Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom Delaware. This organization is celebrating a quarter century of nationally renowned expertise in corporate mergers and acquisitions here in the First State. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom has built a reputation for providing integral service throughout the Nation and in Delaware. If this organization's first quarter century is any indication of what it will offer in the future, we have much to which to look forward.

Marshall Skadden, John Slate, and Les Arps founded the firm in New York City on April Fool's Day, 1948. After starting with just three lawyers, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom has grown to more than 1,700 lawyers in nine offices--seven in the United States, one in Tokyo, and one in London. Few, if any, law firms in America today are more highly regarded professionally or financially successful.

The firm's client list includes more than one-third of the Fortune 500 companies, 10 of the top 15 U.S. commercial banks, 23 of the top 25 U.S. investment banks and 7 of the top 10 Japanese banks doing business in the United States. The organization's more than 20 individual practice areas serve as visible proof of the successful philosophy: that the client's needs always come first; that they can and do commit a maximum effort to provide top quality advice and timely service to clients; and that the law firm can and should be run as a business, consistent with professional responsibilities.

It was 25 years ago, in May of 1979, that Rodman Ward, Jr. and Steven J. Rothschild agreed to open the Wilmington, DE, office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, becoming the 46th and 47th partners in that firm. Skadden Delaware became the first major out-of-town law firm to open an office in the State of Delaware.

Over the past 25 years, Skadden Delaware has grown tenfold, from its original six attorneys to its present complement of nearly 60, becoming one of the largest and most influential law offices in the State of Delaware, and employing more than 150 Delawareans.

Skadden Delaware attorneys have counseled clients in many of the largest and most groundbreaking corporate transactions, including highly publicized contests for corporate control, and contributed thereby to the reputation of the Delaware courts as the preeminent arbiters of corporate law issues in the world, and to the State of Delaware's dominance as the preferred domicile for corporations large and small across the United States.

Skadden Delaware lawyers have also contributed their professional and personal resources to a wide variety of civic and charitable endeavors outside the confines of their law practice, to the consistent benefit of the State of Delaware and its citizens.

Former Skadden Delaware lawyers have gone on to hold positions of high trust and importance in the State of Delaware, serving on the Court of Chancery and the supreme court, as counsel to the Governor, as U.S. attorney, and as president of the Delaware bar.

I thank Skadden Delaware for all that they do, not only in Delaware, but across the country, and I wish them a very happy 25th anniversary. I rise today to offer my full support and to congratulate them on a remarkable quarter century of success.

I thank my colleague for yielding. Before he leaves the floor, I want to take a moment and thank him for his leadership on another issue. As we have sought to become more energy independent, Senator Dorgan has led the charge, saying maybe part of that would be to practice better conservation. He focused, among other things, on the efficiency of air-conditioners. It may sound like a small thing, but in the scheme of things, it is a big step. I thank him for his leadership on that.

I bought gasoline in my hometown of Wilmington, and I think it cost $1.77 per gallon, a little higher than it has been in recent months. I read a news account the other day that said we might be looking at prices as high as $3 per gallon in some parts of America before the end of the summer. We are also hearing a fair amount of concern about the price of not just gasoline but of natural gas. Natural gas is what we use to provide a feedstock for many of our chemical companies. A lot of agribusinesses use it for fertilizers. Natural gas is also the fuel of choice for many of the new electric-generating powerplants that are being built across this country.

I want us to go back in time about 4 years to the last year of the Clinton administration. In 2000, the Clinton administration suggested, through regulation, that we call on the makers of air-conditioners in this country to create and begin selling more energy-efficient air- conditioners in 2006. Something was adopted called the SEER 13, seasonal energy efficiency rating. The idea behind the regulation was that, by 2006, air-conditioners would have to be 30 percent more energy efficient than those currently available. We adopted a standard that was implemented and then withdrawn by the Bush administration in the following year or two, and it was replaced by a less rigorous standard.

There has been a court battle over the last year or so, and the outcome is that the court battle has sustained the more rigorous standards, the SEER 13 standard, which says that manufacturers in this country, by 2006, should be producing air-conditioners that are 30 percent more efficient than those available in 2000. That may or may not sound like a very big deal, 30 percent more energy efficient, but I ask my colleagues to think about this. When was the last time we had a blackout during March or April or May or, frankly, in October, November, December? I don't recall one. My guess is that you don't, either. We have them, for the most part, in the summer. We have blackouts, for the most part, when temperatures get hot and people turn on their air-conditioners.

If we begin buying more energy-efficient air-conditioners in 2006, we will do a couple of things: One, reduce the likelihood of blackouts and the kind of calamity they create for our economy; two, we reduce the need to build new electric powerplants. Some 48 fewer electric powerplants will have to be built because of the higher standard. In addition to that, we will reduce, with a higher efficiency standard for air-conditioners, the emissions of carbon dioxide from our electric- generating plants by 2.5 million tons by 2020.

In addition, if we are building more power-generating plants that will use natural gas, it will have a positive effect on the price of natural gas and, I think, a positive effect on the manufacturing industry in this country.

The second district court has ruled that the Clinton standard--the SEER 13 standard--should prevail. Last week, the association that represents the air-conditioning manufacturers joined, saying they thought they could build and begin selling, by 2006, air-conditioners that met the more rigorous standard.

I hold a letter signed by 53 colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, that was sent last week to the President.

It is a letter that simply says: Mr. President, we do a lot of good for our country. We can help ourselves on the manufacturing side. We can help ourselves by building fewer electric-power-generating plants. We can reduce the price of natural gas to some extent. We can reduce the emissions that are coming out of our electric-power-generating plants by millions of tons of CO2 each year. We can do that, Mr. President, if the administration does not appeal the decision of the second district court.

If the Association of American Air-Conditioning Manufacturers can say we have the ability to live up to this more rigorous standard, more than half the Senate can say: Mr. President, we believe we, too, have the ability to live by this more rigorous standard.

I am tempted to say let's let sleeping dogs lie. But rather than say that, let's let the more rigorous standard stand. Whether or not we pass an energy bill this year or not--we need an energy policy desperately--I will say one thing: One good component of energy policy in this Nation is conservation. One good way to conserve a whole lot of electricity, particularly starting in 2006, is making sure that when we turn on the air-conditioners in our homes, offices, and buildings, they are meeting the more tough and rigorous standard. That would be a good thing for America.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter signed by 53 of our colleagues be printed in the Record.

Do I understand that Senator Biden and I have 10 minutes to divide among ourselves?

What I would like to do is have maybe 5 minutes to talk on your amendment, and then Senator Biden and I wish to welcome some special guests.

I thank the Senator.

I will say a word, if I can, in support of Senator Murray's amendment to fully fund No Child Left Behind.

In 1995, the Congress passed, with the urging of many Governors, unfunded mandate legislation that said Congress and the Federal Government should not tell the States what to do and then not provide the money to do it. The Federal Government should not be taking money away from States without providing an offsetting amount of revenue for the money taken off the table for the States.

If we fail to adequately fund No Child Left Behind, yet at the same time mandate higher performance requirements in classrooms, whether it is in Delaware, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or in New Mexico, we are putting in place an unfunded mandate. I have been visiting a number of schools in my State over the last couple of weeks. What I have asked is, what have you done with the extra money we have given you as a result of No Child Left Behind? I got some interesting answers.

A lot of the money is being invested especially in title I increases, in early childhood. We are seeing some remarkable results. These children who are doomed to fail, instead of going on to failure, have age 3 and age 4 quality prekindergarten programs, and age 5 full-day kindergarten programs, and extra learning time that follows beyond that, and there are remarkable results.

By the time these kids are in the third grade, they are doing basically as well as the kids coming from places where we expect success. We are cutting in half our revenues to special education. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment proposed by our colleague from Washington to fully fund No Child Left Behind.

I will add a few comments to that, if I may. Every minute, the Bush administration spends $991,000 more than it takes in--every minute. During the 2 minutes I have been talking, we have spent about $2 million more than we are taking in.

In 2001, the first year I was here, and when George Bush was President, he said:

We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget

deficits.

He was wrong.

He said:

Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-

term.

He was wrong.

In 2003, he said:

Our current deficit is not large by historical standards

and is manageable.

He was wrong.

Now he says:

The deficit will be cut in half over the next 5 years.

He is wrong again.

My friends, our budget deficit this year is going to be about a half trillion dollars. When you actually take away the surplus funds from Social Security that mask the Federal budget deficit, it is even larger than that. While there is a little downtrend starting this year for a couple years in the budget deficits, the real budget deficit, the operating deficit, is about $450 billion. Then it climbs steadily up. The boomers, my generation, will begin to retire, and we are looking at a budget deficit for 2014 of about $785 billion. That is three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Those are operating deficits, not debt.

I wish we had a chart of the debt. We do.

In 1962, I was a 15-year-old kid growing up in Danville, VA. It is hard to see the red ink down there on the chart because it wasn't very much. It was less than a trillion dollars; it was a couple hundred billion dollars. In 1982, we hit $1 trillion. In 2003, last year, we exploded up to about $6.8 trillion. You can see this leveling off from about 1998, 1999, and 2000. That is what happened in the last administration and in the very beginning of this administration.

What happens now, starting in 2003, is the debt--real debt, how much we are borrowing as a country from the Bank of China and banks in Japan, and from people all over the world--goes from where it is today, about $7 trillion, to in 2014 some $15 trillion.

There are going to be about 29 or so babies born in Delaware today. They are going to be facing something I call a birth tax. Some of my colleagues on the other side talk about a death tax, which is their term for the estate tax. I am talking about a birth tax. For every baby born in my State today, they will face a debt of $35,000 apiece when they come into the world. So do their brothers and sisters and parents and grandparents. By 2009, it is going to be over $35,000. That is the kind of welcome to the world we are giving children in my State, and other States as well.

The fastest growing entitlement program in the Federal budget is not the Medicare plan or Social Security or Medicaid. The fastest growing entitlement program in our Federal budget is servicing our national debt, as you can see from the last chart I shared with you.

In 2009, our Federal Government will spend some $1.5 billion per day in interest on our national debt. In 2009, the Federal Government will spend more money servicing the debt than we spend on the entire defense for our country.

I will say that again. In 2009, we are going to spend, if we stay on this track, more money servicing the Federal Government's debt than on defending our Nation.

Let's get real. I don't have the time to go through this entire chart, but this is instructive. The debt we are going to have this year--about $521 billion--is actually more than all of our nondefense discretionary spending. We could get rid of the EPA, the housing programs, the education programs, and homeland security on the appropriations side--everything but defense--and we would still have a deficit of about $55 billion or $56 billion.

There will be a vote later this week, beyond the vote on the Murray amendment. I think it will be offered by Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. It speaks to getting real. There was a time not too long ago when we were real. When somebody came to the floor and said, I want to raise spending by some magnitude, they had to come up with an offset. If they wanted to raise spending, they had to cut spending someplace else or raise revenue by that amount. Similarly, if I or anybody else wanted to come here and say, let's cut taxes by some amount of money, we had to come up with an offset. That is common sense in my State. That is just common sense. We used to do business that way here.

A couple of years ago, those pay-as-you-go rules lapsed. We need to reinstate them. We have the opportunity to do that this week. In an hour or so, we are going to vote on the Murray amendment to avoid an unfunded mandate and make good to those kids born in Delaware today and around the country so they are not saddled with a huge debt to face for the rest of their lives, and to give them a chance to be successful in school and in life.

I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank Senator Feingold and others on our side and the other side of the aisle for their work.

This is an important amendment. He is right. I don't know whether it is the most important amendment offered on this resolution, but it may well be. I would like to take a couple of minutes and look back a few years to some of the things that have been said by folks in our country and actually outside of our country.

I would like for us to go back to 2001, the first year George Bush was President. What he said was:

We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget

deficits.

We found out he was wrong.

A year or so later, he said:

Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short

term.

I am sorry to say he was wrong again.

In 2003, he said:

Our current deficit is not large by historical standards

and is manageable.

That, too, is wrong.

This year, he is saying to us:

The deficit will be cut in half over the next 5 years.

Unfortunately, if we look more closely at what is going to happen over the next 5 years and beyond, the deficit may be trimmed a little bit, but it is going to begin to explode when my generation of baby boomers starts to retire in 5 or 6 years.

I want to share with my colleagues another quotation that occurred several years before these. It was not by an American but a fellow from Great Britain, Dennis Healy. In the late 1970s, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was something he called the ``theory of holes.'' The theory of holes

goes something like this: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

We are in a hole. We are in a huge hole. The hole of debt is almost $7 trillion, up from about $1 trillion in 1982. It is actually pretty modest compared to the hole we are going to be in in 2014. This red line represents money that we owe somebody. Those somebodies are going to want to be repaid. Do some of the people lending money to Uncle Sam live in this country? A lot of them don't. A lot of them live around the world. As they see this red ink accumulate, and as they see a nation not only living beyond its means financially through our Federal deficits but a nation that buys a lot more from overseas than we certainly sell to other countries, my fear is that what may well happen is those other countries will lend us so much money, but in order to continue to loan us more money, they are going to want a little higher interest rate--maybe significantly higher--as our creditors. If we begin to pay higher interest, we know what kind of adverse effect that can have on the economy of this country.

Look at one other chart. This is about the year 1999, 2000, when the budget deficits turned into surpluses. Now we are back in the soup. This is what the deficit looks like. In 2004, it is about $600 billion. The reason this looks higher than some of us are used to is because this is the real operating deficit, when you take away the mask that is provided by Social Security. Social Security is going into the surplus, and it makes the operating deficit look smaller because we operate under a unified budget. After dropping down, it picks up to about three-quarters of a trillion dollars. That is 1 year. It will be over a quarter of a trillion dollars in 2014.

A week or so ago Alan Greenspan was before the Banking Committee. He was testifying. During the course of his testimony, and following his testimony, we had the opportunity to ask him questions. I asked him questions about the potential of interest rates rising and what that might do to the economy. He expressed that could happen and, in fact, it would be a chilling one for the American economy.

We also talked about the proposal before us today that Senator Feingold is offering, this pay-as-you-go notion; the idea that if I wanted to raise spending further above the baseline of spending already built into our budget, I would have to come up with an offset. The idea is that if I wanted to lower revenues, cut taxes in some area, I would come up with an offset to equal out that effect.

I asked Chairman Greenspan--there are different approaches to pay-go. One, I call it pay-go ``lite,'' where it would only affect the spending side. If I had a spending increase I wanted to make, I would have to come up with the offset. I said, How about the other side of a pay-as- you-go, on the revenue side? I was trying to get him on the record to say that the pay-as-you-go should be applied both on the spending side and the revenue side.

This is what he said: What worked in the past is what we ought to do now. That is what he said. What worked in the past is what you, the Congress, ought to do now. What worked in the past? It was a pay-as- you-go approach that applied to both spending and revenues. Frankly, it worked real well in the past. It is not the only thing that worked well, but it was helpful. We have the opportunity to put it back into place. We ought to do it.

My dad, when I was a kid growing up, would say to my sister and me when we would do some foolish stunt and not show any forethought: Just use some common sense. My guess is, if we were on the floor today and I asked Senator Feingold, or Senator Conrad, or the Presiding Officer, to go back to your childhood and think about things your parents used to say to you, you could all think of something they would say to you to try to drum into your heads. My dad would say more times than I would care to remember: Just use some common sense.

When we have an annual budget deficit that is approaching $600 billion, when we have a national debt that is now at about $7 trillion, I think a good test of common sense is, when any Senator wants to raise spending to make this situation worse, or any Senator wants to cut the revenue base to make this situation worse, we ought to say: How are you going to pay for it? If I don't have a good answer, we should not do what I want to do--either raising spending or cutting revenues. In my dad's words, that would be using common sense. We need some common sense. This amendment will provide that.

Madam President, I rise today in recognition of the Honorable E. Norman Veasey upon his retirement as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware. He has served as Chief Justice of the State of Delaware for 12 years. His leadership over that span of time has won him the respect and gratitude of our entire State. He has been, and remains, a trusted friend.

Chief Justice Veasey was born on January 9, 1933 in Wilmington, DE to the late Dr. Eugene E. Veasey and Elizabeth N. Burnett. He attended the Peddie School in Hightstown, NJ. From there, he went on to Dartmouth College where he obtained his A.B. in 1954. He then attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he graduated in 1957 with his LL.B. At the University of Pennsylvania Law School, he was a Member of the Board of Editors of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review from 1955 to 1957 and was Senior Editor from 1956 to 1957. He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1958.

Chief Justice Veasey has spent most of his life in public service. He served honorably in the Delaware Air National Guard from 1957 to 1968 whereby he obtained the rank of captain. He has also served, among a long list, as Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Chair of the Delaware Board of Bar Examiners, President of the Conference of Chief Justices in 2000, Chair of the ABA Special Committee on the Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct ``Ethics 2000'', and President of the Delaware State Bar Association. Furthermore, he served as a Director of Beneficial Corporation and National Bank for 13 years from 1979 to 1992.

From 1957 to 1988, he was a member of the prestigious Delaware law firm of Richards, Layton & Finger, with practice emphasis in corporate transactions, litigation and counseling. He was a member of the firm from 1957 to 1992, serving as a partner from 1963 to 1992 and as president from 1985 to 1988.

Judge Veasey became Chief Justice of the State of Delaware on April 7, 1992, having been nominated to that post by then Governor Michael N. Castle and unanimously confirmed by the Delaware State Senate. Chief Justice Veasey is a Judicial Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and is a member of both the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Judicial Conference and the American Law Institute. He is a Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a director of the Institute for Law and Economics at the University of Pennsylvania. He has been a frequent speaker on corporate governance, ethics and professionalism at continuing legal education programs and has been published widely in the fields related to corporate governance.

In June of 2002, Chief Justice Veasey received the 2002 Paul C. Reardon Award, one of the highest awards given by the National Center for State Courts, NCSC. The Reardon Award, named after the late Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice who was the first president of The National Center's Board of Directors, is presented to a person who has made outstanding contributions to the improvement of the justice system and who has supported the mission of The National Center.

Chief Justice Veasey has been a member of the Conference of Chief Justices since 1992, and headed the conference from 1999 to 2000, a singular

honor for him and for Delaware. He has been intimately involved in issues of attorney ethics, having served as chair of the American Bar Association's Special Committee on Evaluation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Ethics 2000. A frequent speaker on corporate governance, ethics, and professionalism at continuing legal education programs, Chief Justice Veasey has been published widely in the fields related to corporate governance. From 1994 to 1995, he was Chair of the Section of Business Law of the ABA. Justice Veasey is also a Judicial Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Justice Veasey has been married to the former Suzanne Johnson for 47 years. Both he and Suzy are the proud parents of four children, Andrew, Douglas, E. Norman, Jr. and Marian Elizabeth, and even prouder grandparents to eleven grandchildren.

Through Chief Justice Veasey's tireless efforts, he has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of Delawareans. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for the generations that will follow. I thank him for the friendship that we share and for the privilege of working closely with him when I served as Governor of Delaware from 1993 to 2001. On behalf of all Delawareans, I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him, Suzy and their family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

Madam President, the first time I visited the University of Delaware campus was in 1973. My first reaction was: what a beautiful place, and it truly is a gorgeous campus. Later, as I learned more about the university, I learned they were one of the top 25 public universities in the country academically and have remained that for some time. We are proud of that fact.

What I also learned my first year at the University of Delaware in the MBA program, fresh out of the Navy, was

they played football at Delaware. I was a Buckeye of Ohio State in 1968 when we went all the way. I learned they were as rabid about football in Delaware as we were in Columbus, OH.

During the years that transpired since I moved to Delaware, there was a time when the Dallas Cowboys rose in standing nationally, and I recall in some circles it was America's team. I was looking through the roster of Delaware's team last night to see some of the States our players came from. While I did not find anybody from Alaska, the State from which the Presiding Officer comes, I certainly saw a number of players from Delaware, from New Jersey, a number of players from Maryland, a lot of players from Virginia, California, Georgia--quite a few from Georgia--and Pennsylvania. We have players from South Carolina, North Carolina, Indiana, Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Florida, Arizona. We even have one, I say to Senator Biden, I don't know if he realizes it, but we even have one player on the roster from Germany. That is going the extra mile to get the kind of talent K. C. Keeler and his predecessor, Tubby Raymond, wanted to bring to our campus.

I have been privileged to enjoy a lot of terrific sports moments in my life. This last year, the University of Delaware football team on its way to the national championship provided us with two I will never forget.

One was a 51 to 45 win over Massachusetts in triple overtime on a blustery fall afternoon at the University of Delaware. It was a heartstopper. It was an amazing win, topped only by a 40 to 0 victory over Colgate on a very cold night in December of last year.

I have been to a lot of games in my life. I have never been to a game where everybody on our side of the field stood up the entire first quarter. They never sat down. I have never been to a game in my life where everybody stood up for the second quarter, and third quarter, and the fourth quarter. We had places to sit, but nobody ever sat down. It was just the most incredible spirit or euphoria I ever witnessed.

When the game was over, the players and a lot of fans rushed the field in the presentation of the trophy to Coach Keeler. The fans gathered around. People did not want to leave. I remember standing half an hour later at one end of the end zone with Congressman Castle looking out over the field and looking at everybody in sheer joy, savoring the moment.

Another special moment was when Coach Keeler went into the end zone with Tubby Raymond, his predecessor and coach when Keeler was a linebacker with the national championship team in the late seventies. Tubby handed it off and Coach Keeler went on to the national championship.

For some of the players who left the field that night, it was the last football game they will ever play. Others will go on to be greats in professional football. Some may be lucky to turn up as Rich Gannon did, who ended up being the MVP of the NFL last year, whether they end up in pro football or other athletic-related endeavors. Sometimes they go on to do great things with their life, such as Tyrone Jones, who was a freshman in 1982, one of the years Delaware made it to the finals for the national championship and did not make it by three points. Tyrone Jones is now New Castle County coordinator. He is in charge of all of New Castle County. Back in 1982, he was a freshman playing for a great team, and in 1983, 1984, 1985, he played free safety for some of Tubby's teams.

Tubby Raymond, who is now in the Football Hall of Fame, had 300 career wins. Ty Jones was on the field for about 20 of those wins. We are very proud of him.

I want to say to those who might be watching from Delaware or here representing Delaware, whatever you do on the field or beyond, there is greatness to be accomplished, and we are proud of Ty and others who follow endeavors off of the gridiron.

Madam President, will the Senator yield? I have to show one of the most beautiful newspaper headlines I have ever seen in Delaware or any other State. To all who made this possible, we are enormously proud.

I thank the Senator from Minnesota.

Today is March 4. Five years ago today something called the American Legacy Foundation was created. Over the past 5 years, Legacy Foundation has helped us to make great strides in the improvement of health for all kinds of Americans, not only today but in the years to come. They have helped us to begin building a world where young people reject tobacco and where just about anyone can quit smoking. But as we celebrate the work of the foundation today, a lot more work needs to be done.

The foundation was established in March of 1999 as a result of something called the Master Settlement Agreement between a coalition of attorneys general in 46 States and 5 U.S. territories and the tobacco industry. The foundation remains primarily today funded by payments designated by the settlement.

The foundation develops national programs that address the health effects of tobacco use. They do it through grants, technical training and assistance, and youth activism, strategic partnerships, countermarketing and grassroots marketing campaigns, public relations, and community outreach to populations disproportionately affected by the toll of tobacco.

The foundation has two goals that guide its work toward creating tobacco-free generations. One of those is to arm all young people with the knowledge and tools to reject tobacco. The other is to eliminate the disparities in access to tobacco prevention and cessation services.

The truth campaign is one effort to curb tobacco use among teens. Truth is the foundation's comprehensive countermarketing campaign to prevent and reduce youth smoking. The truth campaign was credited by the National Institute on Drug Abuse as one of the major programs which contributed to the steady reduction in teen cigarette smoking.

In addition to celebrating this achievement today, I also want to share with my colleagues the very real threats faced by the American Legacy Foundation. This year the foundation received its last payment from the Master Settlement Agreement. Because of this drastic reduction in resources, all of the successes that have been achieved to date are suddenly jeopardized. I don't believe we can afford to lose any of the ground we have gained on tobacco control.

I ask my colleagues to consider these facts: Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in this country. Tobacco kills some 440,000 people per year--more than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined. Twenty-four percent of high school students in my State still smoke. That is down from where it was a couple years ago, but still almost one out of four. Every day some 2,000 teenagers begin smoking. Their average age is actually about 13. Of those who become hooked on smoking, one of three will end up dying from their use of tobacco.

Each year in my State of Delaware, some 1,100 adults die from cigarette smoking. I am told over 900 kids in my State have lost at least one parent through smoking-caused death. I would also say smoking is having a financial impact. Annual health care expenditures in my State caused by tobacco use total $221 million and over $62 million in State Medicaid payments are related to tobacco use.

I had the privilege of being the founding cochairman of the American Legacy Foundation. Our founding chairman was Chris Gregoire, the Attorney General of Washington State. I was succeeded and joined on the foundation board by former Governor Mike Leavitt of Utah, now head of EPA, and by Parris Glendenning, former Governor of Maryland. I am proud of the association I had with the foundation at its beginning and the great work we did, especially with young people who themselves helped to design, to craft, and to deliver the truth campaign. In no small part because of their efforts, especially the young people, the incidence of smoking has dropped significantly over the last half dozen years, and it is important that that work and that trend continue.

I thank the Chair for the time and I thank my colleague from Nevada and my colleague from Minnesota for allowing me to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

Most Senators have already made up their minds on how they are going to vote on the proposal by Senator McCain and Senator Reed on closing the gun show loophole. A few have not. What I would like to do is direct my comments to them.

During my first term as Governor of Delaware, I remember a meeting I had with law enforcement officers who came to see me. They wanted to talk with me about something called the gun show loopholes.

As they went through their explanation, I said: Do I understand correctly, that if I happen to be a licensed gun dealer at a gun show in my State, and let's say Senator Reed over here is an unlicensed gun dealer at the same gun show, that I have to do an instant background check on the folks who want to buy a weapon from me, and if they do not pass that instant background check, they can go over and buy the same weapon from my competitor?

They said: That's right.

For the life of me, at that time that made no sense, and for the life of me, it still does not make any sense.

I mentioned yesterday on the floor that my dad, who is now deceased, was a gun collector. He had rifles and shotguns, a musket or two, pistols of all kinds. He would buy weapons from guys he would hunt with. They had an informal hunt club. He would buy weapons from relatives, members of our family. He might go to a yard sale in the neighborhood where they lived in Florida and buy a weapon. He ought to have been able to do that, and under the law, under this amendment that is offered today, he could still do those things, were he alive.

Let me close with this: Technology is going to help us solve this problem. Technology can be a great way to solve this problem. Instant background checks make feasible what 10 years ago was not feasible and the right thing to do.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment. I would just note, if I could, my understanding is this amendment would clarify that the manufacturer or the seller of a firearm would still be liable for the foreseeable injuries to a consumer who purchases a firearm, just like the producer of a toaster or a lawnmower or car seats or any other product, for that matter.

I also want to take a moment to speak on behalf of an amendment that is going to be offered and probably voted on tomorrow; and that is, with respect to gun shows, an effort, on the part of Senators McCain and Reed to close what many of us believe is a loophole.

By way of full disclosure, this past weekend I have been working with my youngest son, who is an eighth grader in a school back in Delaware. In school, he has a genealogy project. He has to not only tell his life story, but he has to tell the story of both sides of his family--his parents' ancestors--all the way back to North Carolina and Germany, and places like that.

One of things we came across, in looking through the genealogy, is that about 150 years ago, one of the things that was going on in the Carper family, in West Virginia, was the development of something called the Carper rifle.

It turned out to be a firearm that bears my family's name and was thought to be a weapon people were anxious to have a long time ago. In fact, we still trade a few from time to time. My dad was a big hunter and fisherman. I also like to fish and take my boys. My sons are Boy Scouts and they are being introduced to weapons as they go through their training. Occasionally, we will do some trap shooting. I remember my dad being a gun collector, too. I remember visiting him and my mom in Florida where they had lived for some time. I remember looking at his gun collection. He had enough for a small army in their home in Seminole, FL. He had rifles, shotguns, and even a musket or two, and handguns as well. He used to say, with some humor, if anybody tried to break into this house, it would be the last time they tried to do it. All I know is nobody tried to break into their house.

My dad also liked people. He was a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance Company. In the course of his work, he worked with troopers, police, law enforcement officers. He had a great affection for them and the work they did. I am like my father in some ways and different in some ways. We share an affection for the outdoors and also for people. We have a strong respect for the second amendment of the Constitution, believing people ought to

have a right to bear arms and own arms.

We have a situation in Delaware, as in about 30-some other States, where folks can go to a gun show--and people are not able to buy guns under Delaware law. But you can show up at a licensed dealer and they call in to the State Bureau of Investigation, and in a minute or two they will know whether you are eligible to buy a gun.

That same person can go to a gun show in my State and if they deal with a licensed dealer, within a couple of minutes, they know whether the person may or may not buy a weapon. If not, they are told you cannot buy a weapon. Yet somebody can go as far from me as to the reporter right here, who is not a licensed dealer, and that same person who cannot purchase a gun in my State will purchase a gun. It happens in my State and in dozens of other States around America.

My law enforcement officers want to see a change. They want to see it stopped. All of our major law enforcement agencies in Delaware, from Dover, to Wilmington, to Newcastle, would like to see that loophole closed. Tomorrow when we vote on the gun show loophole amendment from Senators McCain and Reed, I plan to vote for it. It is good, commonsense legislation. I hope it will carry the day tomorrow when we vote.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for allowing me to have this time.

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a moment to reflect on the life of Ms. Mary Frances Diaz upon her passing in February. Mary was a woman who made a remarkable contribution toward improving the lives of refugee women, children, and adolescents around the world. She was a truly selfless woman who dedicated her life to others.

Mary was born in Newport News, VA. She spent her childhood in Pottstown, PA, before going to Brown University, where she graduated with a major in international relations in 1982. After working for several years at WPVI television news station in Philadelphia, she returned to school and received a master's degree in international education from Harvard University in 1988.

But Mary's passion and life mission was refugees. While she was still at Harvard she began working for Catholic Charities in Boston, and upon graduation became director of refugee and immigration services there.

In 1994, at the age of 33, Mary became executive director of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, an organization that helps some of the most vulnerable people on Earth. For 10 years, Mary traveled to the world's trouble spots, dodging minefields, tsetse flies, and wars on her mission to help refugee women and children reclaim their lives. She went on fact-finding missions to places such as Serbia, Angola, Rwanda, Nepal, Pakistan, Haiti, and Colombia to talk to uprooted women and children firsthand.

Back in the United States and in Geneva, she would plead their cases before the United Nations and lobby lawmakers and relief agencies to improve their conditions. She also fought for the rights of people claiming asylum in the United States.

Her advocacy led to concrete results. After she reported on the situation in Bosnia, the Clinton administration provided a fund to help refugee women rebuild their lives. During a visit to Tanzania, she got the rules changed to allow Burundian women as well as men to distribute food to fellow refugees. As a result, many more women and their children got their food rations. After a visit to Afghanistan in 2002, Mary initiated a fund for programs for Afghan women.

Under Mary's leadership, the Women's Commission grew from a small organization with a staff of 4 and a budget of $425,000 to one with more than 20 staff and a budget of $4 million. She believed the international community had a responsibility to help women and children who had been uprooted by war and persecution, and in her quiet, elegant way, used her eloquence and strong persuasive powers to persuade policy makers to change policies and programs.

Mary, who was 43 years old, died of pancreatic cancer. She leaves behind her longtime partner, Tom Ferguson of New York City; her mother, Bertha Diaz of Pottstown, PA; two brothers, Dr. Philip Diaz of Columbus, OH, and Dr. Joseph Diaz of Barrington, RI; and two sisters, Theresa Diaz of Reading, PA, and Bernadette Diaz of Oak Park, IL. She also leaves behind innumerable friends and colleagues.

Mary's legacy will live on in the lives of the refugees around the world whose lives she helped improve and in the work of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. I rise today to commemorate Mary Diaz, to celebrate her too-short life and to offer her family, friends, and colleagues our support. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, before Senator Feinstein leaves the Chamber, she has laid out what may well be a very reasonable alternative for this body and our colleagues in the House to consider with respect to medical malpractice. She has played a vital role as we have worked over the last several years to craft a compromise on class action reform and offered maybe the critical amendment to the bill.

What I would like to do in the 10 minutes I am going to speak is compare and contrast, if I can, the approach in bringing this medical malpractice bill to the Senate today with the approach that has been followed as we have tried to bring class action reform legislation to the Senate floor.

Let me step back for a moment. For those who may be listening to this discussion, class action reform seeks to address the issue of when a class of people are harmed what kind of redress do they have to seek compensation? I think most of us would agree that if a person were harmed by a product, good, or service that they had come in contact with or acquired that that person should be made whole. I think we would also agree if a whole class of people were somehow damaged by a product, good, or service that they came in contact with that the class of people should be made whole.

The question is, In what forum should those damaged persons, the damaged class, the plaintiff class--where do they turn to for redress to gain compensation for their injury or for their harm?

In my view, and I think it is a view probably shared by a majority of my colleagues, we believe that if the plaintiff class happens to be in a State different from the State that the defendant is from, our Constitution would suggest that maybe in those cases that rather than the case being litigated in the State where all of the plaintiffs are located, if the defendant is from another State, that the fair thing to do to both the defendant and the plaintiff is to litigate that matter in Federal court. That has been a subject of some debate.

It is not an issue that involves limits on punitive damages, economic, noneconomic damages, pain and suffering. The debate does not lie there. Rather, the debate lies in the area of in what court, in what jurisdiction should those kinds of questions be resolved.

I have been in the Senate for a bit more than 3 years. During that course of time, there have been any number of hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the House Judiciary Committee to bring before the respective panels in both bodies those who believe that we need to change the status quo with respect to class action litigation and those who think that what we have is just fine.

Proponents and advocates have had the opportunity to speak their points of view and to testify repeatedly in the Senate and in the House. In fact, over the last couple of years, this is what has happened in the Senate: Legislation has been developed in committee, it has been debated in committee, it has been amended in committee, and it has been brought to the floor in an effort to try to have it debated, amended, and voted on.

Last fall, we were able to get 59 votes to proceed to the bill, to take it up and offer amendments on the floor, but on class action we fell just short of the 60 that we needed to invoke cloture. So we went back and we did some more work. Those of us who think changes are necessary worked with some of our Democrat colleagues, three of them especially, and others as well, to come up with changes that would make the bill better, fairer, and more defensible. Hopefully, within the next several weeks we will have the opportunity to debate that on the floor and to offer further amendments to class action reform legislation.

It has been a long process, some would say too long. What happens is we start off with a reasonable proposal, debate it in committee, improve it in committee, report it out of committee, and then we are going to have the opportunity to bring the bill to the floor and it will be altered, I think improved, when that same bill comes to the floor.

Once the bill is on the floor, we will have the opportunity for full and open debate to consider what people like about it and do not like about it. They can offer their changes and we will have an up-or-down vote at the end of

the day when we have amended the bill. That is what we call regular order. That is the way an issue of this nature should be decided.

To my knowledge, maybe in the last 3 years there has been one hearing in one committee in the Senate on the issue of medical malpractice. If there have been others, I am not aware of them. A year ago, there was one hearing in one committee on this issue. I do not believe the bill has been marked up in that committee.

They did not vote on that bill in that committee. They did not seek to amend this medical malpractice bill in that committee. Instead, we simply find a related bill appearing on the Senate agenda with no opportunity to offer amendments, to improve it as maybe Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin, or others would like to do but, rather, to have to kind of take it or leave it. That is not regular order and that is not the way to build consensus, particularly on an issue as difficult and as contentious as this one.

Another issue we have been dealing with, which involves litigation reform, is the subject of asbestosis. We all know that for many years people used asbestos. It was used in all kinds of projects, construction, automobiles, brakes, ship construction. Asbestos was commonly used. We later found out that it kills people. It causes asbestosis, mesothelioma, and other diseases. We now have been working for years to try to figure out how do we compensate the victims of asbestos exposure to make them whole. That process is one that has gone on for any number of years, too. The process we followed there is the opportunity to fully debate the issue in committees, to hold hearings in committees, where people who are for and against it have a chance to express their views. There are a lot of interested parties such as insurance companies, manufacturers, labor unions, the trial bar, and others that have had the opportunity to add their input. I hope what we now have coming to the Senate floor sometime later this spring is legislation that says maybe the way we handle asbestos litigation in this country can be improved on so we make sure people who are sick and dying of asbestos exposure get the help they need, and make sure people who are not sick will not ever be sick and do not siphon off money from those who truly need it. We need to come up with a fair system and one, frankly, that will stem the loss of companies, corporations, and businesses that are going bankrupt by the scores of asbestos exposure.

If we compare the way this body has approached class action reform legislation, in a very deliberate and thoughtful fashion, with plenty of opportunity for debate and changes, and compare that with what is before us today, it is night and day. There is really very little similarity.

I suggest to our friends on the other side of the aisle that on this particular issue if they are interested in finding a fair and reasonable solution, there are a number of us on this side of the aisle who would be willing to engage with them to find that. In the meantime, I would suggest they take a look at what States are doing.

Senator Feinstein talked about her own State. In Delaware, the Governor put together a group, not a partisan group but a group that includes the trial bar, health providers, hospital representatives, folks within government and outside of government, to try to figure out if we needed to make any changes in our own State with respect to medical malpractice.

In the end, they said: We do not think we have a problem in Delaware with physicians being unable to get the coverage at a reasonable price. We do not have out of control jury awards. This is not a huge Delaware problem. Rather, they did suggest one change which I think is instructive. What they did was said why do we not provide for the certification of medical malpractice litigation to certify that it is not a frivolous lawsuit. If someone wants to bring a suit before it ends up in court, there will be a panel of knowledgeable people within that area of health care who will look at the assertion of the plaintiff and decide whether or not this is a frivolous lawsuit. If it is, the litigation does not go forward. That is what one State is doing, as a temporary measure.

I close by saying this: Unlike asbestos litigation reform, which needs a national solution, unlike class action litigation reform, which I believe needs a national solution, for the most part States can deal with on a case-by-case, State-by-State basis issues revolving around medical malpractice. I think for the most part we are better off pursuing that. Not everybody will agree with me on that point, but I think most people in this body will agree on this point, and that is the right way to legislate on these contentious issues is the approach we have taken with respect to class action reform and the approach we are taking with respect to asbestos litigation reform, where all sides have the opportunity to be heard, Members get to offer their amendments in committee and on the floor and then we go forward. That is the way to do business, and if we do business on those bases and in that accord, on a more consistent basis, we will be able to not only talk about doing something that needs to be done but actually accomplish it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a moment to reflect on the life of Mr. John ``Jack'' Burris upon his passing late last month. Jack was a good friend and a man who made remarkable contributions to our State. He was a truly selfless man with a kind heart, diverse interests, great abilities and boundless energy.

Jack was born in Lincoln City, now part of Milford, DE, to the late John W. and Edna Vaughn Burris. After graduating from the Peddie School in Hightstown, NJ in 1938, he went on to study at the University of Pennsylvania in 1942.

After serving his country in World War II as a member of the United States Marine Corps, Jack returned to Delaware and began farming for several years. He then founded the Burris Poultry Business, which operated from 1948 until it was sold in 1971, at which time he founded Burris Logistics, a frozen-food warehousing and distribution company, which he ran until last year.

Jack was an uncommonly active member of his community, serving on countless boards and committees. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Wilmington Trust Co. and was chairman of its Kent County Advisory Board. For 19 years, Jack was director of the Brandywine Fund. He contributed generously of his time and energies to community, educational and service organizations.

For 35 years, he served on the Milford Memorial Hospital Board. During a portion of that time, he was the board's chairman. More recently, Jack was a member of the Bayhealth Foundation board. Annually for 37 years, he and his family cooked the chicken dinners for the Milford Hospital Fair to help support the community's hospital. For 19 years, he served as chairman of the State Integrity Commission and in 2000, he co-chaired--at my request--the committee that raised funds to remodel the State Archives Building and transform in into a state-of- the-art facility.

One of Jack's greatest joys, however, was supporting the efforts of the United Way in our State. For more than 20 years, he actively participated in Kent and Sussex Counties' United Way campaigns, serving as chairman for many years. Jack and his wife, Lillian, were honored as exceptional volunteers, receiving the United Way's Alexis de Tocqueville Society Award. He was also a charter member of the Milford Lions Club.

From 1976 to 1992, Jack was a trustee of the University of Delaware and co-chair of the search committee that recommended Dr. David Roselle as president. In 1992, he received a Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Delaware and also served that same year on the Agriculture Advisory Committee of the University of Delaware Board of Trustees, as well as a trustees emeritus.

For more than 30 years, he was an active member of the Avenue United Methodist Church in Milford, where he served on the administrative board and was the Pastor-Parish Committee chairman for 18 years.

In 1998, Jack was inducted into the National Frozen Food Industries Hall of Fame. The Baltimore and Washington Frozen Food Association in 1993 and 1994 honored him as Man of the Year. He was inducted into the Delaware Business Leaders Hall of Fame and twice, with his wife, Lillian Marshall Burris, was named as Outstanding Citizen of the Year by the Milford Chamber of Commerce. One of his greatest honors was receiving the Josiah Marvel Cup award from the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce in 1993.

Jack Burris also has received many prestigious awards for his dedication and service. Among them are the Dover Colonial Rotary's Paul Harris Service Award, the Lions International Melvin Jones Award for Dedicated Humanitarian Services, the Delmarva Poultry Citizen of the Year and Del-Mar-Va Boy Scout Council's Citizen of the Year.

Jack leaves behind his wife of 61 years Lillian, a remarkable woman in her own right, as well as four children, twelve grandchildren, three step-grandchildren, and twelve great-grandchildren. He also leaves behind a legion of friends, colleagues and several generations of Delawareans who are living more fulfilling, satisfying lives today because of Jack's extraordinary contributions.

Jack Burris' legacy will live on in the lives of those he helped to shape and in the hearts of those who were lucky enough to call him their friend. I rise today to commemorate Jack's life, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our heartfelt thanks for sharing this remarkable human being with all of us. Jack embodied the best of Delaware. He was one of a kind. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. Chairman, when it is appropriate, I will welcome the opportunity to speak for maybe 5 to 10 minutes on the bill.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, in voicing my thanks for the work that has been done on the legislation before us today, and certainly to Senator Inhofe and his staff and Senator Jeffords and his staff.

As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, it has really been a pleasure for me these last 12 months to work with our new chairman-- well, not so new chairman--Senator Shelby and our ranking member, former chairman, Senator Sarbanes, as we have attempted to craft any number of pieces of legislation. Last year, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which I described yesterday, with Senator Shelby, was just a model in the way we should be creating legislation in a badly divided Congress these days.

I don't know if the bill before us is going to be held out as a model for crafting legislation, but my hope is the product is going to be a good one for us and for our country.

I would like to speak for a few minutes about the transit provisions of this bill and then to talk a bit about our support as a nation for rail transportation and whether or not we have provided the right support and sense of priority for rail, be it freight rail or passenger rail.

Let's go back to the 1970s when something called the Urban Mass Transit Administration was created. We talk about legislation. We didn't have ISTEA; we didn't have TEA-21; we had a highway bill. Every several years the Congress would pass a highway bill. Even after the Urban Mass Transit Administration was created, we would pass in the Congress from time to time a highway bill.

In due course, the Urban Mass Transit Administration became the Federal Transit Administration. Somewhere I believe in the 1980s, the Federal Transit Administration funding was joined with the highway bill to become a transportation bill and we began taking money. Today I think it is a little less than 3 cents for every gallon of gasoline that is sold that will be allocated to the Federal Transit Administration to support mass transit services, including buses, including rail and a variety of other transit services.

With respect to the transit provisions of this bill, I think they represent our growing awareness that while roads and bridges and highways are important and we still love our cars in this country-- cars, trucks, and vans--more and more people are using transit. It is a good thing they are. With the kind of congestion we have on our highways, with the kind of dependence on foreign oil and the kind of problems with air pollution, it certainly makes sense to have people get out of the cars, trucks, and vans to use transit to go to work or go shop or go to a ball game or any variety of other purposes.

I would like us to think of our transportation system in this country holistically for just a moment. It includes our highways, our roads, our bridges. It also includes transit. Last year we spent a fair amount of time reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. In doing so, a variety of related programs, including the airport improvement program, were reauthorized. You may recall we fund aviation improvements, and particularly airport improvements, from a variety of user fees and some general fund moneys.

Last year we focused on aviation and how to improve our aviation component of our transportation system. This week we are focusing on highways and roads. Today we are focusing a bit on transit.

At a day and age in which some 16 percent of our freight in this country is shipped by rail, all told over 40 percent of our total ton miles of intercity freight go by rail, we have not yet seen fit to say the Federal Government should have some interest, more than just a passing interest, in helping to support, to nurture the rail component of our transportation system.

Later, probably not this week but I suspect next week, we will have the opportunity to consider that question: What kind of attention, what kind of support should we in the Congress and in this country be providing for freight rail service? What kind of support should we be providing in this country for passenger rail service?

Amtrak has just concluded a year where they had the highest ridership in the history of the company. More than 24 million people rode intercity passenger trains, and they had the highest revenue, I believe, for any year in their history as well.

We spend a whole lot of time from year to year in this body talking about passenger rail service and Amtrak. We really don't focus much on freight rail. I would have us keep in mind, in a day and age where we are using some 55 percent of the oil we use to run our cars, trucks, and vans, 55 percent of it comes from foreign sources.

You can take 1 ton of freight, put it on a train here in Washington, DC, and take it up to Boston, MA, and you use 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Let me say that again. You take 1 ton of freight, put it on a freight train here in Washington, DC, take it up the Northeast corridor to Boston, MA, and that train will use 1 gallon of diesel fuel to move a ton of freight by rail.

As Governor of Delaware, I was involved a whole lot in trying to improve our highways, our roads, our bridges. There has been a lot of State money and, frankly, a good deal of Federal money. We are always grateful for that partnership. We invest a considerable amount of money in transit services. We invest State money in airports along with Federal money.

We also invested State money in rail transportation projects. We did not have as a partner in those rail transportation projects the Federal Government. However, if it were a highway project, for every 20 cents we put up, the Federal Government would put up 80 cents to match. If we had the opportunity to choose between projects where we were getting an 80-20 match, an 80-cent match for our 20 cents on a highway project, and we had the option of putting our money and no Federal money in a rail project, the funding formula just automatically skewed our decisionmaking.

We may have had a rail project that made a whole lot more sense for our State, got a whole lot better bang for

the buck than the highway project, but we were inclined and encouraged to use the money for the highway project because of a far better return, 80 to 20 versus nothing for our 100 cents.

What I think some of us will be really asked to think about next week is whether it makes sense to say the Federal Government should be at least a modest partner in encouraging the utilization of freight rail-- greater utilization of freight rail. Today, the role is almost zero.

I believe we can do better than that. There are a whole lot of different approaches, different ideas and thoughts about creating an entity that would issue bonds. The interest on those bonds would be paid for by the Federal Government through tax credits. The entity issuing those bonds would be essentially paid. There has been discussion of adding an extra penny or so to the Federal gas tax and using those funds to support rail in some context.

I know when I served on the impact board--and former Governor Tommy Thompson preceded me--he and I both suggested an extra half cent or so to the gas tax to provide additional money for capital investments for infrastructure. We thought that made sense.

We may be asking our colleagues next week to look at an approach that suggests maybe a source of funding through a gasoline tax. I don't think creating an entity to issue new debt is the answer, at least not now--but to look for some source of funding that would provide some money for the next 6 years to States that have identified good rail projects, freight rail, or even passenger rail, which makes sense for those States; if they are willing to put up their money in order to match moneys from a Federal grant through the U.S. Department of Transportation, I think that is an idea that may not have had a lot of merit several years ago.

But, when you travel the highways around here or Delaware or Vermont or Maryland, I suspect even some places in Oklahoma, Missouri, Massachusetts, we see congestion on our roads the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetimes. When you travel to airports, whether it is in Philadelphia, or BWI, or other places around the country, the kind of congestion we see is congestion I have never seen in my lifetime, and the kinds of delays we are facing I have never seen in my lifetime.

When I got out of the Navy in 1973 and got off active duty and moved from California to Delaware, about 30 percent of the oil used in Delaware back then in this country that year was oil we got from overseas.

When we can move a ton of freight from Washington, DC to Boston on a freight train and use one gallon of diesel, that certainly says to me there are some lessons for fuel economy in this day and age that we ought to pay attention to.

Senator Jeffords has provided great leadership with respect to clean air issues. We are wrestling and wrangling before the committee on what is the right approach. We have seen improvements in certain aspects of air quality. In the Northeast, we still have huge problems with respect to smog and nitrogen oxide; great problems with respect to mercury. I believe others here will agree to disagree that global warming is a growing concern. But in that kind of environment, the notion that we as a nation should be interested in fostering and encouraging a greater dependence on rail--freight and passenger--to move people and to move goods is I think the right notion.

I want to close by going back to where I started.

Again, we worked a whole lot last year on aviation. This week we are working on highways, roads, and bridges, and that certainly is appropriate. During today's debate, hopefully we will introduce transit into the fray. That is another important component of our transportation system that should get special attention. I don't know how long I am going to be in the Senate. I hope I will be here for a while. But I am going to keep reminding my colleagues that rail deserves a place at the table. If we provide that place, without even providing a huge amount of money, I think we are going to find our country and our respective States are well served by that attention.

I thank the Senator very much for yielding the time.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Harold Raymond upon his induction into the College Football Hall of Fame. After 36 seasons as the University of Delaware's head football coach and 48 years in the Blue Hen program, he has earned a reputation for talent, dedication, and loyalty. Known to friends and colleagues as ``Tubby,'' he is a man with a kind heart, diverse interests and great abilities. Tubby embodies the best of the State of Delaware, the University of Delaware, and the institution of coaching.

In a coaching career that has spanned 10 United States presidencies, Tubby led the Blue Hens to three national championships, 16 NCAA playoffs and 14 Lambert Cups. He is one of nine college football athletes to win 300 games and one of just four who accomplished that feat at one institution. He also led his team to three national championships. In his charge, the Blue Hens won more than 50 percent of Delaware's 575 all-time victories in 100 seasons of intercollegiate competition. He retired with a breathtaking record of 300-118-3.

Raymond, a native of Flint, MI, was a quarterback and linebacker at the University of Michigan. It was there, playing for Coach Fritz Crisler, that Raymond learned the Wing-T offense, which he later implemented at Delaware. He has written five books on the subject, as well as producing several instructional videos.

Tubby began coaching in 1949 as an assistant football coach at University High in Ann Arbor, MI. In 1950, he earned a degree in education from the University of Michigan and became head coach at University High.

In 1954, Tubby arrived in the First State, serving as both football backfield coach and head baseball coach for the University of Delaware. In 1966, he took the reins from Dave Nelson as UD's head football coach. Since then, his teams have produced 32 winning seasons.

Over the years, Raymond had offers to coach at Syracuse, Maryland, Arizona, Iowa and Army. Marv Levy twice tried to hire him, once when Levy was coaching at the University of California and again when he was with the Kansas City Chiefs. But Raymond was content to stay with what he calls his ``family'' at Delaware.

On August 29, 2002, his ``family'' paid tribute to him when they celebrated Tubby Raymond Day. Completing the eventful night game in style, the Fightin' Blue Hens, under the direction of new head coach K.C. Keeler, defeated NCAA Division I-AA powerhouse Georgia Southern 22-19 before an electrified crown of over 19,000. At halftime in the game, with the Hens holding a 14-6

lead, the Delaware Stadium playing field was formally named Tubby Raymond Field. Less than 16 months later, the Blue Hen team that Tubby helped to recruit and then turned over to his successor K.C. Keeler went on to defeat Colgate 40-0 in the finals of the NCAA's Division I- AA football playoffs, making the Blue Hens national champions for 2003.

Tubby epitomizes the University's emphasis on developing student- athletes, too. Throughout his tenure, he encouraged his players to succeed in the classroom as well as on the football field. He will tell you that he is as fiercely proud of those who succeed in careers off the gridiron as he is in those who succeed in the NFL.

Tubby's legacy will never be forgotten by those he touched, the players he coached, and the students he inspired. On behalf of all of them and those of us who call Delaware home, I want to thank him for his leadership, congratulate him on a remarkable coaching career and wish him and his family only the very best in all that lies ahead for him and for them.

Mr. President, I would like to offer a comment or two about the legislation before us and express my thanks to two Members of the Senate who have been very involved in shaping this legislation, Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy. I thank them for the work they have done.

There is a lot of concern in this country about the exodus of manufacturing jobs and technology jobs. The legislation before us is a thoughtful, timely response to a number of employers, large and small, who are concerned that unless we address this problem with respect to selecting an appropriate successor to the 30-year Treasury bond, an appropriate measure to determine what magnitude of money should be contributed to pension funds, we are going to otherwise increase the exodus of jobs, manufacturing and otherwise.

We are doing good work. My hope is we will be able to finish this legislation this week and get on with our business and allow employers to get on with theirs.

Energy Efficiency for Air Conditioners

Mr. President, about a week or so ago I learned that a U.S. circuit court of appeals, I believe for the Second District, had released a decision that is a major victory for energy efficiency. It offers significant savings for consumers of electricity. It is important for our Nation's energy future. Finally, it will help to improve the quality of air we breathe.

Let me take a moment to talk more about this decision and its impact. To provide a bit of background, among the U.S. Department of Energy's responsibilities is to establish energy efficiency standards for electrical appliances. Central air-conditioners, the type that cool most of our homes and offices, must meet the appropriate seasonal energy efficiency rating, better known as SEER. During warm summer days--which seem a long way away now--central air-conditioners account for more than half of the electricity we use. Increasing the efficiency of these necessary modern comforts will result in significantly less stress on our Nation's electricity grid and reduce the occurrence of blackouts.

According to the Alliance to Save Energy, requiring energy-efficient air-conditioners would avoid having to construct as many as 48 new electric powerplants over the next 16 years. It would also result in less greenhouse gases and harmful air pollution being released into the atmosphere because of reduced electricity demand.

Some of you may recall at the close of the Clinton administration, after exhaustive research, review, and comment, the Department of Energy set forth a new standard known as SEER 13. In doing so, the Energy Department directed that central air-conditioners, sold beginning in 2006, would need to be 30-percent more energy efficient than those currently available.

Unfortunately, that standard was withdrawn a couple of years ago when the current administration took office. That standard was replaced with a less efficient, less rigorous requirement. The revised standard, known as SEER 12, would have required just a 20-percent increase in energy efficiency.

In response to the administration's actions, 10 States, several consumer groups, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit at that time in an attempt to overturn this weakened standard.

It was 2 years ago, as the Senate was beginning to consider the Energy bill, that I was encouraged that the legislation we are considering should have restored the higher SEER 13 standard originally embraced by the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, that language was removed during the debate on the bill and the weaker SEER 12 standard was allowed to stand.

Last year, I discussed options for reinstating the higher SEER 13 standard but decided to hold off until the pending court case was decided. As I said, I was gratified to learn last week that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had decided in favor of the original, more rigorous standard. The court's decision means that consumers will be able to purchase energy-efficient air-conditioners that could cut electricity bills for them by over $1 billion per year. The administration could decide to appeal the court's decision to the Supreme Court. I urge them today not to do so.

As we debate again and again the future of energy policy, this court decision is one that should be embraced and encouraged, not appealed. We

should take every opportunity to increase our energy security. This is one of those opportunities.

I yield the floor and thank Senator Durbin for his consideration.