far, too fast, and have suggested that we take a different approach. However, we should do some math on the decline of the real value of the minimum wage. The current minimum wage has been $5.15 per hour since 1997. If you adjust $5.15 for inflation, then we would have a minimum wage of $5.95 per hour. But, if you adjust the minimum wage for inflation from its 1968 level of $1.60, then the minimum wage would presently be $8.50.

Senators Kennedy and Boxer are right in the middle between the two, and I would suggest to my colleagues that they are not far off the mark. In fact, their amendment is a pretty good compromise.

I know that some people do not want to raise the minimum wage, and that they are concerned by the potential for job losses if we were to do so. And some of our employers--both large and small--have expressed concerns with an increase in the minimum wage and urge us to be mindful of those concerns.

Having said that, we also need to be mindful of minimum wage workers. Senator Kennedy shared with us some real-life examples. Let me share with you some of my own experience from when I was a college student earning the minimum wage. A lot of people who received the minimum wage in 1968 were not supporting a family. I was not supporting a family in 1968. Many of them were students or just out of school.

But a lot of the people who earn the minimum wage these days are people with a family, with one child, or maybe two. They may be in a two-parent family. But in a lot of cases, a minimum wage earner is a single parent.

I urge my colleagues to keep this statistic in mind as we consider whether to support an increase in the minimum wage. If you or I were working full time, 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year, with no time off, then we would be making about $206 a week if we were paid the minimum wage. That is less than $11,000 per year.

Madam President, less than $11,000 per year does not crack the poverty line for one person, much less two or three.

As a Governor who worked on welfare reform in my state and with the National Governors Association I understand what it takes in order for people to move off of welfare. For people to move successfully from welfare to work, four things have to happen: One, they have to have a job to go to; they have to have a way to get to the job; they have to get some help with their health care; and they need some help with their childcare. Those four things: a job, the ability to get to a job, health care, and childcare are critical.

The other thing people have to have when they get off of welfare for work is the belief that they will be better off working than on welfare.

In my own State of Delaware, we adopted comprehensive welfare reform in the mid-1990s and phased in an increase in the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage in Delaware is $6.15 per hour. We increased the minimum

wage to help people move off of welfare. We wanted to make sure that they were better off working than on welfare.

I ask people to understand, whether you happen to be from Delaware or Maine--where the Presiding Officer is from--or from any other State, to try to make it these days on $11,000 per year, while trying to hold a family together. It is incredibly difficult to do so.

The other thing I want to say is on a more macro-issue with respect to welfare reform legislation currently on the Senate floor. We should be able to pass welfare reform legislation. Both sides agree on about 90 percent of the issues. For those issues that we do not agree on, we should be able to reconcile our differences.

I believe that legislation I introduced with Senator Collins, the Presiding Officer, and with Senator Ben Nelson is a consensus bill on welfare reform--we think it is a pretty good compromise from what has been reported out of the committee and has some of the changes that Democrats would like to see. That bill is a good compromise.

On our side, we want to have an opportunity to offer relevant amendments to legislation before the Senate. One amendment is an increase in the minimum wage, which I think is relevant to this particular bill. A second amendment is an extension in unemployment compensation benefits. We should extend unemployment compensation benefits until our economy is stronger and we have more jobs for people looking to work.

Senator Harkin has an interest in offering an amendment on overtime regulations, which has already passed the House and the Senate. He is determined to make sure he has a chance to offer that again.

We are smart enough around here to be able to work with our Republican colleagues to come up with an agreement that allows those three amendments to be offered.

Once those amendments are offered, we should be able to offer other relevant amendments to this welfare bill. I have a few amendments to offer, and I know others do as well. We should be able to agree on a reasonable number of amendments--it could be 10, 20. We could also agree to an amount of time on such amendments, for example, 10 minutes for proponents of the amendment and 10 minutes for opponents of the amendment. When the debate on an amendment is completed the Senate should vote.

I would be very disappointed if we went along and, at the end of next week, were not able to close our differences on welfare reform legislation and the FSC bill.

The last thing I will mention has to do with conference committees. When the House passes one bill, and the Senate passes a different bill, we end up, a lot of times, in a conference negotiation to resolve differences between the bills. And we, in the Democratic Party, have been stung because we have not been allowed to participate in these conferences.

We saw that happen with respect to the Energy bill, where Democrats were not invited to participate. We saw it happen to a large extent in the conference on the Medicare prescription drug bill, where, for the most part, Democrats were not allowed to participate in conference negotiations. We cannot allow that to continue. Democrats are not going to allow that to continue. Someday Democrats will be in the majority. Someday our friends on the other side will be in the minority. I ask them to keep that in mind because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

To the extent that we get closed out of conference committees without any active participation, the same thing could happen to them. I would not want to do it to them, and I do not like having it done to us.

Part of this universal agreement in moving welfare reform and getting the FSC bill onto the Senate floor is not just encouraging words about the conference, but a good, hard, fast agreement that Democrats will be full participants in a welfare reform conference with the House.

It is too bad that the presiding officer, Senator Collins, and I cannot work out these differences by ourselves. We would pass a bill that we negotiated with Senator Nelson of Nebraska. It would be pretty easy.

I do not mean to minimize nor make light of the toughness of the situation we face, but we can get this done. We need to get this done. We are going to take a recess week sometime around Good Friday. I sure hope we can go home having passed welfare reform legislation through the Senate, and to have made good progress on FSC legislation as well.

With respect to a reasonable increase in the minimum wage, we should be able to get that done. It is the right and fair thing to do. We need to have an extension of unemployment compensation benefits. While we have an official unemployment rate of about 5.6 percent, the rate is actually closer to 7.5 percent once you count all the people who have run out of benefits or stopped looking for employment.

If we agree to those things, we ought to be able to get those bills done and move on to the next step in welfare reform. Welfare reform is a great experiment, made successful by our Nation's Governors. Members of the Senate know how to make it even more successful going forward.

It has been a pleasure to do business with the Presiding Officer and Senator Nelson on our side. I hope we can take some of the provisions in our bill and have an opportunity to offer them as an amendment to the bill in the next day or two.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object. I request, if I could, of the Senator from Utah--I understand under a previous unanimous consent agreement yesterday I would have 10 minutes to speak. Is that right? I want to make sure I still have my time.

Mr. President, I want to say how gratified I am to hear Senator Grassley. I was very much encouraged to hear the comments of Senator Hatch.

As I see, we have been joined on the floor by Senator Snowe of Maine, the author of this amendment, and by Senator Dodd, who spoke just a few minutes ago.

I want to express to them my heartfelt thanks for their leadership in bringing this issue before us, and for working to build consensus around this amendment.

I strongly support this. In explaining that support, I go a long way back in time, back to 1936. In 1936, we did not have a welfare program at the Federal level in this country. In 1936, we adopted something after the encouragement of FDR that largely provided cash assistance to widows with children. Over the years, from 1936 through World War II and into the 1980s and 1990s, welfare changed.

By 1996, when welfare reform was adopted, widows and children were eligible for cash assistance on AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. A lot of the people receiving AFDC had children. For the most part, they were not widows. For the most part, they had never been married.

Despite the best of intentions, what we created after 1936 was a program that encouraged many women to have children, oftentimes at a young age; encouraged men to impregnate them; and encouraged the men to walk away from the children they helped to create as if they had nothing to do with it.

That is not to say welfare as we knew it did not do a lot of good. It did. But it also caught a lot of people in quicksand from which they found it difficult to escape.

Members may recall the debate back in the 1990s. Bill Clinton, when he ran for President, said we need to change welfare as we know it. One of the reasons is, in the early 1990s, a lot of people were better off on welfare than they were working.

For the folks who went to work, who got off of welfare, here is what they gained: They gained the right to pay taxes, State income taxes, Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes.

Here is what they lost: They may lose their health care, their Medicaid health care; they may lose food stamp eligibility; they may lose assisted housing; they have to figure out how to pay for transportation to get to a job; and they will have to figure out how to pay for childcare.

That all changed effectively in 1996. A lot of Governors were involved, including some who serve here today: Governors Voinovich, Allen, myself, and Evan Bayh of Indiana worked with a whole lot of other Governors, including John Engler of Michigan, to provide unanimity on the part of the States and the National Governors Association, who said we have to change this system. People ought to be better off when they go to work than when they are on welfare.

When we created the block grant approach, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, we said States have some flexibility in using that money that is allocated to them. They can use it for cash assistance, they can use it for childcare, they can use it for transportation assistance, they can use it for medical assistance, as well. Interestingly enough, as the welfare rolls

dropped--and they are down by half--the amount of money spent out of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family fund is now less than half of that which is spent. We spend a lot more money collectively on childcare, transportation assistance, and medical assistance. Not everyone who is off welfare is better off, but a whole lot of people are.

Fast forward today to 2004, 8 years after the adoption of the welfare reform. We heard Senator Dodd go through the numbers and explain why we need to provide this additional money. Let me reiterate a couple of points. Almost half the States have a waiting list today for families who are eligible under the criteria of those States. They are eligible for childcare assistance. But the States cannot provide it.

California has over a quarter of a million people on the waiting list. In Virginia, there are 7,000. Again, they are eligible under the State's definition, the State's requirement for childcare, but the States cannot make good on it.

Last year, the States had a collective shortfall in their budgets of about $80 billion. It is not a whole lot better this year. It will not be a whole lot better next year.

Along the way, the States have been changing their criteria for eligibility. A couple of examples include Ohio, Nebraska, and Kentucky. Now if you make more than $23,000 and you have a family of three people, you are not eligible for childcare anymore. If you make more than $19,100 in Indiana, you are not eligible for childcare assistance if you have a family of three. In Nebraska, if you make more than $18,800 and you are a family of three, you are no longer eligible for childcare.

From my own experience as Governor of my State, there are four things needed in order to help people move off of welfare, and to stay off of welfare. One is a job. Second is a way to get to the job. Third is help with health care, children's care and their own. Last is help with childcare. If you do not have those four things--a job, a way to get to the job, help with health care, and childcare--people will not make a transition to work and remain working.

My friends, there are still some provisions in this bill over which we will probably have differences. This is one over which there should be no difference. This is a point on which Democrats and Republicans ought to agree. I am encouraged. We have a great opportunity for consensus on this bill. A big part of reaching a consensus enables us to pass this legislation, and to agree on this amendment. If we do, my hope is we can work out some of the more difficult amendments and get to a position where we can vote on final passage today.

Remember the old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. On welfare reform, a lot of skeptics in 1996 said this will not work; we will throw people to the lions, and we will make things worse. For the most part, those fears have been unfounded. For the most part, people are better off. In million of homes today, someone is waking up and going to work. Their children have seen them go to work. If we provide good childcare for their children, we reverse the likelihood their children will end up in a welfare situation.

Chris Dodd knows this better than I do. For a child who has good reading skills, the parents have read to them. They had quality prekindergarten training. When they go into first grade they have a 15,000-word surplus compared to those kids who have not had those things. Those kids will walk into the first grade with a 15,000-word or more word deficit.

We learn, as human beings, about half of what we will learn by the time we are 6. To the extent that we have kids who are in the home of somebody who is trying to hold things together, working minimum-wage jobs, they are not getting the kind of nurturing, whether at home or through a quality pre-K program, we raise the likelihood they themselves will end up entering school behind, falling further behind, and we raise the prospect, the likelihood they, too, will end up in a life of dependency.

It does not have to happen. I am very much encouraged if we pass this legislation today a lot of childcare providers will have the money they need to provide quality care. A lot of families ending up on the waiting lists will find the waiting lists reduced, and a lot of children who do not have a successful time of it when they get to kindergarten and first grade will have a better time of it.

Whether the deficit is 100,000 or 15,000 words, it is too much.

The good news is this: We can do something about it. We can do something about it today. We can do something about it in 25 minutes when we vote on the Snowe-Dodd amendment. That is what we need to do.