Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain and others who brought this legislation to the floor. I stand today as a cosponsor of the amended version of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act and I will vote for it today. I do so because I believe it is a sensible first step toward addressing the real problem of increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming about which Senator Byrd and others have spoken.

Senator Byrd, Senator McCain, and others have spoken about the convincing science which shows that not only greenhouse gas emissions are increasing but also that those emissions are linked to human activity and are having a negative impact on the climate in which we live.

Ten years ago I would not have stood here. Ten years ago I would not have been arguing that we should take mandatory steps toward addressing greenhouse gas emissions. But over the past decade or so as I learned more about the issue and had the opportunity to speak with people on both sides of this debate, and as Senator McCain said, to see with my own eyes the changes that are occurring in this world, I have become convinced there is a real problem. It is not going away. We can do something about it. We can do something about it now. We should.

Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain should be commended for their work on this bill and for their willingness to make a significant modification to their original proposal. I don't know that I would have been so supportive of the original bill because of reductions that were required in that bill. Having said that, the modified version before the Senate today which seeks to turn over the balance of this decade greenhouse emissions to levels of the year 2000 has my strong support.

The fact is, if the Federal Government does not act in a meaningful way, and do so soon, the problem will get worse and the solution, when it comes, will be even more difficult and more disruptive of our economy and our way of living.

Addressing greenhouse gasses is a proper role for the Federal Government. In yesterday's New York Times, a reporter, Jennifer Lee, wrote about the increasing number of States fed up with a lack of certainty from the Federal Government with regard to climate change policy. Half the States, according to the article, have taken steps to address global warming.

On the one hand, I view the States' efforts as a positive development. However, regulating greenhouse gasses via 50 different laws is not, my friends, the best way to proceed on this issue. It is best for both the industries that will have to comply with these laws and the ecological benefits we expect from the passage that we adopt a uniform Federal standard. The Climate Stewardship Act does just that.

My own State of Delaware is proud to be the home of the DuPont Company, a global company with products touching each of us every day. DuPont is a major producer of greenhouse gasses. One might think they would be opposed to this legislation, but as it turns out they are not. They view this bill as a significant and serious contribution to the congressional debate on how to address climate change.

They think it is particularly noteworthy for three reasons, and I will mention those: No. 1, the measure includes market-based systems to achieve reductions efficiency; No. 2, it covers more than one sector of the economy; No. 3, it provides credit incentives for early action and includes flexibility mechanisms to allow companies to seek lower cost solutions that achieve the desired results.

DuPont is just one example of a company that has stepped forward and taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not because they have to but because they believe it is the right thing to do.

DuPont kept its energy use flat between 1990 and 2000, while at the same time increasing production by 35 percent. That means they found ways to become more efficient and thereby avoid increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If a company such as DuPont can find a way to meet the requirements of this bill, I suspect that just about any company can do the same.

In closing, today's vote is one of the more important votes we will take during our time in the Senate, certainly one of the more important votes of this year. In my mind, the issue it addresses is as important as the vote to authorize the President to use force in Iraq or whether we will make major changes in Medicare prescription drugs.

What we decide today will have a significant impact for our future. While we will not see noticeable, positive or negative effects before next year's Presidential election, or before next year's Senate elections, within our lifetime, as sure as we are gathered here today, it will be clear that we have made the right choice or, I might add, if we have made the wrong one.

I urge my colleagues to join me in what I believe is the right choice and that is a ``yes'' vote for the Climate Stewardship Act.

Will the Senator from Utah yield briefly?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be given 1 additional minute and he yield it to me.

Mr. President, I am less familiar with Governor Leavitt's environmental record in Utah than is our colleague Senator Hatch. I have known him for more than a decade. We became Governors together in the same year. We were elected in 1992. We know him. We know his family.

I know him to be a thoughtful, decent, caring human being. He is a good manager and a good leader of his State. He has also been a great leader of our Nation's Governors.

I was privileged to serve as Chair of the National Association of Governors at the time he was Vice Chair. He succeeded me as Chair. He is very bright and surrounds himself with excellent people. But what I like best is he is very good at bringing together people with diverse points of view, trying to build consensus. We need that in a lot of areas in our Nation's Capitol these days, and we especially need it with respect to environmental issues. I look forward to voting for his nomination and working with him if he is confirmed.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Robert and Margaret Scott, better known as Bob and Muff, who will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary on November 6, 2003.

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

Bob is the son of the late Chester and Evangeline Scott. Bob attended Miami University of Ohio for his undergraduate degree and received his master's and PhD in Organic Chemistry from Northwestern University. His wife, Muff, is the daughter of the late Benjamin and Ann Penix. She received her bachelor's and master's degrees in English from the University of Kentucky.

Bob and Muff met and began dating in college. Although their respective schools were over sixty miles apart, a college weekend brought them together. They were married on November 6, 1943 in Morehead, KY.

The Scotts moved to Delaware in 1950, when Bob took a position with Hercules. Over his 35-year career at Hercules, Bob moved from being a bench chemist to a plant chemist, to eventually becoming the Director of Research and Development. Muff divided between raising a family, community service and substitute teaching at area schools. They are blessed with three children, Bob, Ann and Tom, and six grandchildren, Lee, Rob, Joshua, Clarissa, Clay and Lex.

Bob and Muff are active members of the community. Bob is Warden to Delaware's Episcopal Bishop, Wayne Wright, and has been Warden for the last four Bishops in Delaware. The Scott's are also members of Christ Church in Greenville, DE where Bob has often been a vestry member. Bob was also a delegate to the National Episcopal Church Triennial Convention for more than 20 years, during the contentious times when the Episcopal Church first accepted the ordination of women as clergy members and bishops. Reverend John Martiner of Christ Church describes Bob and Muff as a real team. Whether folding church bulletins or volunteering at community events, they are always working together. They are devoted to each other and to their families.

Bob and Muff are also dedicated to St. Michael's School and Nursery, a non-profit institution that provides affordable, high-quality early childhood education and childcare to the community. Both Bob and Muff are on the board of directors. They have served on the board alternately for over 30 years. Helen Riley, the executive director of St. Michael's, describes the Scott's as representing the true spirit of philanthropy. Muff is known as the ``Board Builder'' at St. Michael's. She brings in next generations of families to support the organization. She has involved young children in philanthropy by teaching them to donate their own toys and books, and by showing them the value in volunteering their own time. Bob serves as an advisor to the school and has proven to be reliable and dependable for expert advice from a business standpoint. They often sell books at their church and collect money in tin cans for scholarships and faculty training and advancement.

Today, I rise to congratulate Bob and Muff on their 60th wedding anniversary. Both have shown great service and commitment to their family and 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, I thank the Senator for yielding. This is an important vote. I think in some ways this may be the most important vote we have cast in the 2\1/2\ years I have been here. I want to speak to Democrats first and then to Republicans. I suggest to my colleagues, my Democrat friends, why it is important for us to vote for the motion to proceed to take

up this bill and to improve this legislation before we end up voting for it and sending it to conference.

First, I say to my Democrat colleagues, the status quo is not acceptable. We cannot feel good about the system of justice which exists today. There are many who disparage the trial bar, but I will say a kind word toward the efforts of many members of the trial bar. They do important work. They make sure when the little people are damaged or hurt that there is a way for them to have their grievances addressed, and when people are harmed to be compensated. That is important. It is important we preserve that right.

The system that has evolved over the last 200 years with the class actions, and what I think everyone regards as venue shopping too often between different State courts and the Federal courts, is a system that is just out of balance today. We can do better than this. It is important that we do better than this.

I want to go back and talk about the evolution of the legislation. When this bill was first introduced and talked about in the 105th Congress, there were a lot of people who thought that class action reform ought to be tort reform; that we ought to put caps on attorney's fees, caps on pain and suffering, caps on punitive damages, dismember joint and several liability. That is what a lot of people thought we ought to do 6, 7, 8 years ago. This legislation does not look like that at all. This is a modest, measured approach to fixing what I believe is a real problem.

I am not going to get into the weeds and talk about one aspect of the bill or the other. Some concerns have been raised about it. Some are legitimate, some are not. I say to my colleagues, particularly Democrats, the bill is not perfect. This bill can be improved. If it is not perfect, make it better. We can make this bill better. In the end, in order for us to have the opportunity to make this bill better, we have to move to the bill. We have to vote affirmatively for the motion to proceed. If we do that, we will have the opportunity for me to offer amendments, as well as other colleagues to whom I have talked on our side. A number of our colleagues have very good ideas for amendments. And I invite not only Democrats to support them but our Republican friends as well.

Republican leadership has indicated in a number of these instances they will support the amendments that are being prepared to be offered.

Back to my Democrats, as the minority we have three bites out of this apple to protect our position as the minority. One, we can filibuster and not vote for the motion to proceed. That is one protection. The second protection comes when we reach cloture on the bill and the decision comes do we actually vote on the bill, do we go to cloture. That is a second bite out of the apple. The third bite out of the apple is if there is a conference report between the House and the Senate, and the conference report comes back, and the Republicans have not acted in good faith, the majority has not acted in good faith, we have a third bite out of the apple. I believe we have those protections down the road and especially the second, on the motion to proceed.

I say straight out to our Republican friends, if we approve the motion to proceed today, we actually get to the bill today, and have the opportunity in the next days and week to offer amendments, if my Republican friends do not act in good faith--and I believe they will-- but if they do not act in good faith, not only will I oppose cloture on the bill, I will help lead a fight against cloture.

I want us to be able to offer our amendments. I want to see a lot of those amendments adopted. If that happens, we can improve this bill further and then go to conference further down the line.

The last thing I want to say, in my view, there is more at stake than the motion to proceed, and I have suggested this to Majority Leader Frist. What is at stake is whether we are going to be able to work together on a difficult and contentious issue; whether or not in this instance we are going to be able to maybe take what could be a very good experience, very positive experience of walking together across party lines on a tough issue, and maybe apply that on other difficult issues we face.

So there is a responsibility on both sides: for us as Democrats to offer reasonable amendments, to join in good faith in the debate, but also for our Republican colleagues to support those good amendments and act in good faith on their own. If they and we act in good faith, we could end up with good policy, which is what makes good politics. That is the potential. It is important we all realize that.

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

Mr. President, we have just concluded what for many of us was a tough vote. I simply want to express my thanks to the 58 other Democrats and Republicans who joined me--59 in all--in voting for the motion to proceed and to take up for debate and amendment legislation that would reform the way we handle class action lawsuits in this country.

I am disappointed with the vote, that we fell one vote short, but I am encouraged by some of the conversation that took place immediately following the vote by the leaders of both sides and a number of my colleagues, including Senator Dodd and Senator Landrieu.

I sense there is a genuine willingness on the part of Democrats and Republicans and that one Independent not to give up on this issue. It is one that we need to address and we can address satisfactorily. My own belief is it is one we can address this year.

I have talked to any number of Senators on our side of the aisle who are prepared to offer what I think are constructive perfecting amendments that would make a good bill much better.

I hope what we will do in the days ahead is to reach across the aisle--Republicans to Democrats and Democrats to Republicans--to find a common ground that I think will exist with respect to many of these amendments and to then move forward together and, hopefully, to get to the end of the day when we can vote on a bill and not have to worry about the kind of partisan divide that in some cases characterized this vote and, frankly, characterizes too many votes we cast here.

I was approached by one of my colleagues following the vote who asked if we lost the war. I said: No, no, maybe today the battle was lost but not the war. There is a realization that the way we handle class action litigation in this country is broken. It can be fixed.

As we like to say in Delaware, ``If it isn't perfect, make it better.'' This bill that came out of committee is not perfect. It can be made better. That is what we are going to do.

I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I have observed that she has been diligent in continuing to focus on health care issues, including our need to somehow effect and moderate the growing cost of health care in this country. She has seen an exodus of manufacturers out of her State and millions of manufacturing jobs from the United States. Among the reasons why they are leaving is the extraordinary cost of health care. Companies also tell us they are considering other places to locate and do business because of litigation costs, legal costs that flow out of the costs of doing business in our country. Those costs could deal with asbestos litigation, which has taken down now over 60 companies that have gone bankrupt.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who have been hurt or exposed to asbestos haven't gotten the kind of money their families deserve, and people who haven't been sick have taken away money from those who need it.

Another area with respect to legal costs that will get a lot of attention on this floor this week is the cost of class action litigation and whether or not the way our class action system works in this country is appropriate or needs to be changed.

Let me say from the outset that I think when a person is hurt or damaged in some way by the acts of another person or a company, that person should be compensated. They should be made whole. When a number of people, or a class of people, are hurt or damaged in some way by the actions of a company or business, that class of people should be compensated and made whole as well.

I submit to my colleagues today that our sense of balance, though, has been lost. We are seeing national class action litigation not taking place in Federal courts but in many instances taking place in local courts with locally elected judges against defendants from other States.

When the Framers of our Constitution provided for a Federal judiciary, one of the reasons they did so was to say when you have plaintiffs in one State and you have defendants in another State, just to make sure there is an objective legal system, we need a Federal judiciary to help provide for that leveling of the playing field.

All too often today national class action litigation pits plaintiffs in one State and defendants in another State in a local court where you have a locally elected judge whose election or reelection depends in no small part on their ability to satisfy the plaintiffs within their State. We've just lost our sense of balance.

There have been efforts for five years now to try to make changes with respect to class action litigation. It started out far different than where it has ended up. The current bill is much more moderate than those that came before it. Also, there is no effort with this bill to cap noneconomic or attorneys' fees. There is no effort to limit joint and several liability.

I want to talk about the bill that will come to the Senate floor if we agree to the motion to proceed tomorrow.

First of all, the legislation that will come to us is not perfect. It might need to be amended or changed further. It is certainly not the final product, but it is a good starting point. If we agree to the motion to proceed tomorrow--it takes 60 votes--we will have the opportunity for those of us on our side, the Democratic side, and the Republican side, to offer amendments, to have a full and open debate and decide whether or not we are going to change the bill. It can be improved, and I certainly will support amendments. I may talk about those later today or tomorrow.

Let me take a minute to describe the legislation that may come to the floor. The issue we are trying to get at is venue shopping, where you have, in some cases, litigation that is being brought and litigation of national scope that ought to be in a Federal court, where the attorneys who brought the lawsuit are looking for a venue where they can get a friendly judge and friendly jury.

In some places, it is almost a cottage industry, whether it is Madison County, IL; Jefferson County, TX; and other places, such as Alabama and Mississippi. There is a perception that a defendant is not going to get a fair shake in a national class action litigation in those venues.

I thank the Chair. I will have more to say about this later today.

I express my thanks to the Senator from Alabama for his kind words. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him on these and other issues. Tomorrow morning around 11 o'clock, an important vote will occur in the Senate. At the heart of this vote, for me, is to determine whether or not we go forward, Democrats and Republicans, to actually take up and debate the way we allow people who are harmed, hurt, or injured--in many cases, by business--to be compensated.

Most would agree that if you or I, as individuals, are damaged by the actions of another or by the actions of a business, we should be made whole. I believe the same protection should inure to a group of people or a class of people who may be harmed or damaged in some way by the actions or products of some business.

Over time we seem to have lost our sense of balance in the way we litigate class actions. When our Founding Fathers came up with our Federal courts, we did not have class actions. We did not have mass actions. We did not have private attorneys general actions. We did not have any of that. We had a concern on the part of our Founding Fathers that if a group of people in one State were harmed by a business or person in another State, maybe we ought to have a Federal court system, to ensure that the case is not heard by the potentially biased judges in the injured party's home state.

The trial bar gets a bad rap in a lot of quarters, but I believe they play a very helpful and constructive role in this country. They sometimes do not get credit for that. One of the things they do is try to make sure, where people are harmed, they get compensated.

Our system has lost the right kind of balance. Too often today--not always but too often--we end up debating national class action not in a Federal court but in a local court--in some cases, in a court where the judges are locally elected and the defendant is placed at a real disadvantage. I will give an example because this does not make much sense to me.

Say I were poisoned by food we bought from a fast food restaurant. Say I decided to sue. If the amount in dispute were less than $75,000, my case could be heard in State court. If I sue for more than $75,000; it would be heard in a Federal court.

On the other hand, if thousands of people, or tens of thousands of people,

bring a class action against that same restaurant for some alleged sin they have committed--and it may involve tens of millions of dollars--it may well end up in a State court, not in a Federal court. That does not seem right to me.

There has been an effort to try to establish or reestablish the sense of balance in these kinds of cases. It started about 5 years ago, in the 105th Congress. Over time, I believe a more thoughtful approach has evolved and has led to the introduction of a bill this year, S. 274, called the Class Action Fairness Act. That bill has gone through hearings, I think in the last Congress, and hearings in this Congress. It has been through regular order. The Senate Judiciary Committee has had an opportunity to hold hearings, to debate the bill, to vote on amendments to the bill and ultimately to report the bill out.

There are a number of aspects of the legislation that recommend it to me. I am a cosponsor of the legislation, and it enjoys bipartisan support. Among the original cosponsors are Senator Grassley and Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. The bill was reported out on a bipartisan vote. More Republicans voted for it than Democrats, but it had some bipartisan support.

I will discuss how the class action system will work in our country if this legislation or something akin to it becomes law. First, it is not a perfect bill. I have an amendment or two that I want to offer to perfect the legislation. I noticed Senator Lieberman does as well. I have talked to other colleagues, including Senator Landrieu, who have ideas for amendments they want to offer. It is a work in progress. It is one that can be improved and should be improved.

In order for us to be able to offer our amendments to the bill to perfect and improve it, we have to go through a vote tomorrow at 11 o'clock on the motion to proceed, which, understandably but unfortunately, is opposed by leadership on my side. The fear, the concern, is we will get on to the bill and the opportunity for those who would like to offer amendments may not end up to be realized; the opportunity for us to offer amendments, to be fairly heard and vote will not occur. Therefore, they are reluctant to go to the bill without some further assurance.

In the end, the only way we know for sure if our amendments are going to get a fair hearing, and have the opportunity to be debated and adopted, is to go to the bill, to take it up. I hope tomorrow, when we vote, that is what we will vote to do.

Let me talk briefly about how I understand our legal system would work a little differently if this were to become the law of the land.

First, the question is, Is this litigation going to be heard in State court or Federal court? Under the legislation, for a matter to be heard in Federal court or for the defendant in the case to be able to argue successfully that a case ought to be in Federal court as opposed to a State court, there would have to be a certain dollar amount at stake, and it would be $5 million. If it is under $5 million, it will be in State court.

Second is the number of people in the plaintiff class. If you have less than 100 people in your plaintiff class, this litigation is going to be heard in a State court.

Third, if a case is filed in a State court, and the defendant says, no, this ought to be in a Federal court, and they go to Federal court to try to get it removed to the Federal court, and the Federal court says, no, this remains in the State court, then it goes back to the State court. And unless the plaintiffs change the plaintiff class, or unless the plaintiffs somehow change their complaint, it is going to stay in State court.

There are no caps on pain and suffering, no caps on punitive damages, no caps on noneconomic damages, no caps on attorney fees. We leave joint and several alone.

In some States they apparently do not have class actions; they have mass actions--a few States such as West Virginia, Mississippi--where they aggregate a number of individual claims. The question is whether those are more properly heard in a Federal court or a State court.

I think Senator Specter has negotiated a pretty good compromise in those instances. In some cases, if it were a major incident, such as an explosion or a fire or a catastrophic incident that involves people in one State, then it would basically be handled in State court; if not, it would be in a Federal court.

Senator Feinstein had an issue on these private attorneys general cases, which apparently you or I could stand up or any citizen can stand up and say they represent a group of people on a particular wrong that has been committed. In some cases that is the way they really go about class action. Her amendment was adopted as part of the final agreement. If the bill comes to the floor, the private attorneys general agreement would be within the purview of State courts, not the Federal court.

Senator Feinstein also offered I think quite a thoughtful amendment and one that addresses a concern raised by the Judicial Conference that we heard discussed earlier. My colleagues will recall the Judicial Conference is actually headed up by the Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice Rehnquist. But they, from time to time, will opine on things that are before us and maybe share their opinions with us. They suggested, when asked back in March, that there were some real concerns that they had with S. 274, and that it would cause a lot of cases that are now heard in State courts to end up flooding the Federal courts. They suggested that we ought to do something about it, that the Judiciary Committee ought to do something about it.

Well, the Judiciary Committee did something about it. What they did is they adopted the Feinstein amendment in their markup back in April. The Feinstein amendment says basically this. It says: The plaintiff class, the people who are bringing the grievance, if two-thirds or more are from the same State of the defendant, automatically that case is heard in the State court. It says, if fewer than one-third of the plaintiff class are from the same State as the defendant, automatically it is heard in a Federal court. If the percentage of the plaintiff class is somewhere between one-third and two-thirds who are from the same State as the defendant, then it is up to a Federal judge in that area to make the final decision based on criteria. There are five pieces of criteria spelled out in the bill.

So, again, if there are more than two-thirds of the plaintiff class in the same State as the defendant, it is a State matter; if fewer than a third of the plaintiffs from the same State as the defendant, it is in the Federal court; and between one-third and two-thirds are from the same State as the defendant, it is kind of a jump ball. The Federal judge in the area is asked to make the decision based on the criteria spelled out in the bill.

Interestingly, the Judicial Conference came back after this amendment was adopted and the legislation was about to be reported out and they seemed to suggest, in a letter that they sent to the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, that their earlier concerns had been addressed. I think the Judicial Conference sent a similar letter to the folks in the House of Representatives suggesting the same thing in the month of May.

A concern has been raised, a legitimate concern, about what percentage of cases are now going to end up in Federal court as opposed to State court under this bill. Some pretty smart people actually took the data from the last 5 years in States where they collected this data to look to see--in States such as New York, Massachusetts, Maine, where data is available--what percentage of cases in those States over the last 5 years would have ended up in a Federal court as opposed to a State court. Sixty percent or more of the cases in those states in the last 5 years would still have ended up in a State court. I think that is a good point to be mindful of.

I do not know if any of us going forward could say what the future is going to be, but we should sure look back over the last 5 years and say if this were the law of the land, again, 60 percent or more of the cases would have stayed in State court.

Let me close with this thought, if I could. Senator Lieberman is prepared to offer an amendment, I think a real good amendment, to the bill that addresses an issue for Connecticut. It is

similar to an issued raised for Indiana, and similar to an issue I have heard raised, I think, for New Mexico.

This is the issue that was raised. Let's say in Connecticut you have a river that has been polluted by a plant that damages people in Connecticut under Connecticut law. The plant is in Connecticut but owned by a company in another State. Again, the people who are damaged, the plaintiff class, if you will, are in Connecticut. The damage was in Connecticut and there are two defendants, one in Connecticut--the plant that did the pollution--and the owner of the plant that is in another State.

What Senator Lieberman has come forth with and said is, in a case such as that, it ought to really be in a Connecticut court. I think he is right.

Senator Lieberman will offer an amendment that says in those cases State law should prevail. They should not be moved someplace else. State law should prevail. He will offer that amendment if we have the opportunity--if we have the opportunity--to actually go to the bill, take it up, and debate it. In order to do that, we have to vote tomorrow for the motion to proceed.

There is a real test that is going to take place here. If we actually vote for the motion to proceed and go to the bill, there is a burden of proof that rests on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They need to act in good faith. We need to actually have the opportunity to offer our amendments. We need to have the opportunity for a fair and open debate on reasonable perfecting amendments. If we do, then I think it may act as a confidence builder and maybe establish a measure of trust around here where, frankly, there is not too much. On the other hand, if our Republican colleagues take a different course and seek to cut off debate and reasonable amendments and not support reasonable amendments, perfecting amendments, then that sends a different message.

I think there is more at stake for this body than just whether or not we are going to take up a class action bill. There is a whole lot more at stake. My hope is tomorrow, when we vote, if we vote to proceed, that our colleagues on the other side will keep that in mind and that their actions in the days or week or so ahead will reflect as much.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden and myself, I congratulate Coaches Joe Mascelli, Bob Waters and H.J. Lopes, and the Naamans Little League team. Their accomplishment of becoming the first Delaware team to reach the Little League World Series demonstrates the success that comes from hard work, perseverance, dedicated coaching, and the support of parents and fans.

The Little League World Series, held during the month of August in Williamsport, PA, ended a dramatic, record-breaking season for the Naamans Little League team. The Delaware State champions and Mid- Atlantic regional champions final overall record through district, state, regional, and world series play was 14-3. They finished their world series experience at 1-2, with a win over Iowa and losses to Arizona and Texas.

This year, the Mid-Atlantic Regional championship team consisted of 12 players: Jarad Carney, Kevin Czachorowski, Scott Dougherty, Cory Firmani, Constantine Fournaris, Danny Frate, Michael Julian, Zack Lopes, Tim Marcin, Dave Mastro, Vince Russomagno, and Kip Skibicki.

Coach Mascelli said his team gained a lot from this experience, both on the field and off the field. One of the highlights was the tremendous outpouring

of fan support, not just from residents of Delaware, but also from people around the nation and the world. They were flooded with letters and emails from states across the nation, including California, and countries as far away as Germany. Coach Mascelli also said his players received an education beyond baseball. They all handled their celebrity status with the public and the media with a maturity well beyond their years. The team's objective at the Little League World Series was to represent the state of Delaware with class and dignity. We are proud to say that the Naamans team accomplished just that.

Today, we congratulate the Naamans Little League and coaches Mascelli, Lopes, and Waters. They accomplished something that no other Delaware team has done, and they made each one of us proud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Biden amendment.

Mr. President, I follow up on the comments of the Senator from New York with respect to sacrifice. Our State is a small State. We only have about 800,000 people. We have reservists who serve in all the branches of our military. We have the Delaware National Guard unit. When I was Governor, I was privileged to be their commander in chief. I know many of them personally, as well as their families.

When guard and reservists are called to be deployed to active duty, usually our Governor is there to send them off and tries to be there to receive them when they come home. Similarly, when it is a unit of another branch of the

service--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--we like to be there to welcome them home, too.

I will mention two units, one Marine Reserve unit, the second a unit of the Delaware National Guard, folks who fly and maintain the C-130 cargo aircraft, part of the air bridge between this country and other parts around the world.

About 2 weeks ago, I was invited to be part of a welcome home ceremony for a number of Marine reservists. They had been called to active duty. They served in Iraq. They were able to come home to their families. They came home largely to their spouses--mostly to wives-- they came home to their children, came home to brothers and sisters, moms and dads in many cases, they came home to their neighbors, and they came home to their jobs. I don't think it is overstating it to say they are thrilled to be home--proud of their service, thrilled to be home.

I had another unit in the Delaware National Air Guard 166. The people who fly and maintain the C-130 cargo aircraft were activated earlier this year and spent 4 months on active duty and then were released to come home to a great homecoming ceremony, a lot of joy. Then they were reactivated roughly a month ago and headed back on the other side of the world. I am not sure when they are coming home.

They missed the return of their children to school, will probably not be around to take the kids out to trick or treat this year. When their families sit around and eat at the Thanksgiving table and carve up the turkey, they probably won't be there. When presents are opened around Christmastime, God only knows where they will be. Those families know what it means to sacrifice, not just the ones who are overseas--whether they are Delaware National Guard, any National Guard, any Reserve unit, or anyone on active duty.

It is one thing to ask the sacrifice of those who serve. As one who once served, that is your job description. You are expected to be prepared to go and serve when needed. It is always toughest on those who stay behind because they give up their loved one, they give up someone who is helping to hold the family together in many cases; in some cases they give up a breadwinner who has gone off to earn a far lower salary. They know what sacrifice is.

What the Biden amendment says is, for those who are blessed with great financial well-being, whose income exceeds $300,000 per year adjusted gross income, maybe we can do something, too. We may not have a child, a son or a daughter; we may not have a brother or sister. And I know Senator Johnson has a son who I believe still serves over there, but for the most part we do not. For the most part, people with those incomes do not. But we have the ability to do something to help out in this case. I don't think it is asking too much for those who happen to make that kind of income to be willing to defer maybe $2,000 a year to help make sure that our children and our grandchildren do not inherit an even greater mountain of debt.

Let me close with one comment. Sometimes you talk to people about the amount of debt and the numbers are almost numbing. Let me leave you with this number: Today, on this day of October 2, we will make an interest payment on our national debt--imagine a credit card--an interest payment on our national debt. The interest payment is $882 million.

We can bemoan that fact and say that is terrible, why don't we do something about it, or we can, with our vote today, do something about it and make sure we do not add further to that debt.

A fellow who used to be the British Chancellor of the Exchequer had a theory of holes. That theory was as follows: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

We are in a hole, and it is time to stop digging.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the selection of Phillip C. Showell Elementary School as a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Award recipient. This prestigious honor is awarded to schools that meet one of two criteria. The nominated school must have at least 40 percent of their student population from disadvantaged backgrounds and have each segment--including whites, blacks, Hispanics, low-income and special education students--show scholastic improvement, or the school must score in the top 10 percent on State assessment tests in reading, writing, math, social studies and the sciences. Phillip C. Showell Elementary School was successful in meeting both of these criteria. Not only did each segment show adequate yearly progress, but the scores of students from Phillip C. Showell's have shown steady improvement on State assessment tests over the past several years. This is a remarkable honor for Phillip C. Showell Elementary School, attesting to the many achievements and the commitment this school, as well as the First State, has for educating our youth.

Located in the small town of Selbyville, DE, Phillip C. Showell Elementary School is home to many low-income and disadvantaged students. Approximately 47 percent of Phillip C. Showell Elementary School students come from a disadvantaged socio-economic background. Many students come to the school with English as a second language. To many teachers and faculty, these factors can be extremely frustrating. However, the dedicated staff at Phillip C. Showell Elementary School prides themselves on their commitment to successfully educating and impacting the lives of these underprivileged children.

Known as ``The little school that's big on learning,'' Phillip C. Showell Elementary School provides an environment that allows its faculty to work closely with students. As one of the smallest elementary schools in the State, Phillip C. Showell Elementary is described as a close-knit family. The welcoming atmosphere makes students feel accepted and special.

As a title 1 school, Phillip C. Showell Elementary is able to receive funding and resources which allow them to provide for students. A teacher who specializes in writing and reading provides Early Success and Soar to Success programs for additional support to students. There are after school opportunities for identified students who can benefit from extra reading and math help. In addition, a reading specialist coordinates with other faculty members to identify kindergarten and new students who are in need of extended kindergarten. This extra half-day of learning provides language, arts and reading skills that will be essential to these students throughout their academic career. These programs were created to identify and assist students in need of extra help. The committed faculty, staff, and administrators offer students the chance to fulfill their potential. These children are inspired not only to reach their potential, but to strive for excellence.

Delaware is a small State, but we are building a growing record of achievement in public school education. The students at Phillip C. Showell Elementary School set the standard for elementary school students across the country. They truly are an inspiration to other schools and communities throughout the Nation.

Mr. President, during the course of our debate last Thursday, we had the opportunity to share a number of thoughts about the President's proposed voucher demonstration for the District of Columbia. I have appreciated the opportunity this last week to engage in discussions and negotiations, if you will, with my friend, Senator DeWine from Ohio, Senator Landrieu, and others.

I know there has been some discussion today. I just arrived moments ago. I want to revisit it a little bit. I think we have a vote in about 20 minutes, but I want to take the next few minutes to review some of that conversation.

I said on Thursday and say it again today, I think the measure as it is being amended on the Senate floor is a significant improvement over what was offered in the House and approved by the House. It was a very close partisan vote. I think it passed by one vote. I appreciate the willingness of the other side to at least engage in what I think were good-faith discussions and negotiations.

Among the problems we found with the legislation that came out of committee to the floor was that eligible participating students need not take the same tests that other District of Columbia students take. Most States around the country have adopted academic standards. Once academic standards are adopted, most States are developing tests to understand the students' progress in math or science or English or social studies or other subjects. I understand the District of Columbia has been involved in the process of developing their own academic standards for their own students. I believe they are in the process of developing tests which would reveal student progress.

In the meantime, I think they use a proxy test. If one of my colleagues wants to correct me, feel free, but I think the District of Columbia uses as a proxy test the Standard of Achievement Test to measure how students are doing with respect to reading, writing, and math.

In the State of Delaware, we adopted our standard in 1995 and began giving Delaware State tests in 1998. We actually use the Stanford 9. We actually embed the Stanford 9 achievement test within the Delaware State test so we have some idea how Delaware students are doing with respect to progress against Delaware standards on math, science, and social studies, and also because of the Stanford Achievement Test we have an idea how we are doing with regard to the rest of the country, at least as it relates to reading and mathematics. But I believe the District of Columbia uses only the Standard of Achievement Test at this time. They are developing a standard of achievement test that will find out how local students are doing against the standards that have been adopted. They will now begin using it.

The reason it is important to make sure all our students are taking the same test, whether they happen to be in a traditional public school or a public charter school or in a private or parochial school, that at least once a year they take the same test, is we want to have some way of objectively measuring whether students are making progress and know we are measuring apples and apples and oranges and oranges, and not apples and oranges.

I believe that with the adoption by voice vote of the Feinstein amendment last week, this measure has been amended so now students in parochial, private, traditional public schools and in charter schools here in the District will all be at least taking the same test. That is an important step.

The next step, though, is for us to figure out what we do with the results from that test. That is critically important.

What do we do with the results of those tests? We measure the students' progress toward the District of Columbia's academic standards. It is all well and good if they take the same test, but what if we don't act on those tests or use those tests as most States, including mine, are using the test to help make sure we hold everybody accountable, hold schools accountable, school districts accountable, students accountable, educators accountable?

I used the example last week. I will use something similar to it today to try to make clear we are not interested in creating an administrative nightmare for the parochial schools or the private schools. I don't know how difficult it would be for them 1 or 2 days a year, a couple of days a year, for those schools to ensure the students attending those schools with vouchers take the District's test. On top of that, we are not interested in imposing on a private school or parochial school the accountability system that we find in No Child Left Behind.

There is going to be an independent entity created here in the District of Columbia if this voucher demonstration program is actually adopted and implemented. There would be an entity created called an Eligible Entity. That is what it is actually called. As I understand it, that Eligible Entity would be responsible for, among other things, negotiating with the private and parochial schools, making sure the students who receive these vouchers--actually, I understand the voucher funding would come from the Federal Government through the Eligible Entity to the parents of the students. Then they would choose from among a variety of schools. The schools, if they were oversubscribed, would have a lottery system.

We are not interested in seeing that the parochial and private schools that participate have to go through the No Child Left Behind rules. That is not what we are interested in doing. We do want to know, however, if there are 2,000 kids in this voucher demonstration program, how they are doing relative to the District of Columbia's academic standards. We want to know if we are making good progress with respect to those standards. We want to know if the various subgroups that we are responsible for tracking are doing well, just as we would similar subgroups that are still in traditional public schools in DC or in charter schools here in the District of Columbia.

The data for those students enrolled in private or parochial schools, how well they do on their test scores, can fairly easily be aggregated and pulled out either by the Eligible Entity, collected by the Eligible Entity, or by some appropriate entity in the District of Columbia, and they will know how kids are doing in the sixth grade and the seventh grade to the eighth grade. They will know how they are doing with respect to reading and how they are doing with respect to mathematics, if those kids were receiving their education on a voucher.

Again, we are not trying to make things unduly complicated or difficult for the parochial or private schools. But if this is going to happen, if we are going to try this experiment, I think it is in the interest of everybody, including the kids, including us as decisionmakers, to not impede the ability of students to enroll in a private or parochial school that is interested in participating. The key, though, for us is to make sure that at the end of the day we have data that we can look at as decisionmakers, and the folks in the District of Columbia can look at, and they will actually know with some certainty whether or not the students using those vouchers are making academic progress using the same standards, the same kind of accountability that we are imposing on all the public schools, including the charter schools.

I don't think that is too much to ask. I cited last Thursday a quote from the President. I don't have it with me here, but this is what he announced when he rolled out this proposal last July here in the District of Columbia and talked about these kids. I will paraphrase him: These kids have to operate under the same system of accountability that other kids here in the District would be expected to operate under, to which I would say terrific; I couldn't agree more.

In talking with one of the President's top senior people over in the White House last week, I was concerned to hear that one of the reasons we couldn't have expectations for accountability for progress for kids using these vouchers to go to private or parochial schools is because there is kind of an expectation that given their backgrounds and the problems and academic difficulties they bring to the school, we probably couldn't reasonably expect them to make the kind of progress kids in traditional public schools or public charter schools would be making.

It reminded me that the President is fond of talking about the soft bigotry of low expectations. Boy, as soon as I heard those words, I couldn't help but think that strikes of something akin to soft bigotry of low expectations.

We say we expect kids who are in some of these deplorable schools in the District--we are going to take kids out of those miserably failing public schools and put them in a parochial school or a private school and not expect them to perform in those schools or at least match or exceed the scores

in the schools from which they came. Something is wrong here. Maybe I misinterpreted or misunderstood what was being said on the phone. I hope I was.

But the scores of those kids who get out of the environment they are studying in should soar.

The last point I want to make is, if you have 2,000 vouchers to hand out to a pool of kids, where do you find the students to give them to? How do you make that determination? As far as I know, we still haven't bridged our differences here.

Senator Landrieu and I, along with others on both sides--but more Democrats and some Republicans--have contended that we ought to make every effort to ensure that those vouchers, whether it is 2,000 or however many we have, go to kids in schools that are failing. There is a question about whether we have enough failing schools in the District of Columbia in order to make sure that those vouchers are fully implemented and exercised and used.

I am at a loss as to what to say on that. If the schools in this District are half as bad as we have all heard, there are more than enough kids in schools that any of us would deem failing to use those 2,000 vouchers for, and argue for more. There are 15 public schools in the District of Columbia that are deemed to be failing by the standards that are currently being used. I think that is going to change as this District of Columbia test is developed and implemented in the next couple of years.

In my State, we have been making great progress academically for the last year or so. We have several times the number of failing schools as the District of Columbia has.

I know in talking with Senator Landrieu in the last week or so that the State of Louisiana has a whole lot more--just in New Orleans alone many times more than 15--failing schools. There are going to be plenty of kids in failing schools here a year or so from now when it is up and running, if it is ever up and running--more than enough kids in these failing schools.

I would suggest to our friends on the other side of the aisle and to the administration that we shouldn't get bogged down on this point. Let us just give the vouchers to kids in failing schools, be done with it, and move on.

The last piece that is troubling--and it was troubling to us before but even more so now--is when legislation comes to the Senate, whoever the President is, whether it is a former President, President Bush, President Clinton, the former President Bush, President Reagan, there is a statement of administration policy that comes with regard to the legislation. Senator Landrieu and I were trying to obtain from our Republican colleagues and from the administration an agreement that what emerges from conference would actually be the language and the principles that were laid out that we and our friends talked about a whole lot last week. We are asking for assurances from the administration and our Republican colleagues that regardless of what we vote on or agree to on the Senate floor--and the whole package could be agreed to on the Senate floor, but when we go to conference with the House of Representatives, you just never know what is going to come out of the conference. We didn't want to be hoodwinked. We didn't want to enjoy a period of victory on the Senate floor only to find that what emerges from the conference of the House of Representatives is something that looks quite different.

Our concerns were underlined, maybe with an exclamation point at the end, when we saw the statement of administration policy.

I don't have it before me. Does Senator Landrieu happen to have a statement of administration policy?

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nevada wishes to say something before we vote at 5:30. I don't want to impede him.

Yes.

I am encouraged that the Secretary has promulgated a letter. I don't know to what extent it also bears an imprimatur of OMB and the senior folks in the White House. I am encouraged by the letter.

The point I am trying to make is that we are uneasy in the first place about entering into some kind of agreement on the Senate floor, and then just seeing that dissipate in conference. In the administration's statement they don't even mention the $13 million for public and charter schools, which just further exacerbates our uneasiness.

Let me yield, if I may, to the Senator from Nevada.

Will the Senator make the request again?

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for yielding. Before I was elected, I served as Governor of Delaware for 8 years, following Mike Castle, who launched near the end of his second term education reform. What we began in his last term and I tried to do in the 8 years I was privileged to serve as Governor was to focus more on raising student achievement than on anything else. We were willing to experiment rather boldly to try to accomplish that. We established rigorous academic standards, not standards in math, science, English, and social studies that the politicians thought were important, but we gathered the best teachers in the State, the best scientists, to develop academic standards of what we expected kids to know at different grade levels in their academic careers.

We wanted to test students objectively, measure whether they were making academic progress to the standards. We wanted to be objective.

And, finally, we wanted to make sure we held everyone accountable-- students, schools, school districts, even the educators. Trying to hold parents accountable would be the hardest part of all.

During the course of those reforms, we sought to identify what was working to raise student achievement. Did smaller class sizes work? If so, the idea was to replicate that and do that in other schools. We eventually found that smaller class sizes in kindergarten and classes for age 7 had the most impact.

We learned investment in early childhood paid huge dividends and concluded that in the first 6 years of our life, by the time we are age 6 and in first grade, we have learned about half of what we are going to learn in our lives. If we waste the first 6 years, it is hard to catch up later on.

We learned that if we can harness technology, we can help equalize the playing field for a whole lot of kids. We learned that it is not just enough to hook up classrooms to the Internet. It is not enough to have even decent computers. If you do not have teachers comfortable in using the technology to bring the outside world into the classroom and making the learning come alive and using it effectively as a tool, the money for all the wiring and the computers is money that is not well spent. Teachers have the professional development and the familiarity of using this technology lining up with the curriculum, the lesson plan, and making the learning come alive.

We learned in the course of our experiments in Delaware that all kids can learn. Some learn more quickly than others. Mary might learn faster than Tom, but Tom could learn. He just might need extra time or be taught in different ways. We learned maybe longer school days are helpful for doing that, afterschool programs, and maybe summer schools. We have schools, for example, for kids who are entering ninth grade. We can bring those kids in for a month or so in the summer before they go into ninth grade, put them in a summer academy, and they have a better chance of helping the kids to meet the standards they need in ninth grade.

We did all this in an effort to try to learn what worked to raise student achievement. We did so because we wanted to be able to invest the limited dollars that we had in programs that would raise student achievement. Of all the things we did in my State during the time that I served as its Governor, preparing the workforce for the 21st century was most important. If we are going to be successful as a nation, it will be because we prepare and create a workforce that is able to beat any workforce in the world.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? The schools in the District of Columbia are not doing the job for many of the kids who live there. The public schools in this District are not doing the job for many of the kids who live there. And a good deal is being done to try to turn that around. This District has begun to experiment rather boldly with charter schools, some of the things I talked about earlier--extra learning time, technology, and professional development--in order to raise student achievement. They have a long way to go.

As we dealt with the issue and tackled the issue of leaving no child behind in a failing school, we did not say that the Federal Government would go out there and establish academic standards. We said, we will let the States establish their own academic standards. Let them figure it out and know what they should be doing. We said the same thing about the District of Columbia. They develop their academic standards in the District of Columbia. We do not do that.

No Child Left Behind also says we expect kids to make progress every year. We expect all kids can learn, and over a period of a decade or so we expect virtually all children to be able to reach the academic standards, whether it is the District of Columbia, Delaware, Ohio, Louisiana, or Alabama. Of the public schools in the District of Columbia, or Minnesota or Delaware, under No Child Left Behind, if a school does not meet adequate yearly progress for 1 year, that school is essentially put on notice that they are deficient.

If they continue to not meet the adequate yearly progress for a second or a third year, there are consequences for the failure to do so. By the fourth year, if a public school--4 years in a row, in any of our States or in the District of Columbia--fails to meet adequate yearly progress, there are consequences that can be rather severe. The school can be closed and restructured, the faculty changed, leadership changed. The school can be transformed into a charter school. Public school choice can be demanded, required, including the funding of transportation to other public schools. But the consequences are severe.

If a charter school in Minnesota, where I think charter schools may have originated, or in any of the other States that are represented here is deficient, and the students there--for 1 year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years--do not demonstrate adequate yearly progress, or those schools do not show progress year after year, then there are consequences as well. There is also help. We try to provide extra help: extra money, tutorial assistance, that kind of thing. But in the end, if there is not progress, we do not want to continue to throw good money after bad.

I want to talk about an area we got hung up on, and it is a little complicated; but I want to take a minute to talk about it anyway. I said earlier, if you have kids in public schools in this District of Columbia who are not making adequate yearly progress, there are consequences for those schools. There are efforts to help them, but there are also consequences.

For charter schools here, if kids are not making progress, if you continue year after year to fall short, there are consequences for that school, and in the end fairly severe ones. If instead of taking this $13 million and distributing it in vouchers to send the kids to, let's say, 80 different schools--instead of doing that, with maybe 25 kids to a school--instead, we are going to take that $13 million and fund one new school for 2,000 kids, and maybe have 80 classrooms, with 25 kids in a classroom, if we use the $13 million in that way, we would expect that school and those students under No Child Left Behind to make progress and to make adequate yearly progress. And if they did not, under No Child Left Behind, that school would get help. And eventually, if they continue to fail, they would face dire consequences.

Stick with me on this, if you will. What we propose to do with this voucher demonstration is to take $13 million, and instead of creating one school with 80 classrooms, we might take the $13 million and give it to kids who will go to 80 different private schools somewhere here in the District; and it might be roughly 25 kids in each of those schools, but they add up to 2,000.

Some will go to schools, and they are going to be tested, and they will do pretty well. Some will go to schools, and they will be tested, under the District's test, and they are not going to do so well; and they may not do so well next year and the year after that and the year after that.

I wish it were possible somehow to take the results of those 2,000 kids who are going to be spread, in this example, in 80 schools across the District to actually bring back, to aggregate, and to see how well they did in making adequate yearly progress. And as it turns out, we could actually do that. We would not have to impose No Child Left Behind on the individual private schools. I would not want to do that. But we can certainly find out how those kids are doing in those private or parochial schools, and see if they are making, collectively, adequate yearly progress.

Earlier this year--I wish I could find the quotation--President Bush was talking--I think it was maybe in July--about this experiment with vouchers in the District of Columbia.

If you bear with me, I want to see if I can find that quotation. At the very least, I will give you part of it. He said words to this effect: It is the taxpayers' money. We want to know. We want to know in a public school or in a private school whether or not the children are learning.

Bear with me just for one moment. The quote is too good to miss. I will find it, and then I will be able to read it in its entirety. Here is what the President said. And again, this is from July of this year. I am going to read it because I think he has it right. This is absolutely on the money talking about his vision for a DC voucher program. This is what he said:

The same accountability system applies to the recipient

school as it does the public schools in Washington. After

all, it's taxpayers' money. We want to know. We want to know

in a public school or a private school whether or not the

children are learning.

I could not have said it better myself.

The negotiations we have had with our friends on the other side--and I just want to say to Senator DeWine, I said this privately, and I will say it publicly, I very much admire the way he and Senator Landrieu work together as the chairman of the subcommittee and as ranking member. I thank them very much for the good faith that I think they and their staff demonstrated in trying to find a middle ground on some of these complex and admittedly difficult issues.

While I believe it is important that the kids who will use these vouchers in this experimental program come out of schools that are failing--not everyone thinks that; I think so--I think it is important that the voucher actually offsets the cost of the tuition fully. Not everyone agrees with that. I certainly think so.

I think the teachers in those private and parochial schools have to meet certain standards or credentialing qualifications. We could probably work through most of that.

We fell apart in our negotiations on three points. One was this idea of: Is there some way we can fairly reasonably make sure we hold those who are using public dollars, Federal dollars--for the first time, I think, for vouchers--can we hold them accountable under No Child Left Behind, and in a way somewhat as we hold charter schools and other public school kids accountable?

I had a conversation with an administration official this afternoon, and I thought it was a telling conversation. She said to me--words to this effect--we can't agree with doing what you and Senator Landrieu want because the kids who are coming from these schools, who will be using these vouchers--falling under certain income limits; 185 percent of poverty--they are going to be some of our toughest kids

to help raise student achievement and to demonstrate adequate yearly progress. And there was just a reluctance and a fear they were setting themselves up for failure under this demonstration program.

What the President said is the same accountability system applies to recipient schools as it does to the public schools of Washington, DC.

We have to be smart enough to figure out a way to put that kind of accountability plan in place in a voucher program so that it does not discourage private or parochial schools from joining in this experiment. And if the kids who use those vouchers and go to the public and private schools don't make adequate yearly progress, we should not continue to fund those programs.

One of the great frustrations for me with what we are setting up here, without the kind of provisions Senator Landrieu and I are talking about, is we will end up not knowing for sure at the end of the day, and for 5 years, or whatever, whether this actually works to raise student achievement, comparing apples and apples, oranges and oranges, being able to compare those 2,000 kids with another 2,000 kids in charter schools and 2,000 kids in public schools. We will not know absolutely. And we should know.

For people who don't like vouchers, for those who think we should not put a dime in vouchers, they should know after 5 years that it works. And maybe we should consider, as we said, other school districts. By the same token, for those who think vouchers are the best thing since sliced bread, it would be great to have an experiment that demonstrated that at the end of 5 years, maybe it does not work. And other schools around the State, other cities or school districts would say: They tried it in DC. It was a fair experiment, and it didn't work. They could decide to go ahead and have their own experiment and do it themselves. But we need a test and experiment that nobody can question at the end of the day that it wasn't done fairly and squarely on all counts.

I feel disappointed tonight. I really do. I am not angry, but I am disappointed. I have invested some personal time. My staff has. Senator Landrieu has invested a whole lot more. I know Senator DeWine has. I don't feel good about this because we ended up having spent all this time without coming to the kind of consensus I hoped we could. I fear we will pass a bill ultimately that will be flawed, not flawed in the sense of the Senate version, but the House version, because that is a badly flawed voucher proposal. I fear we will pass something that is not what it could be. We will go to conference and what comes out of conference will be a whole lot worse than what is being contemplated here in the Senate.

The last thing I want to say is this: If we had been able to reach agreement that these vouchers would only be used for some of the 9,400 kids who are today in failing schools in the District, we would have eliminated a real stumbling block going forward. If we had been able to work out with smart people in the administration, smart people who work around here, a way to make sure that the same accountability or some comparable accountability system that we used under No Child Left Behind for charter schools and public schools--that we can apply that in the way I described earlier for these 2,000 kids--if we can do that, we have eliminated a major stumbling block.

Senator Landrieu and I are reluctant, though, even if we passed a measure that had those provisions in it and the other principle she has talked about already, to go to conference even with a good bill without the assurance that what is going to come out of conference will be consistent with those principles. I would feel pretty foolish if we struck a good agreement, a sound agreement that we felt proud of, and went to conference and ended up with something else that was a horse of a different color.

We are not going to come to agreement, I am afraid, on those two major principles that we talked about here tonight, if our friends on the other side can't give us an assurance that even if we were, those principles would survive the conference. I understand that is a difficult thing to do. Having said that, I must say that that understanding doesn't diminish at all my disappointment that we have fallen short.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I rise to call the Senate's attention to a very important address that my distinguished senior colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, delivered today on America's foreign policy and our ongoing operations in Iraq. I commend Senator Biden for his wise and eloquent words, and I hope that all of my colleagues will take note of this insightful address.

Senator Biden delivered this address today on the one-year anniversary of the bipartisan hearings he held last year as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in which the committee explored many of the very questions that are bedeviling us today in post-war Iraq. Those hearings raised, before the war, all of the questions we are confronted with today with respect to how many troops we will need to maintain in Iraq and for how long, as well as how much the reconstruction of Iraq will cost and how we can best secure international cooperation to share the burdens of bringing peace and democracy to Iraq. Indeed, Chairman Biden said at the very first of those hearings last year, ``We need a better understanding of what it would take to secure Iraq and rebuild it economically and politically. It would be a tragedy if we removed a tyrant in Iraq, only to leave chaos in his wake.'' One can only wish that the administration had paid more attention to the questions the committee raised and some of the warnings that the committee received from the distinguished witnesses that testified during those hearings.

Senator Biden's speech today was an unapologetic defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq. ``Anyone who can't acknowledge that the world is better off without [Saddam] is out of touch,'' he said. ``The cost of not acting against Saddam would have been much greater, and so is the cost of not finishing the job.'' At the same time, Senator Biden's speech today was also a ringing affirmation of the historical tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that has been the hallmark of this institution and of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in particular. He suggests that today, and I quote, ``the stakes are too high and the opportunities too great to conduct foreign policy at the extremes.''

In very convincing terms, Senator Biden argues that we need to chart a sensible path between the prescriptions of neo-conservative purists, who affirm a strident unilateralism, and multi-lateral purists, who shrink from forcefully acting in the absence of international consensus. Again I quote: ``What we need isn't the death of internationalism or the denial of stark national interest, but a more enlightened nationalism--one that understands the value of institutions but allows us to use military force, without apology or apprehension if we have to, but does not allow us to be so blinded by the overwhelming power of our armed forces that we fail to see the benefit of sharing the risks and the costs with others.''

As Senator Biden argues, we need to act forcefully, but humbly in the world today. We need to be unapologetic in the post-9/11 world about fighting for the security of our people. But we need to pursue our goals, as Thomas Jefferson once said, ``with a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'' The course that Senator Biden outlined today is the course we should follow, Mr. President. Ultimately, I believe that most Americans will conclude that we were right to act in Iraq. We also need to see the job through. But we need to reengage with the international community and make them partners in the noble work of securing the peace in Iraq and spreading freedom and democracy throughout the region. Again, I commend Senator Biden's address to my colleagues' attention, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of it be printed in the Record.

As a former member of the Amtrak board and Governor of Delaware, I personally understand the important role that board members play in leading the corporation and I want to thank my colleague for recognizing the special skills that governors bring to such a position. The board's strong leadership establishes a clear direction for the corporation and provides proper oversight and accountability. Without this clear direction, investors and customers can quickly lose confidence in the company and its ability to preform and grow. The current board of management has done an excellent job of maintaining a solid and predictable course through particularly uneasy times.

The Senator from Mississippi's comments about the importance of receiving candidates soon is very true and I hope that the Bush administration will promptly follow the normal procedures of appointments, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Amtrak board are tasked with leading our national passenger railroad, with stewardship over substantial Federal resources and the responsibility of ensuring that the needs of the corporation and the traveling public are met. A stable and competent board is critical for so many reasons. Now is not the time for the kind of uncertainty that would clearly come from an partially staffed or incapacitated board as my colleagues have mentioned. As vacancies occur on the Amtrak board, the Bush administration has two critically important obligations that they must meet to ensure that Amtrak has a chance to survive and prosper. First, they must allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional role of reviewing nominees so that we have the most qualified and capable people for this important job. Second, while that process is underway, they must ensure that a strong, fully functional board remains in place to provide the direction and stability Amtrak needs.