Floor Statements

Mr. President, before Senator Durbin leaves the floor, I want to say that the concerns he has raised are serious and grave. They deserve serious attention, not just of this body but of the people in this country. I thank him for bringing them to us today and join him in voicing the gravity of the situation. The kind of actions he has described, if they are true, should not be permitted. They should not be countenanced.

(The remarks of Mr. Carper pertaining to the introduction of S. 1443 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I come to the floor to take this time to talk about the reauthorization of welfare reform, the reform launched a half dozen years ago. The authorization for those reforms has expired once, has been renewed for a year, and will expire again at the end of this year.

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he said a number of things for which he is remembered. He said: It is the economy, stupid. And it is always the economy, stupid, as far as I am concerned. But he also said we ought to change welfare as we know it. And we have.

Welfare reform was very much needed in the mid-1990s. A lot of people who ended up on welfare stayed there for long periods of time. And one of the reasons why they stayed there for so long was because they and their families were better off being on welfare than not. If people on welfare went to work, they lost some things. They lost maybe health care for their kids, eligibility for food stamps, nutritional support for their families, affordable housing. They certainly had to pay more for affordable housing.

And what would they gain by going to work and getting off welfare? The right to pay taxes: State income taxes, Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. After losing those certain things and gaining the right to pay those taxes, they would have to deal with the costs included in childcare. Who is going to take care of my kids? How will I pay for it? How will I get to work? Is there transportation? Is there transit? Do I have a car? Is it a working car? If I don't, how do I get one or pay for it or maintain it?

The reforms adopted in 1996 were actually endorsed by the National Governors Association which served as a catalyst for the adoption of Federal law. There were a number of principles that underscored or underwrote that welfare reform initiative of the mid-1990s. The first was work first. We should not place emphasis on finding people for jobs that may not exist. We ought to help people to go to work first.

The second principle was, work ought to pay more than welfare. People actually ought to be better off because somebody in that family is going to work every day.

The third principle was really a tough love principle. There ought to be limits on the amount of time that people could be on welfare. States could make it more stringent but a 5-year cap on the amount of time people spent on welfare should be the law of the land. We should have a tough love approach. There ought to be a certain toughness in what we are doing.

People should show up for job interviews. They should take the jobs offered. They should not be able to walk away from the jobs. If they do those kinds of things, they would face, in a number of States, the likelihood of being sanctioned for their refusal or inability to go to work and continue to work.

We also said that we realize there are some people on welfare who will never come off. For reasons physiological, they are going to be dependent forever. We allowed the States to recognize some percentage-- I think 20 percent--of the caseload of people who will not go to work.

We said that it might be a smart idea to have a rainy day fund, in case the economy falls off a cliff or we have a lot more people who show up and need a welfare payment. So we provided for a rainy day fund.

Finally, we said there are really four critical elements that need to be addressed in order for people to get off welfare and stay off welfare for an extended period of time. No. 1, there had to be a job to go to. No. 2, they have to have a way to get to the job. No. 3, there has to be health care for the kids. If the kids get sick, parents are not going to go to work. There has to be minimal health care for the family. People will not go to work if there is nobody to take care of their kids. So there needs to be some assistance given for childcare.

By most standards, the welfare reforms we began a half dozen years ago are regarded as a success. The rolls are down by roughly half across the country, including Delaware. Many families who used to be on welfare are now working and those families are, for the most part, better off. In those families where somebody is going to work every day, that parent sets an example for their children that there is an expectation to go to work, that there is dignity with work, and we are expected to be self-aligned and self-sufficient, if we are psychologically able to do that.

I have heard the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some people said that about the welfare reforms to be adopted in 1996--that they were not broke and we ought not to fix them. Other people said we ought to change it substantially, which is what we did in 1996. Some would like to go back to a situation that existed prior to that time. Others would like to go to an even tougher love arrangement, with the emphasis on toughness and not a whole lot of love involved.

Rather than saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think the better approach is to say this: If it is not perfect, make it better. The reforms we adopted 6 years ago can be improved upon and we can make it better.

I want to talk about a proposal Senator Nelson and I will be offering. As former Governors of our States, we believe it will build on the changes adopted in 1996. It would make the system better and make it one that is more likely to help people get off welfare and stay off for an extended period of time, and hopefully forever.

When we adopted the welfare reforms of 1996, we decided to take welfare, which had been an entitlement program, and make it a block grant program. I believe it provided that $16.5 million would be distributed to States in block grants and States could apportion that money out, to be used for a variety of things, including cash welfare payments, childcare assistance, health care, and other things. They could also use the money for transportation assistance. We put a 5-year limit on the amount of time people, under Federal law, could be eligible for welfare benefits. We also said in that law that we want States to eventually increase their work participation rates.

If you look at the welfare caseload, the percentage of people doing work or work-like activities, we wanted that to increase so by 2002 the work participation would have gone up 50 percent from wherever it started. That is where it is today; the work participation rate is 50 percent.

We give a credit to States that moved people off of welfare since the mid to late 1990s. So if they have moved people off welfare, States can get a credit toward the work participation rate, with the 50-percent mandate.

As it turned out, when they moved half of the people off of the welfare rolls and the work participation rate is 50 percent effectively by moving people off welfare to work, in most of the States we have eliminated de facto the work participation rate. Most States have a zero work participation rate as a result.

Our bill changes that in a couple of ways. It gradually raises from 50 percent to 70 percent, in 5-percent increments each year, the work participation rate, so that by 2008, today's rate would go up to 70 percent.

We provide for something called an employment credit. The employment credit provides a credit to States against its work participation rate for doing a couple of things. One, for moving people to work. Two, they get bonus credit for moving people to work at better paying jobs. Also, States can earn partial credit against the work participation rate if people are doing at least 16 hours of core work activities.

Under the current Federal law, a workweek for people who have kids over the age of 6 is 30 hours in order to count toward the work participation rate. Under current law, if a person has a child under 6, they need to be working 20 hours in order to count toward the States' work participation requirement.

Senator Nelson and I would change that a little bit. We say that-- there is one thing we don't change. If you have a child under the age of 6, it is still 20 hours. If they are over the age of 6, we expect them to be working 32 hours, 8 of which can be activities other than core work activities. An example would be assistance for substance abuse, or anything that is deemed to be eliminating the barrier toward employment. If a person doesn't have a high school degree, they can be working toward their GED, and that counts as part of that 8 hours. But 24 hours of the 32 would have to be a core work activity. I will give you some examples: private sector work, public sector work, community service, and vocational education.

Senator Nelson and I also made a modification with respect to education and training. Under current law, vocational education counts up to--I believe you count it toward your work participation rate for 12 months. We make that 24 months. We put in a cap. If you had 100 people on your caseload, no more than 30 percent of that 100 people who are involved in vocational education training or postsecondary can be counted toward a State's work participation rate. We extend from 12 months to 24 months those who are participating in vocational credit.

If you want people to go to work, you have to make sure there is help on the childcare side. If we are going to raise the hours, we expect the people to do work or work-like activities. If we are going to raise the work participation rate, we have to provide additional assistance. There is an extra $6 billion that we provide for childcare over the 5- year period.

In addition, we raise the social service block grant to a fully authorized level over a 5-year period of time. On the transportation side, as I mentioned earlier, unless people can get to work--we can have all the caps and participation rates we want but unless people can get to work, they are not going to be able to get off welfare and stay off of welfare.

In our legislation, we provide under current law where States can use the TANF block grant for transportation assistance. We provide authorizing language for another $15 million in authorization for transportation. If you live in a rural area and there is no transportation, States can help people buy cheaper but working cars to get where they need to go.

We make a change with respect to transitional health care. Under current law, if I am on welfare and then I go to work, I lose my health care. I can get 12 months of transitional assistance from Medicaid. We raise that. We give States the discretion to raise that to 24 months.

I see Senator Grassley has risen to speak. I will finish my remarks. I say this to him. I appreciate very much his effort in leading the Finance Committee. Senator Nelson and I have actually been privileged to be Governors of our States--8 years apiece--at the time we launched welfare reform. We learned a lot from those experiences. We think it is germane to the debate that is coming soon in the next steps in welfare reform. We hope to be part of the debate--maybe not in your committee but certainly when we get the bill to the floor. As much as I understand what is taking shape here, I think there are common elements in what Senator Grassley is seeking to do and what Senator Nelson and I propose to do. We look very much forward to engaging with the chairman in the work he is doing now and with that which is going to be brought to the floor later this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill that Senator Nelson and I are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to take this time to talk about the reauthorization of welfare reform, the reform launched a half dozen years ago. The authorization for those reforms has expired once, has been renewed for a year, and will expire again at the end of this year.

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he said a number of things for which he is remembered. He said: It is the economy, stupid. And it is always the economy, stupid, as far as I am concerned. But he also said we ought to change welfare as we know it. And we have.

Welfare reform was very much needed in the mid-1990s. A lot of people who ended up on welfare stayed there for long periods of time. And one of the reasons why they stayed there for so long was because they and their families were better off being on welfare than not. If people on welfare went to work, they lost some things. They lost maybe health care for their kids, eligibility for food stamps, nutritional support for their families, affordable housing. They certainly had to pay more for affordable housing.

And what would they gain by going to work and getting off welfare? The right to pay taxes: State income taxes, Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. After losing those certain things and gaining the right to pay those taxes, they would have to deal with the costs included in childcare. Who is going to take care of my kids? How will I pay for it? How will I get to work? Is there transportation? Is there transit? Do I have a car? Is it a working car? If I don't, how do I get one or pay for it or maintain it?

The reforms adopted in 1996 were actually endorsed by the National Governors Association which served as a catalyst for the adoption of Federal law. There were a number of principles that underscored or underwrote that welfare reform initiative of the mid-1990s. The first was work first. We should not place emphasis on finding people for jobs that may not exist. We ought to help people to go to work first.

The second principle was, work ought to pay more than welfare. People actually ought to be better off because somebody in that family is going to work every day.

The third principle was really a tough love principle. There ought to be limits on the amount of time that people could be on welfare. States could make it more stringent but a 5-year cap on the amount of time people spent on welfare should be the law of the land. We should have a tough love approach. There ought to be a certain toughness in what we are doing.

People should show up for job interviews. They should take the jobs offered. They should not be able to walk away from the jobs. If they do those kinds of things, they would face, in a number of States, the likelihood of being sanctioned for their refusal or inability to go to work and continue to work.

We also said that we realize there are some people on welfare who will never come off. For reasons physiological, they are going to be dependent forever. We allowed the States to recognize some percentage-- I think 20 percent--of the caseload of people who will not go to work.

We said that it might be a smart idea to have a rainy day fund, in case the economy falls off a cliff or we have a lot more people who show up and need a welfare payment. So we provided for a rainy day fund.

Finally, we said there are really four critical elements that need to be addressed in order for people to get off welfare and stay off welfare for an extended period of time. No. 1, there had to be a job to go to. No. 2, they have to have a way to get to the job. No. 3, there has to be health care for the kids. If the kids get sick, parents are not going to go to work. There has to be minimal health care for the family. People will not go to work if there is nobody to take care of their kids. So there needs to be some assistance given for childcare.

By most standards, the welfare reforms we began a half dozen years ago are regarded as a success. The rolls are down by roughly half across the country, including Delaware. Many families who used to be on welfare are now working and those families are, for the most part, better off. In those families where somebody is going to work every day, that parent sets an example for their children that there is an expectation to go to work, that there is dignity with work, and we are expected to be self-aligned and self-sufficient, if we are psychologically able to do that.

I have heard the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some people said that about the welfare reforms to be adopted in 1996--that they were not broke and we ought not to fix them. Other people said we ought to change it substantially, which is what we did in 1996. Some would like to go back to a situation that existed prior to that time. Others would like to go to an even tougher love arrangement, with the emphasis on toughness and not a whole lot of love involved.

Rather than saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think the better approach is to say this: If it is not perfect, make it better. The reforms we adopted 6 years ago can be improved upon and we can make it better.

I want to talk about a proposal Senator Nelson and I will be offering. As former Governors of our States, we believe it will build on the changes adopted in 1996. It would make the system better and make it one that is more likely to help people get off welfare and stay off for an extended period of time, and hopefully forever.

When we adopted the welfare reforms of 1996, we decided to take welfare, which had been an entitlement program, and make it a block grant program. I believe it provided that $16.5 million would be distributed to States in block grants and States could apportion that money out, to be used for a variety of things, including cash welfare payments, childcare assistance, health care, and other things. They could also use the money for transportation assistance. We put a 5-year limit on the amount of time people, under Federal law, could be eligible for welfare benefits. We also said in that law that we want States to eventually increase their work participation rates.

If you look at the welfare caseload, the percentage of people doing work or work-like activities, we wanted that to increase so by 2002 the work participation would have gone up 50 percent from wherever it started. That is where it is today; the work participation rate is 50 percent.

We give a credit to States that moved people off of welfare since the mid to late 1990s. So if they have moved people off welfare, States can get a credit toward the work participation rate, with the 50-percent mandate.

As it turned out, when they moved half of the people off of the welfare rolls and the work participation rate is 50 percent effectively by moving people off welfare to work, in most of the States we have eliminated de facto the work participation rate. Most States have a zero work participation rate as a result.

Our bill changes that in a couple of ways. It gradually raises from 50 percent to 70 percent, in 5-percent increments each year, the work participation rate, so that by 2008, today's rate would go up to 70 percent.

We provide for something called an employment credit. The employment credit provides a credit to States against its work participation rate for doing a couple of things. One, for moving people to work. Two, they get bonus credit for moving people to work at better paying jobs. Also, States can earn partial credit against the work participation rate if people are doing at least 16 hours of core work activities.

Under the current Federal law, a workweek for people who have kids over the age of 6 is 30 hours in order to count toward the work participation rate. Under current law, if a person has a child under 6, they need to be working 20 hours in order to count toward the States' work participation requirement.

Senator Nelson and I would change that a little bit. We say that-- there is one thing we don't change. If you have a child under the age of 6, it is still 20 hours. If they are over the age of 6, we expect them to be working 32 hours, 8 of which can be activities other than core work activities. An example would be assistance for substance abuse, or anything that is deemed to be eliminating the barrier toward employment. If a person doesn't have a high school degree, they can be working toward their GED, and that counts as part of that 8 hours. But 24 hours of the 32 would have to be a core work activity. I will give you some examples: private sector work, public sector work, community service, and vocational education.

Senator Nelson and I also made a modification with respect to education and training. Under current law, vocational education counts up to--I believe you count it toward your work participation rate for 12 months. We make that 24 months. We put in a cap. If you had 100 people on your caseload, no more than 30 percent of that 100 people who are involved in vocational education training or postsecondary can be counted toward a State's work participation rate. We extend from 12 months to 24 months those who are participating in vocational credit.

If you want people to go to work, you have to make sure there is help on the childcare side. If we are going to raise the hours, we expect the people to do work or work-like activities. If we are going to raise the work participation rate, we have to provide additional assistance. There is an extra $6 billion that we provide for childcare over the 5- year period.

In addition, we raise the social service block grant to a fully authorized level over a 5-year period of time. On the transportation side, as I mentioned earlier, unless people can get to work--we can have all the caps and participation rates we want but unless people can get to work, they are not going to be able to get off welfare and stay off of welfare.

In our legislation, we provide under current law where States can use the TANF block grant for transportation assistance. We provide authorizing language for another $15 million in authorization for transportation. If you live in a rural area and there is no transportation, States can help people buy cheaper but working cars to get where they need to go.

We make a change with respect to transitional health care. Under current law, if I am on welfare and then I go to work, I lose my health care. I can get 12 months of transitional assistance from Medicaid. We raise that. We give States the discretion to raise that to 24 months.

I see Senator Grassley has risen to speak. I will finish my remarks. I say this to him. I appreciate very much his effort in leading the Finance Committee. Senator Nelson and I have actually been privileged to be Governors of our States--8 years apiece--at the time we launched welfare reform. We learned a lot from those experiences. We think it is germane to the debate that is coming soon in the next steps in welfare reform. We hope to be part of the debate--maybe not in your committee but certainly when we get the bill to the floor. As much as I understand what is taking shape here, I think there are common elements in what Senator Grassley is seeking to do and what Senator Nelson and I propose to do. We look very much forward to engaging with the chairman in the work he is doing now and with that which is going to be brought to the floor later this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill that Senator Nelson and I are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, to follow up on the comments of the Senator from South Dakota, he alluded to the presence of over 100,000 United States troops in Iraq. As it turns out, if you look across the globe today, we have United States forces stretched around the world in places and numbers we have not seen for a long time--not only Iraq but Afghanistan, Bosnia, Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other places.

We support the deployment of those military personnel through a combination of sealift and airlift. When I served on active duty during the Vietnam war, we were fortunate in having so many more overseas bases from which we could forward deploy or resupply. Many of those bases are closed today, and we rely instead on a mixture of different kinds of aircraft, military and civilian, and on sealift, a variety of ships to serve as a bridge, a sea bridge or an air bridge, to connect this country to our troops deployed around the world.

The air bridge is changing. In this country we are seeing the retirement of an older aircraft built in the 1960s. The C-141 is being retired. It is being replaced by a newer aircraft, a very good aircraft called the C-17. To date, we have received about 100 of those new cargo aircraft and about another 80 have been placed on order and will be coming into the fleet in the coming years. We have as part of that air bridge C-5s, perhaps the largest cargo aircraft in the world, 74 C-5As built in the 1970s, about 50 C-5Bs built in the 1980s. A third part of this air bridge is the C-130. We have them in the Delaware Air National Guard, and they are in air guards throughout the United States. But it is really those three aircraft--the C-5, C-17, the C-130s--that enable us to resupply our troops and to move our men, women, materiel, and weaponry around the globe.

The C-5 carries enormous amounts of cargo, roughly twice the amount of a C-17, at distances roughly twice the distance of a C-17, even more cargo than a C-130 and greater distances than the C-130. The C-5s have been used in the Iraqi war and Afghanistan to move

men, women, and materiel, equipment, from the United States into theaters. And the movement of those personnel and that equipment within theater has fallen largely to C-17s and to C-130s.

I wish I could stand here today and say the combination of ships we have in our sealift capability and aircraft as part of our air bridge is sufficient to meet our needs. Our sealift capability is inadequate. Our airlift capability is in even worse shape.

I have an article--this is a June 2 edition of Air Force magazine-- where they talk a good deal about the squeeze on air mobility--not just my words but the words of the top people in military airlift in the Air Force who cite examples of how our inability to move as much personnel, as much equipment as we sought made it difficult in some cases for us to implement our game plan in that part of the world. If the current assets, especially the current air assets we have within the Air Force, are insufficient to provide sufficient airlift, what might be sufficient?

Every so often, the Air Force is asked or directed to do another update to look at their assets and what we expect to be the need for airlift in the years to come and to tell us and the administration what their needs are. We need a new analysis and we need an update.

My hope is the language in the Defense bill, the authorization bill which is now in conference--that out of that conference will come clear direction for the Air Force, authorization for the Air Force to update that last study which is called MRS-05, out of that update will flow a good deal of the information we need.

We don't need another study or another analysis to tell us that the resources we have on the airlift side are woefully inadequate. The answer is more, not less. A critical question for us in this body, especially as we face a budget deficit this year of $450 billion, is how do we go about meeting our woefully inadequate airlift capability, how do we do that in a way that is cost-effective and in a way that recognizes that we have these huge deficits and that as far as the eye can see they continue. I want to talk about that.

I would like to talk for the next several minutes about a cost- effective airlift, and then later today Senator Biden and I, along with Senator Chambliss and others, will offer an amendment that we believe addresses in good faith how we might make some progress on that front today.

There are some who would like to take our C-5s, the fleet--there are 74 C-5As and 50 C-5Bs--some would like to get rid of all the C-5As, send them to the boneyard and let that be that. They have some interest in upgrading or modernizing the C-5Bs but less interest in doing anything for the C-5As.

As it turns out, we are going to be flying C-5As and C-5Bs for a good long while, probably for the remainder of this decade on both As and Bs and, for Bs, well beyond that; even programs for As well beyond this decade. There has been a lot of debate in this Chamber in the last couple years on how we might upgrade the capability of the C-5 to make it more mission capable.

The Air Force pays a lot of attention to a number called the mission capable rate for aircraft. The mission capable rate for the new C-17 is in the mid 80s--it does a really fine job--the mission capable rate over the last 12 months for the C-5As, about 60 percent; the mission capable rate for the C-5Bs over the last 12 months, 72 percent. Two upgrades have been proposed to both aircraft. One of those upgrades is fairly inexpensive, the second expensive.

The less expensive upgrade is the Avionics Modernization Program. The Avionics Modernization Program would enable us to take a 1970s cockpit of a C-5A or a 1980s cockpit of a C-5B and turn it into a 21st century cockpit. Not only would it look different, the plane would fly differently, would be controlled differently. The communication gear would become 21st century communications equipment. Its reliability and effectiveness would be enhanced as would that of the crew--new training, avoidance equipment, the ability to actually fly at very accurate levels of altitude to enable us to get the maximum advantage out of the airspace in the skies in which we fly.

The avionics modernization package costs about $3 million per aircraft. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Congress authorized and appropriated money to install the avionics modernization package in a total of 10 C-5 aircraft. This year, in the fiscal year 2004 authorization bill, there was an authorization for 30 additional kits, for the cockpits, communications systems, and all. In this bill, there is money appropriated for 18.

Let's go back. I talked about the number of C-5s we have: 74 C-5As, 50 C-5Bs. The Air Force is in the process of retiring 14 of the least dependable C-5As, the ones that are least mission capable, that create the most maintenance headaches. So we will end up with 60 C-5As and 50 C-5Bs later this year or next. The Air Force would like to see their C- 5s AMPed, or fully equipped with this new upgrade, the avionics modernization package, by fiscal 2007. In order for us to meet that schedule, we need to appropriate not AMP kits for 18 C-5As in 2004 but for 30 to get us back on schedule. That 30, plus the original 10, will take us to 40 AMP kits for C-5s. That would leave about 70 more we would need to fund in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

What do we get out of AMPing the aircraft? Among the things that we get is better mission capable numbers. Last week I was privileged to meet with the four star general who is the commanding officer of our airlift mobility command, and I asked him: In terms of mission capable improvement, what can we look for? For each avionics modernization program that we put in a C-5, how much improvement would we get?

He said it would be anywhere from 3 to 5 points of improvement of mission capability in each aircraft. That could mean taking the C-5 numbers, the A numbers, for the last year where the mission capable rate was 60 and bring it up to 63, or even as high as 65. It would take the 72 percent mission capable rate from the C-5Bs from the last 12 months and raise it to 75 percent, or maybe as high as 77 percent.

If you think about it, if we were to actually install the AMP kits in all C-5As and Bs, at roughly $3 million apiece, the cost to the Treasury is about $350 million. If you multiply 3 percentage points or 5 percentage points--let's take somewhere in between, say a 4-percent increase in the mission capability rate for AMPing C-5s. If you multiply that 4 percent across the whole 110 C-5As and Bs we have in our inventory at the end of this year, we end up with the equivalent of about--because of improvements in mission capability rates--4.4 additional C-5 aircraft.

The cost of getting those four additional C-5 aircraft is about $350 million. The cost of a new C-5 or a new C-17 is a whole lot more than that. We can get four equivalent C-5s simply out of being more mission ready and mission capable by AMPing, installing the avionics modernization package in all the C-5s.

I want to talk a moment, if I could, about those who are interested in doing something about the As, not the Bs. I have talked about this first improvement, this first retrograde, the avionics modernization package.

The second piece is reengining, referred to as RERP. Reengining the C-5s would be a next step and a far more expensive step. We would not only change up the engines and install the same kind of engines that are on Air Force One, we would make major changes in the hydraulics and landing gear. Those are the major areas that cause downtime on the C- 5s.

If you put together the improvements in mission readiness for AMPing the aircraft and another 3 to 5 percentage points, and from 10 to 15 percentage points by reengining the aircraft, you are talking about improvement in mission capability rates for the C-5As from roughly 60 percent to somewhere in the mid-70s, and improving the mission capable rate of the Bs from the low 70s to somewhere in the mid-80s.

There was a big debate a year or two ago on whether or not we ought to go forward and install both the first inexpensive fix, the avionics modernization package, and the reengining, just appropriate money to do both. The agreement that was struck was to do both fixes on a total of three aircraft. We are going to install the avionics modernization package on one C-5A and two C-5Bs. We are going to install the reengining package, new engines, hydraulics and landing gear and other

changes, on one C-5A--the same A--and two C-5Bs. We are going to fly them for a while and see how they work. If they work as advertised, or if they continue to have a high failure rate--and I have a hunch they are going to work--we are not talking about developing a new engine, we are talking about taking the same engine as on Air Force One, a modern aircraft engine, and it will give us 10,000 hours between changes of engines instead of 1,000, and it will make a huge difference in our mission capable rate.

Somewhere down the line we will have the opportunity to have those test aircraft--three of them--in the air, flying for a year or so; we will see how they are performing and we will then make the decision as to whether we want to invest more money in either of those retrofits.

I think that is smart. When we are talking about spending that kind of money, we ought to upgrade the planes and fly them for a while and see if they work as advertised.

The avionics modernization package has already been installed in at least one aircraft, and more are coming. The aircraft that it has been installed in was actually installed ahead of schedule and within budget. The early test is going well.

The Air Force has chosen a site on the east coast and one on the west coast to continue the work that has begun on the avionics modernization package installation for the C-5s.

We should go forward and put the C-5 avionics modernization package in as many C-5s as quickly as we can. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the four star general who actually heads up military airlift command. Those were his words as recently as last week. He said: Provide for us as many AMPed C-5s as you can, as quickly as you can.

The reason is that it is a fairly cheap fix to get aircraft readiness up and to give him the aircraft tails, if you will, that he needs in order to support our troops in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, and other places around the world--probably Liberia next. Who knows.

Let me close with this thought. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money on this floor and we are asked to appropriate money for defense projects and others that have not been authorized by the authorizing committee. These 12 additional AMP kits, avionics modernization packages, for the C-5s have been authorized in both the House authorization bill, the Defense bill, and the Senate authorization bill. The authorizing committees are on board.

Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money when a branch of our Armed Forces has not expressed interest in a particular kind of weapons system or project or gizmo. In this case, these 12 kits, on top of the original 18 in the bill, are in the Air Force's list of unfunded priorities.

Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money when neither the aircrews who fly these planes nor the maintenance folks who maintain them nor the four-star generals in charge of the whole show really think it makes a lot of sense. In this case, the aircrews who fly them, the maintenance crews who maintain them, and the four-star general who is in charge of the whole show say we need as many C-5s AMPed as quickly as we can.

Sometimes we are asked to appropriate dollars to buy a capability that is not needed. In this case, we need airlift. We need it. We need it today; we needed it last month; we needed it last year; and we are going to need more of it next year. We cannot meet the current demands for airlift.

If we actually put on all of our C-5s between now and 2007 the avionics modernization package, it is the equivalent of giving the Air Force three, four, or as many as five additional C-5 aircraft with which to meet their missions.

Sometimes we are asked to appropriate dollars for items that are not cost-effective. I am going to tell my colleagues, to get the effect of three or four or five additional C-5 aircraft for $350 million by simply raising mission capability by anywhere from 3 to 5 points per aircraft for $3 million apiece is a bargain in this world, and it is one we should not pass by.

If we end up with a mix of C-5As and C-5Bs--let's say in C-5Bs you have a cockpit that is 21st century--modern communications equipment, modern terrain avoidance, altitude separation equipment--and you end up with C-5As that have not been modernized or a 1970 cockpit with the old altitude separation equipment, the old terrain avoidance, the old communications gear--we put our crews in a difficult or maybe dangerous situation.

Today, C-5 aircrews move from C-5As to C-5Bs and fly them interchangeably. It does not matter because one aircraft is very similar to the other. The people who maintain the aircraft maintain the C-5As as easily as they can maintain a C-5B. Most of the spare parts fit interchangeably with the C-5Bs. I would not want to say to a crew today: You are going to fly the C-5B with the new avionics modernization, you are going to get in a 21st century cockpit and fly this aircraft, and then say to the same crew: Tomorrow you are going to fly the old aircraft with the old cockpit, with the old equipment.

I would not want to say to the maintenance crews: We expect you to maintain this old aircraft, and a lot of them are located at the same bases. Do we expect them to maintain the same aircraft--it is a differently configured aircraft in the cockpit--and expect them to have the expertise and training to do maintenance on an entirely different cockpit?

Finally, in terms of keeping spare parts, we do not put the spare parts at Air Force bases that have C-5As. There are Air Force bases around the world and in places where we support troops and have airlift.

I would not be making a big deal about this if the wings on the C-5As or C-5Bs were about to deteriorate and fall off. They are not. The wings and fuselages of the C-5As and C-5Bs, according to the experts, have another 30 or 40 useful years of life on them.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, Senator Biden indicated he is interested in offering the amendment after Prime Minister Blair addresses our joint meeting. So I will not do it at this time. If I can accept the kind offer of the chairman to find some common ground, I would very much like to discuss that with him and Senator Inouye and their staffs.

Let me close, if I may. I see Senator Byrd is on his feet. I want to close.

Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money in ways that will not have much effect in a positive respect for those who fly our aircraft or for those who maintain our aircraft. As sure as we are gathered here today, a decision to put an avionics modernization package on our C-5As and C-5Bs will make those aircraft safer for the crews who fly them, it will make them easier to maintain for the folks in this country and around the world who are trying to maintain the aircraft as they meet their missions throughout the world, and it is a bargain for the taxpayers of this country.

Finally, it is a cost-effective--a highly cost-effective--way to maintain and to strengthen the air groups that connect us in this country to our disparate forces around the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Lamar Alexander announced his decision on this Senate floor to join Senators Gregg, Chafee, and me in cosponsoring the Clean Air Planning Act.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be added as a cosponsor of S. 843.

Mr. President, we are delighted at this decision. We welcome him as a cosponsor. The Clean Air Planning Act is a sensible solution to a vexing and challenging problem. We welcome the support of Senator Alexander on this bill and the opportunity to work with him and other colleagues in this body to pass a strong bipartisan piece of clean air legislation later this year. Together, we can pass legislation that will control harmful emissions, provide cleaner air, and let more people live longer and healthier lives. We can do so in a way that does not impose hardship on those who produce electricity or on the consumers or an industry that relies on affordable electricity.

There are several advantages for the Nation that the Clean Air Planning Act will provide, and I want to mention several of those at this time.

First of all, let me begin with public health and environmental benefits. The Clean Air Planning Act will achieve substantially greater emissions reductions than the administration's Clear Skies Act. The Clean Air Planning Act will generate an additional 23 million tons of SO2 reductions, 3 million tons of nitrogen oxide reductions, 240,000 pounds of mercury reductions, and 764 million tons of carbon dioxide reductions relative to the Clear Skies Act in the first 20 years of the program.

As a result, the human health benefits are likely to be substantially greater under the Clean Air Planning Act than the Clear Skies legislation. An EPA analysis has concluded that in 2020, the Clean Air Planning Act would avoid almost 6,000 premature deaths from fine particulate matter when compared with Clear Skies on an annual basis-- not a cumulative basis.

Let me return to CO2 and business certainty. From the perspective of the electric generating sector, business certainty is a major driver for the enactment of multipollutant legislation. Without CO2 included, electric-generating companies will continue to make their investment decisions in the face of major business uncertainty. This raises the specter of stranded investments.

By lifting the uncertainty surrounding future action on CO2, the Clean Air Planning Act creates a more favorable climate for the expansion of U.S. coal markets and stimulates the development of clean coal technologies.

Let me talk for a moment about diverse generation mix. The Clean Air Planning Act and Clear Skies will both preserve a diverse fuel mix. Both bills are projected to have minimal impact on coal use. In 2010, coal use is expected to be about 2 percent lower under the Clean Air Planning Act than under Clear Skies--50 percent versus 48 percent. Coal is projected to constitute 45 percent of the electric generating mix in 2020 under either bill, Clear Skies or the Clean Air Planning Act.

An important question is, What will it cost to buy the relative advantages of the Clean Air Planning Act?

In both 2010 and 2020, total annual electric system costs under the Clean Air Planning Act are projected to be only 2.5 percent higher than under Clear Skies. This includes the cost of regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Planning Act. On a net present value basis, the total cost differences between Clear Skies and the Clean Air Planning Act over a 20-year period, from 2005 to 2025, is in the range of 2 to 3 percent.

The EPA itself has conceded that retail electricity prices would increase by only two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour more under the Clean Air Planning Act than under Clear Skies, which amounts to about $1.20 per month for the average residence.

According to the EPA, the CO2 reduction plan could be carried out at ``negligible'' cost--that is their word--to the industry. Specifically, we can achieve the CO2 goal in our bill--returning electricity industry emissions to 2001 levels by 2013-- for approximately $300 million in additional costs on top of the $103 billion the industry will already be spending to produce electricity. That is just 0.3 percent--not 3 percent, not 30 percent, but 0.3 percent.

Let me conclude. Once again, I thank Senator Alexander for having the courage to join us in this effort. I know it is not a decision that he made lightly. As a former Governor, he shares my commitment to getting things done in the Senate and in our Nation's Capital, with a commitment to focusing on policies that are the right thing for this Nation to do. Speaking for Senators Gregg, Chafee, and myself, we welcome the support of the junior Senator from Tennessee.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Georgetown Fire Company. Founded in 1903, the Georgetown Fire Company is only one of fifteen Delaware fire companies to achieve a century or more of service a testament of the hard work and dedication of those who have been part of this venerable organization.

Several fire companies in Delaware, particularly around rural communities, were formed in the wake of disasters. That was the case for nearby Milton, which founded its fire company in 1901. But residents and town leaders in Georgetown formed their own fire company before a major fire broke out.

On April 11, 1903, the commissioners of the Town of Georgetown advised the

town's people by posting in the local newspaper, The Sussex Journal, that there would be a meeting that evening for the purpose of creating a fire company. In this posting, they stated that the formation of a fire company would decrease the cost of fire insurance within the town. There were fourteen charter members of the Georgetown Fire Company. Until that day, the community had relied solely on so-called bucket brigades and a hand-drawn ladder wagon.

Today, the fire company owns the most modern of technology and firefighting equipment, and what started off as a small squad of locals with minimal training has evolved into a company that today has almost 100 members, 50 of whom are active. The remaining members are life members, limited service members or honorary members, all of whom continue to help protect Georgetown. Originally located in the old fire hall building on The Circle in 1930, they moved to their new building on South Bedford Street in 1966. There, the doors are opened one evening each February for an annual fundraiser for the fire company, the legendary ``Oyster Eat,'' which attracts people from throughout the Delmarva peninsula and beyond.

I rise today to recognize all the members of the Georgetown Fire Company, past and present, and their contributions to their beloved community. This is a historic event, especially for a non-profit organization based solely on volunteerism. I congratulate you all and thank you for your service to the people of Georgetown and to all of Southern Delaware.

Mr. President, when I ran for the U.S. Senate, I promised Delawareans that I would work in a bipartisan fashion to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. I pledged that I would seek consensus around what is right with competing Republican and Democratic plans. Along with my Democratic colleagues, I would support voluntary coverage that is available and affordable for all seniors. Along with my Republican colleagues, I would support choice and competition to constrain costs. And to the extent we found ourselves constrained by limited resources, I would seek to provide the greatest assistance to those with the greatest needs.

The bill before us today achieves some of that vision. It is bipartisan. It will provide a benefit available to all seniors on a voluntary basis. It will harness market forces to strengthen the integrity of the Medicare Program for the future. And it will provide comprehensive health security to our most vulnerable, low-income seniors.

Still, the bill we have before us today is not everything I would have hoped for. The overriding priority of the current majority here in Congress has been to make dramatic reductions in Federal revenues without corresponding reductions in Federal spending. As a result, there is insufficient money in the budget under which we are currently operating to provide the kind of comprehensive coverage that all seniors--not just low-income seniors--truly deserve. This is an unfortunate choice of priorities, I think, but it is the choice that this President and this Congress have made.

Unfortunately, the consequences of the majority's misguided priorities are evident in this legislation. When Medicare was created, the idea was to provide seniors with health coverage that was similar to the coverage available to most working Americans through their employers. This is what seniors expect when we say that we are providing them with a Medicare prescription drug benefit. However, the majority has only set aside for this bill about half of what it would take, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to provide seniors a benefit comparable to standard employer-provided coverage. Thus, there is a very noticeable gap in this bill's coverage, reflective of a substantial hole in our Nation's budget.

When seniors reach $4,500 in prescription drug costs, the coverage in this bill gives out. It does not kick back in until total spending reaches $5,800. It is widely acknowledged that this makes no sense. It makes no sense from an insurance perspective. It certainly is not reflective of the standard either in private employer-provided coverage or in the coverage provided to those of us who are fortunate enough to serve as Members of Congress. Nobody likes this gap in coverage. Nobody, so far as I can tell, defends it. However, because the root of problem is the majority's failure to set aside sufficient resources for this program, efforts to deal with the problem have only created new and potentially more serious difficulties.

For example, the authors of this legislation have attempted to narrow the coverage gap by not allowing employer contributions to count towards the calculation of seniors' out-of-pocket

spending in the gap. To see how this works, we need to understand how the coverage gap works. Once seniors reach $4,500 in total drug costs, they fall into the coverage gap. They then have to spend a certain amount of their own money--in the final bill reported out of the Finance Committee it is $1,300--before their coverage resumes, or they get out of the coverage gap.

The effect of not allowing seniors to count payments made by their retiree health plans toward this out-of-pocket requirement is to ensure that seniors will remain in the gap longer and fewer will get out of it. This allows the level of spending at which the gap ends to be set at a lower level than would otherwise be possible for the same budgetary cost. The problem with this, however, is that it also provides an unintended incentive for employers to drop or scale back their retiree drug coverage.

Thankfully, contributions from State prescription drug plans, like our Delaware Pharmacy Assistance Program, count toward the out-of- pocket requirement, which should encourage States to ``stay in the game.'' Employers, though, are effectively barred from wrapping their coverage around Medicare in the way that would be most beneficial for their retirees, which would be by filing Medicare's coverage gap.

In the course of our consideration of this legislation here on the floor of the Senate, I have urged my colleagues to address these shortcomings in the bill, even if that means reconsidering the majority's budget plan and the resource allocation for this program. I supported an amendment by Senator Boxer to eliminate the gap in coverage. And I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller to allow employer-provided coverage to wrap around the Medicare benefit and thus to eliminate the incentive for employers to drop coverage for their retirees.

The majority has made clear, however, that they are unwilling to reorder their priorities or to emplore the possibility of finding the necessary resources elsewhere in the budget to fix what they acknowledge are shortcomings in this legislation. Thus, the rest of us are left to choose between a prescription drug benefit that provides some, but not all, of the assistance that seniors deserve, or no prescription drug benefit at all.

Congress has been debating this issue for more than a decade. In many ways, it has been debating the issue since Medicare was first created back in 1965. I ran for the Senate in part because I was frustrated at the inability or unwillingness of the parties in Washington to come together to do what they could to solve problems and get things done. I am unwilling to walk away from the table this year with nothing for Delaware's seniors. They have waited too long and the need is too great.

In light of the budgetary priorities of the Republican majority, I am also very concerned about our future prospects. Should we let the present opportunity pass us by? I am concerned that if we do not act to get started with prescription drug coverage this year, even the limited resources that now remain may go out the door for other purposes--most likely another round of top-heavy, upper bracket tax cuts.

This is a first step. It is a downpayment. Just as I pledged when I ran for the Senate to work in a bipartisan fashion to get results, I pledge today to continue to work to build on these results. I continue to believe that we should provide our seniors with quality coverage without caps or gaps. I will work to ensure that filling the gap of coverage that exists in the present bill is given greater priority in future budgets than it was in this year's Republican budget. I also believe that it is a mistake to shun rather than welcome employer efforts to wrap around the new Medicare benefit, and I will work to rectify that mistake as we move toward implementation of this program over the next few years.

Mr. President, it is often said that politics is the art of the possible. The bounds of the possible are a bit narrower now than they need, thanks to our Republican friends. But, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee has said, this may be the best bill that could be written under the constraints of the Republican budget. For that reason, I commend the authors of this legislation--Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, among others--for their work. I urge my colleagues to support this compromise as an important, if limited, first step toward addressing what clearly is a pressing priority, not just for our elderly population, but for our Nation as a whole.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that makes the reforms necessary for the Postal Service to thrive in the 21st Century and to better serve the American people.

The Postal Service has, for the most part, operated in the same manner for more than thirty years. In the early 1970s, Senator Stevens and others led the effort in the Senate to create the Postal Service out of the failing Post Office Department. At the time, the Post Office Department received about 20 percent of its revenue from taxpayer subsidies. The service it provided was suffering and there was little money available to expand. By all accounts, the product of Senator Stevens' labors, the Postal Reorganization Act signed into law by President Nixon in 1971, has been a phenomenal success. The Postal Service today receives virtually no taxpayer support and the service its hundreds of thousands of employees provide to every American, every day is second to none. More than thirty years later, the Postal Service now delivers to 141 million addresses each day and is the anchor of a $900 billion mailing industry.

All that said, the Postal Service is clearly in need of modernization once again. When it started out in 1971, nobody had access to fax machines, cell phones and pagers and nobody imagined that we would ever enjoy conveniences like e-mail and electronic bill pay. After decades of success, electronic diversion of mail volume coupled with economic recession and terrorism have made for some rough going at the Postal Service in recent years. In 2001, as Postmaster General Potter assumed his position, the Postal Service was projecting its third consecutive year of deficits. They lost $199 million in fiscal year 2000 and $1.68 billion in fiscal year 2001. They were projecting losses of up to $4 billion in fiscal year 2002. Mail volume was falling, revenues were below projections and the Postal Service was estimating that it needed to spend $4 billion on security enhancements in order to prevent a repeat of the tragic anthrax attacks that took several lives. The Postal Service was also perilously close to its $15 billion debt ceiling and had been forced to raise rates three times in less than two years in order to pay for its operations, further eroding mail volume.

In recent months, however, the Postal Service's short-term financial outlook has improved. Under General Potter's strong leadership, Postal Service management cut a total of $2.9 billion in costs fiscal year 2002. They did this mostly by eliminating 23,000 positions, mostly through attrition. This included 800 management positions at postal headquarters in Washington and 2,000 administrative positions in regional offices. They also continued their drive to further automate their processing operations, most notably in the area of flats processing. They have continued their construction freeze and ended their self-imposed ban on post office closings, resulting in the closing of dozens of post offices across the country.

Most dramatically, the Postal Service learned in 2002 that an unfunded pension liability they once believed was as high as $32 billion was actually $5 billion. My friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, and I responded with legislation, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act, signed into law by President Bush last month, which cuts the amount the Postal Service must pay into the Civil Service Retirement System each year by nearly $3 billion. This will free up money for debt reduction and prevent the need for another rate increase until at least 2006.

Aggressive cost cutting and the lower pension payment, then, have put off the emergency that would have come if the Postal Service had reached their debt limit. Cost cutting can only go so far, however, and will not solve the Postal Service's long-term problems. It could actually hurt service. The Postal Service continues to add about 1.7 million new delivery points each year, creating the need for thousands of new routes and thousands of new letter carriers to work them. In addition, faster-

growing parts of the country will need new or expanded postal facilities in the coming years. Even if the economy recovers soon and the Postal Service begins to see volume and revenues improve, we will still need to make the fundamental reforms necessary to make the Postal Service as successful in the 21st Century as it was in the 20th Century.

As more and more customers turn to electronic forms of communication, letter carriers are bringing fewer and fewer pieces of mail to each address they serve. The rate increases that will be needed to maintain the Postal Service's current infrastructure, finance retirement obligations to its current employees, pay for new letter carriers and build facilities in growing parts of the country will only further erode mail volume. The Postal Service has been trying to improve on its own. They are making progress, but there is only so much they can do on their own.

That is where my bill comes in. First, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act begins the process of developing a modern rate system for pricing Postal Service products. The new rate system, to be developed by a strengthened Postal Rate Commission, re-named the Postal Regulatory Commission, would allow retained earnings, provide the Postal Service more flexibility in setting prices and streamline today's burdensome ratemaking process. It would also allow rates to be increased on an expedited basis during crises like a sharp spike in fuel prices and require that the Regulatory Commission develop a ``phased rate'' schedule whereby rate increases would be phased in gradually over a period of time.

In addition, the new rate system authorized through my bill will allow the Postal Service to negotiate service agreements with individual mailers. The Postal Rate Commission recently approved a service agreement the Postal Service negotiated with Capital One, but the process for considering the agreement took almost a year and the Postal Service's authority to enter into agreements is not clearly spelled out in law. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act allows the Postal Service to enter into agreements if the revenue generated from them covers all costs attributable to the Postal Service and results in a greater contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs. No agreement would be permitted if it resulted in higher rates for any other mailer or prohibited any similarly situated mailer from negotiating a similar agreement.

Second, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act requires the Postal Regulatory Commission to set strong service standards for the Postal Service's Market Dominant products, a category made up mostly of those products, like First Class Mail, that are part of the postal monopoly. The Postal Service currently sets its own service standards, which allows them to pursue efforts like the elimination of Saturday delivery, a proposal floated two years ago. The new standards set by the Commission will aim to improve service and will be used by the Postal Service to establish performance goals and to rationalize their physical infrastructure. Once the standards are established, the Postal Service will recommend a list of facilities that can be closed or consolidated without hindering their ability to meet the standards. A new commission, called the Postal Network Modernization Commission, would then study the Postal Service's recommendations. The closings and consolidations recommended by this commission would be carried out, subject to approval by the President, unless Congress passed a resolution disapproving them.

Third, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act ensures that the Postal Service competes fairly. The bill prohibits the Postal Service from issuing anti-competitive regulations and makes the State Department, instead of the Postal Service, responsible for setting U.S. foreign policy on mailing issues. It also subjects the Postal Service to State zoning, planning and land use laws, requires them to pay an assumed Federal income tax on products like packages and Express Mail that private firms also offer and requires that these products as a whole pay their share of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

Fourth, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act improves Postal Service accountability, mostly by strengthening oversight. Qualifications for membership on the Regulatory Commission would be stronger than those for the Rate Commission so that Commissioners would have a background in finance or economics. Commissioners would also have the power to demand information from the Postal Service, including by subpoena, and have the power to punish them for violating rate and service regulations. In addition, the Commission will make an annual determination as to whether the Postal Service is in compliance with rate law and meeting service standards and will have the power to punish them for any transgressions.

Finally, and most importantly, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act preserves universal service and forces the Postal Service to concentrate solely on what they do best--processing and delivering the mail to all Americans. The bill for the first time limits the Postal Service to providing ``postal services,'' meaning they would be prohibited from engaging in other lines of business, such as e-commerce, that draw time and resources away from letter and package delivery. It also explicitly preserves the requirement that the Postal Service ``bind the Nation together through the mail'' and serve all parts of the country, urban, suburban and rural, in a non- discriminatory fashion. Any service standards established by the Postal Regulatory Commission will continue to ensure delivery to every address, every day. In addition, the bill maintains the prohibition on closing post offices solely because they operate at a deficit, ensuring that rural and urban customers continue to enjoy full access to retail postal services.

One thing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act does not do, is blame postal employees for the Postal Service's problems. The bill preserves collective bargaining and does nothing that would harm postal employees' pay or benefits.

Another thing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act does not do is privatize or downsize the Postal Service. The bill preserves the Postal Service's monopoly along with its sole access to the mailbox. While it could result in the closing of some postal facilities, the process I have laid out in the bill is completely driven by the service standards established by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Nothing will be closed for the sake of being closed. Instead, the bill encourages the Postal Service to find ways to improve customer access to retail services through things like vending machines or post offices located in grocery stores or pharmacies.

As my colleagues are aware, President Bush last year announced the creation of the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service, which is expected to release a set of postal reform proposals this summer that I hope will offer some fair, balanced recommendations. It is also my hope, however, that the President's Commission look to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as a touchstone as they complete their work. The bill is the product of nearly a decade's worth of work on postal reform in the House of Representatives led by Congressman John McHugh from New York and is based in large part on legislation Congressman McHugh introduced towards the end of the 107th Congress. While I cannot claim that the McHugh bill had unanimous support, it did draw the support of most postal employees, much of the mailing industry and the Postal Service's Board of Governors.

When Treasury Department Under Secretary Peter Fisher addressed the President's Commission at its first meeting, he stated that everything was on the table and that the Commission's findings were not predetermined. I know there is some concern that the Commission will recommend privatization, and that this was the idea from the beginning. I will admit that I initially shared these feelings but, based on what I have heard about the Commission's deliberations, they appear on track to develop a reasonable set of recommendations. That said, I urge them to take careful consideration of the work Congress has done on postal reform in the past. Radical reforms undertaken at a number of foreign posts in recent years should teach us a lesson

about going too far. When the British deregulated Royal Mail, service began to suffer dramatically. When the New Zealand Post Office was privatized, universal service was eliminated and customers in rural areas were forced to pay for delivery. When Argentina privatized its Postal Authority, the new private entity went bankrupt even before the country's economic crisis began. We cannot afford to gamble with similar reforms at the Postal Service.

I look forward to working with Chairman Collins, the Governmental Affairs Committee and all of my colleagues in passing comprehensive postal reform this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that makes the reforms necessary for the Postal Service to thrive in the 21st Century and to better serve the American people.

The Postal Service has, for the most part, operated in the same manner for more than thirty years. In the early 1970s, Senator Stevens and others led the effort in the Senate to create the Postal Service out of the failing Post Office Department. At the time, the Post Office Department received about 20 percent of its revenue from taxpayer subsidies. The service it provided was suffering and there was little money available to expand. By all accounts, the product of Senator Stevens' labors, the Postal Reorganization Act signed into law by President Nixon in 1971, has been a phenomenal success. The Postal Service today receives virtually no taxpayer support and the service its hundreds of thousands of employees provide to every American, every day is second to none. More than thirty years later, the Postal Service now delivers to 141 million addresses each day and is the anchor of a $900 billion mailing industry.

All that said, the Postal Service is clearly in need of modernization once again. When it started out in 1971, nobody had access to fax machines, cell phones and pagers and nobody imagined that we would ever enjoy conveniences like e-mail and electronic bill pay. After decades of success, electronic diversion of mail volume coupled with economic recession and terrorism have made for some rough going at the Postal Service in recent years. In 2001, as Postmaster General Potter assumed his position, the Postal Service was projecting its third consecutive year of deficits. They lost $199 million in fiscal year 2000 and $1.68 billion in fiscal year 2001. They were projecting losses of up to $4 billion in fiscal year 2002. Mail volume was falling, revenues were below projections and the Postal Service was estimating that it needed to spend $4 billion on security enhancements in order to prevent a repeat of the tragic anthrax attacks that took several lives. The Postal Service was also perilously close to its $15 billion debt ceiling and had been forced to raise rates three times in less than two years in order to pay for its operations, further eroding mail volume.

In recent months, however, the Postal Service's short-term financial outlook has improved. Under General Potter's strong leadership, Postal Service management cut a total of $2.9 billion in costs fiscal year 2002. They did this mostly by eliminating 23,000 positions, mostly through attrition. This included 800 management positions at postal headquarters in Washington and 2,000 administrative positions in regional offices. They also continued their drive to further automate their processing operations, most notably in the area of flats processing. They have continued their construction freeze and ended their self-imposed ban on post office closings, resulting in the closing of dozens of post offices across the country.

Most dramatically, the Postal Service learned in 2002 that an unfunded pension liability they once believed was as high as $32 billion was actually $5 billion. My friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, and I responded with legislation, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act, signed into law by President Bush last month, which cuts the amount the Postal Service must pay into the Civil Service Retirement System each year by nearly $3 billion. This will free up money for debt reduction and prevent the need for another rate increase until at least 2006.

Aggressive cost cutting and the lower pension payment, then, have put off the emergency that would have come if the Postal Service had reached their debt limit. Cost cutting can only go so far, however, and will not solve the Postal Service's long-term problems. It could actually hurt service. The Postal Service continues to add about 1.7 million new delivery points each year, creating the need for thousands of new routes and thousands of new letter carriers to work them. In addition, faster-

growing parts of the country will need new or expanded postal facilities in the coming years. Even if the economy recovers soon and the Postal Service begins to see volume and revenues improve, we will still need to make the fundamental reforms necessary to make the Postal Service as successful in the 21st Century as it was in the 20th Century.

As more and more customers turn to electronic forms of communication, letter carriers are bringing fewer and fewer pieces of mail to each address they serve. The rate increases that will be needed to maintain the Postal Service's current infrastructure, finance retirement obligations to its current employees, pay for new letter carriers and build facilities in growing parts of the country will only further erode mail volume. The Postal Service has been trying to improve on its own. They are making progress, but there is only so much they can do on their own.

That is where my bill comes in. First, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act begins the process of developing a modern rate system for pricing Postal Service products. The new rate system, to be developed by a strengthened Postal Rate Commission, re-named the Postal Regulatory Commission, would allow retained earnings, provide the Postal Service more flexibility in setting prices and streamline today's burdensome ratemaking process. It would also allow rates to be increased on an expedited basis during crises like a sharp spike in fuel prices and require that the Regulatory Commission develop a ``phased rate'' schedule whereby rate increases would be phased in gradually over a period of time.

In addition, the new rate system authorized through my bill will allow the Postal Service to negotiate service agreements with individual mailers. The Postal Rate Commission recently approved a service agreement the Postal Service negotiated with Capital One, but the process for considering the agreement took almost a year and the Postal Service's authority to enter into agreements is not clearly spelled out in law. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act allows the Postal Service to enter into agreements if the revenue generated from them covers all costs attributable to the Postal Service and results in a greater contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs. No agreement would be permitted if it resulted in higher rates for any other mailer or prohibited any similarly situated mailer from negotiating a similar agreement.

Second, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act requires the Postal Regulatory Commission to set strong service standards for the Postal Service's Market Dominant products, a category made up mostly of those products, like First Class Mail, that are part of the postal monopoly. The Postal Service currently sets its own service standards, which allows them to pursue efforts like the elimination of Saturday delivery, a proposal floated two years ago. The new standards set by the Commission will aim to improve service and will be used by the Postal Service to establish performance goals and to rationalize their physical infrastructure. Once the standards are established, the Postal Service will recommend a list of facilities that can be closed or consolidated without hindering their ability to meet the standards. A new commission, called the Postal Network Modernization Commission, would then study the Postal Service's recommendations. The closings and consolidations recommended by this commission would be carried out, subject to approval by the President, unless Congress passed a resolution disapproving them.

Third, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act ensures that the Postal Service competes fairly. The bill prohibits the Postal Service from issuing anti-competitive regulations and makes the State Department, instead of the Postal Service, responsible for setting U.S. foreign policy on mailing issues. It also subjects the Postal Service to State zoning, planning and land use laws, requires them to pay an assumed Federal income tax on products like packages and Express Mail that private firms also offer and requires that these products as a whole pay their share of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

Fourth, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act improves Postal Service accountability, mostly by strengthening oversight. Qualifications for membership on the Regulatory Commission would be stronger than those for the Rate Commission so that Commissioners would have a background in finance or economics. Commissioners would also have the power to demand information from the Postal Service, including by subpoena, and have the power to punish them for violating rate and service regulations. In addition, the Commission will make an annual determination as to whether the Postal Service is in compliance with rate law and meeting service standards and will have the power to punish them for any transgressions.

Finally, and most importantly, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act preserves universal service and forces the Postal Service to concentrate solely on what they do best--processing and delivering the mail to all Americans. The bill for the first time limits the Postal Service to providing ``postal services,'' meaning they would be prohibited from engaging in other lines of business, such as e-commerce, that draw time and resources away from letter and package delivery. It also explicitly preserves the requirement that the Postal Service ``bind the Nation together through the mail'' and serve all parts of the country, urban, suburban and rural, in a non- discriminatory fashion. Any service standards established by the Postal Regulatory Commission will continue to ensure delivery to every address, every day. In addition, the bill maintains the prohibition on closing post offices solely because they operate at a deficit, ensuring that rural and urban customers continue to enjoy full access to retail postal services.

One thing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act does not do, is blame postal employees for the Postal Service's problems. The bill preserves collective bargaining and does nothing that would harm postal employees' pay or benefits.

Another thing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act does not do is privatize or downsize the Postal Service. The bill preserves the Postal Service's monopoly along with its sole access to the mailbox. While it could result in the closing of some postal facilities, the process I have laid out in the bill is completely driven by the service standards established by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Nothing will be closed for the sake of being closed. Instead, the bill encourages the Postal Service to find ways to improve customer access to retail services through things like vending machines or post offices located in grocery stores or pharmacies.

As my colleagues are aware, President Bush last year announced the creation of the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service, which is expected to release a set of postal reform proposals this summer that I hope will offer some fair, balanced recommendations. It is also my hope, however, that the President's Commission look to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as a touchstone as they complete their work. The bill is the product of nearly a decade's worth of work on postal reform in the House of Representatives led by Congressman John McHugh from New York and is based in large part on legislation Congressman McHugh introduced towards the end of the 107th Congress. While I cannot claim that the McHugh bill had unanimous support, it did draw the support of most postal employees, much of the mailing industry and the Postal Service's Board of Governors.

When Treasury Department Under Secretary Peter Fisher addressed the President's Commission at its first meeting, he stated that everything was on the table and that the Commission's findings were not predetermined. I know there is some concern that the Commission will recommend privatization, and that this was the idea from the beginning. I will admit that I initially shared these feelings but, based on what I have heard about the Commission's deliberations, they appear on track to develop a reasonable set of recommendations. That said, I urge them to take careful consideration of the work Congress has done on postal reform in the past. Radical reforms undertaken at a number of foreign posts in recent years should teach us a lesson

about going too far. When the British deregulated Royal Mail, service began to suffer dramatically. When the New Zealand Post Office was privatized, universal service was eliminated and customers in rural areas were forced to pay for delivery. When Argentina privatized its Postal Authority, the new private entity went bankrupt even before the country's economic crisis began. We cannot afford to gamble with similar reforms at the Postal Service.

I look forward to working with Chairman Collins, the Governmental Affairs Committee and all of my colleagues in passing comprehensive postal reform this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 88th anniversary of the Asbestos Workers Local No. 42. The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and the Local 42 have fought for better working conditions, health protection, employee rights, and to garner better wages for their members. They should be recognized for the work that they do.

The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union dates back to the late 1800s and the emergence of steam power. The expanded use of steam power during this era had a profound effect on the industrial sector leading to better heated and more efficient factories and plants, improved working conditions, and the creation of thousands of new manufacturing jobs.

The widespread use of steam power also created an entirely new industry--the insulation industry. Skilled insulation mechanics were needed to insulate steam boilers in an effort to conserve the precious energy being piped to residential and industrial facilities. The insulation mechanics who provided this craftsmanship worked almost totally without organized representation. By the end of the 19th century, a few localized associations attempted to look after the interests of their members in specific cities.

The first attempt to form a national bond between insulators associations came in 1900, when the Salamander Association of New York sent out an appeal to related crafts in other cities to form a ``National Organization of Pipe and Boiler Covers.'' The initial appeal did spark interest, and 2 years later a much more decisive action was taken by the officers and members of the Pipe Cover's Union, of St. Louis, MO.

The St. Louis group sent out an announcement that it had affiliated with the National Building Trades Council of America, and invited other pipe coverer unions and related trades to join with them in the pursuit of better working conditions, pay that was commensurate with their skills, and the strength that comes from unity. The first appeal of unity was sent to targeted cities where other asbestos workers already were enjoying the benefits of union affiliation such as New York, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit. In all, seven local unions from around the Nation responded favorably, and the hard work of laying the foundation for an international union was begun.

With the St. Louis union leading the way, the interested locals met for their first convention on July 7, 1903, in the city of St. Louis. The results of that inaugural convention were impressive; a constitution was drafted and approved; bylaws were adopted; the first president was elected, Thomas Kennedy from Chicago; and a formal name was adopted, the National Association of Heat, Frost and General Insulators and Asbestos Workers of America. On September 22, 1903, the American Federation of Labor issued an official charter designating the Asbestos Workers as a national union.

The goals of the new International Union were spelled out in the charter: ``The object of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers shall be to assist its membership in securing employment, to defend their rights, and advance their interests as working men; and by education and cooperation raise them to that position in society to which they are justly entitled.'' Since that time, leaders of the International Union took this objective to grow this small group of local unions to over 120 local unions and a membership in excess of 20,000.

On July 16, 1915, General President Joseph Mullaney organized and delivered Local Charter No. 42 to the Wilmington, DE, Asbestos Workers. Temporary officers were elected and on July 26, 1915, forty permanent officers were elected. Mr. R.E. Mahan was elected as president and N.K. Whaler was elected as secretary. Meetings were held at the Irish- American Hall on French Street every Monday. Local No. 42 began with just thirty members in 1915, with wages averaging $0.32 per hour.

After World War II, the International Union's growth and prosperity was tempered by frightening new evidence that confirmed long-held suspicions by the International Union's leadership. Workers who were exposed to asbestos died in disproportionate numbers from cancer. Since this evidence was proven, the union has fought for passage of new safety and health laws to help protect its members as well as the public. The Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of asbestos in the insulation industry in the United States. It has also been banned from use in many other products as well. The International Union continues to provide its members with education and training with the latest state-of-the-art work practices in the handling of any and all materials used in the industry.

Since 1915, Local No. 42 has grown to include some 130 active members and approximately 100 retired members. Today, the president, Jeff Smith, helps lead the way in protecting asbestos workers' rights as well as their health.

Through its long and proud history, the Asbestos Workers International Union and Local No. 42 have never shied away from adversity or allowed negative factors to impede the achievement of those admirable goals set out in the international charter of 1910. Through the determination and commitment of their leaders and members, the International Union and Local #42 continues to strive for employment opportunities, equality in the work place, continuing education, and the safety and well being of the membership.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that greatly improves the method currently used to distribute much-needed first responder aid.

When my colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee worked last year under Senator Lieberman's leadership to create the Department of Homeland Security, we all hoped that what we were setting up would help the Federal Government be better able to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. As of March 1st of this year, we have in place the skeleton of an organization that aims to pull together under one roof information on threats and vulnerabilities and use that information to improve security and prepare first responders.

As I've pointed out a number of times, however, no matter how well Secretary Ridge does his work on the Federal level, we will not be much safer than we were on September 10, 2001 unless our first responders are better prepared to do their work on the local level. While homeland security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally important that the Federal Government does its part to provide each State and its first responders with the assistance necessary to ensure that the citizens they serve are adequately protected. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act is an important step toward making this happen.

Today, States, localities and first responders can receive Federal assistance from a number of different aid programs administered by several different agencies. All of the programs serve different purposes and require different applications. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act sets up a process to streamline these programs to allow them to work well together and avoid imposing redundant or duplicative requirements on applicants. The aim is not to eliminate programs, but to ensure that existing homeland security and homeland security-related grant programs are well coordinated and impose as small an administrative burden on applicants as possible.

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also creates a ``one-stop shop'' for grant information within the Department of Homeland Security by moving the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with administering the current state homeland security grant program, from the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security to the Office for State and Local Government Coordination. In its new location, ODP will operate a ``clearinghouse'' for grant information that would offer services such as a toll-free hotline and a list of recommended first responder equipment. ODP will also maintain a compilation of ``best practices'' made up of successful homeland security programs from across the country and offer states technical assistance in developing the terrorism risk assessments that will be a part of the new State grant program.

Most importantly, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also makes key improvements to the formula for distributing first responder aid among the States. The new formula maintains the requirement that all money go to State governments and that 80 percent of that money be passed through to cities and localities. It also maintains the current small state minimum in which each State receives an equal share of 40 percent of funds made available for state grants. It makes a major improvement, however, by dividing the remaining 60 percent of the money among the states according to an analysis of potential threats in each State.

The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores the fact that Delaware, though small in population, is located in the Northeast midway between New York and Washington. It ignores the fact that Delaware is home to a major port, oil refineries and chemical plants. It ignores the fact that Delaware every day hosts scores of ships, trains and trucks on their way to destinations up and down the East Coast. It also ignores the fact that Delaware is home to the Dover Air Force Base, a facility that played a crucial role in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with densely populated urban areas, enough resources to protect their larger populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government should be working to bring every state and locality to the point where they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. I am concerned that the current formula, based mostly on population does not prepare all States adequately.

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act still requires that population be taken into account when distributing first responder aid. However, it adds the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security also account for threats and risk to critical infrastructure identified in State risk assessments that would be submitted to the department as part of the grant application process. The bill also ensures that all localities within States get their fair share of money by requiring that local leaders be included in the planning and application process in each state and that the distribution method a given state will use once it receives its money is approved by the department before a check is cut.

Finally, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act gives states new flexibility in spending their first responder aid by incorporating provisions from S. 838, legislation Ms. Collins and I introduced in April. That bill allows States to apply for a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security so that they can move their first responder aid around between the four categories--equipment, training, exercises and planning--in which it is sent to them. This change will allow States to better meet needs identified in their State terrorism response plans.

I applaud the Senator from Maine for her leadership on these important issues. I look forward to working with her and all of my colleagues in getting this important legislation passed and signed into law as soon as possible.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, an hour from now, we will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment pertaining to whether or not we go forward on the process called BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Act. For the last 20 years, we have debated in the House and the Senate, and around the country, whether or not we should take a look at our military bases--Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine--to determine whether or not we have the right bases with the right mix of personnel with the appropriate aircraft, ships, and tanks, and decide whether the men, women, equipment, and materiel are where the bases are. We might have some bases that need to be closed, or perhaps we have some bases where we simply need to move men, women, equipment, and materiel to some other base where it makes more sense to maintain them.

Over the last month or two, we have debated our budget at some length. Today we find ourselves in a deplorable situation with respect to our budget deficit. Two or three years ago, we enjoyed the largest surplus in our Nation's history. This year we are looking at what might be the largest budget deficit that we will have ever had.

I, for one--and I know I have many colleagues who feel this way, too--do not worship at the altar of a balanced budget, but I sure care about getting closer to a more balanced budget. When I was Governor of Delaware, we cut taxes 7 out of 8 years. We also balanced the budget in 8 straight years.

One of the things I found troubling about the tax cuts Congress just passed is that we do not come close to balancing the budget this year, next year, or for the next 10 years. That is a problem for our country. But we have taken the action that we are going to take with respect to taxes, and now, over the next several months, we will be turning to the 13 appropriations bills.

About a year ago, when we were discussing military spending, we had the opportunity to decide whether or not we wanted to take another close look at our military base structure, largely in this country but also outside this country, to see if we have it right: if we have the bases, the personnel, the weaponry, and the military equipment where we need it in the 21st century. There is some reason to believe we do not. The wars we have just fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were different from the one in which I served in southeast Asia. Subsequently, the wars of the 21st century--I hope there are none, but history would suggest that there probably will be--those wars are going to be different from the ones we had in the last century.

Our military leadership tells us in this administration, just as they did in the last administration, and as they did during the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations, that from time to time we need to look at our base structure and determine whether or not it is appropriate for the threats we face. I, for one, believe it is time to take another look at where we have our bases, how they are structured, and how they are manned.

To the extent we find bases that ought to be closed, for they simply do not have the personnel to support or the missions to demand that kind of infrastructure, then we ought to have the political courage, as difficult as it is, to close them.

We have a whole lot at stake in my State. The largest employer in the central and southern part of my State is Dover Air Force Base. It is a great base, with a great reputation. We would like to think they are immune from the threat BRAC might pose, but I suppose one never knows. We have worked hard, and people on the base work hard, to make sure they will never be on a short list for BRAC.

I spent about 5 years on active duty and another 18 years in the Reserves as a naval flight officer. I have been stationed at any number of bases which, frankly, ought to be closed, if one looks at the people who were assigned to a particular base. Large bases with plenty of hangar space, plenty of space in the exchange and the other parts of the base, but not many people. I have been on other bases where they may have had the people who were stationed there but they did not have the support, whether it was the child development centers, schools, or other services for families.

This is not a bad time, as we face the threats of this century to our country, to look at the kind of military we are trying to shape.

Much is said of this administration's effort, led by Secretary Rumsfeld, to reshape and reform our military. Actually, a lot of the changes were undertaken in the last administration under the leadership of President Clinton and his Department of Defense Secretaries.

We want a military that is leaner in terms of personnel. We want a military that is better trained, better equipped, and better uses technology. We want a military that is able to deploy more quickly to trouble spots around the world. The threat we face, as we all know, is different today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. A lot different.

That also suggests to me this is a good time to slow down, to take stock, to assess where we have our men and women and materiels stationed around this country and the world and ask ourselves, does this allocation make sense? In many cases, it will; in some cases, it will not.

When we talk about budget deficits and bemoan the fact we have this huge budget deficit today, I don't want to hear from the administration, well, there is one thing we could have done to help whittle down that budget deficit a little bit without threatening our ability to defend ourselves or express our strength and extend our military strength around the world. I don't want it said that we undid what we agreed to do a year or two ago. I hope when we vote in less than an hour that we will support the position we took last year, we will let this commission be formed, we will let them do their work, and we will provide plenty of input to the commission as they do their work in our respective States, and in the end have an opportunity for an up- or-down vote on whether or not the status quo is just fine--I think it is not--or whether some changes are needed. Fair, reasonable, pragmatic changes are needed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, It is with a heavy heart that I request a few moments today to reflect on the life of Army SP Ryan P. Long. In life, Ryan epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who fought to free the Iraqi people. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life--and how we remember him--Ryan reminds each of us how good we can be.

Following in the footsteps of his father, grandfather and great- grandfather, Ryan joined the Army in September of 1999. He was stationed at Fort Benning, GA with the A Company 3rd Battalion-75th Ranger Regiment and was assigned to a special operations unit working in Iraq. He was on his third overseas deployment with the Ranger battalion.

A lifelong resident of Seaford, DE, Ryan's passing has deeply affected the Sussex County community. Ryan was a remarkable and well- respected young man. His friends and family remember him as an honorable man with a free spirit. Ryan attended Seaford Elementary School and was a 1999 graduate of Seaford High School. Fun-loving and outgoing, he played on the soccer and golf teams and served as vice- commander of the Navy Junior ROTC program at Seaford High School. He was also actively involved in his Catholic church. In addition, Ryan enjoyed riding his motorcycles, snowboarding, and listening to music.

I rise today to commemorate Ryan, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support. Ryan dedicated his life to serving our country and gave his life defending its values.

In Memoriam of Marine Sergeant Brian McGinnis

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis. Brian epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life--and how we remember him--Brian reminds each of us how good we can be.

A Delawarean who dreamed of becoming a marine from a young age, he wrote on his application to Caravel Academy that he wanted to attend the U.S. Naval Academy and become a Navy pilot. Brian's dream came true in 1998 in many respects when he joined the Marines. He subsequently was assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169 based out of Marine Corps Air Station at Camp Pendleton, CA.

Raised in St. Georges, DE, and in neighboring New Jersey, Brian attended Caravel Academy and graduated from William Penn High School in 1997. There he was a star wrestler and football player. It was at William Penn that he met his wife of 4 years, Megan Mahoney McGinnis. Megan describes her husband as a great person with a good heart--``the best there was!''

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

Mr. President, I express my gratitude to Senator Feingold and join with him and Senators Cantwell and Feinstein in offering this amendment today.

The budget enforcement requirements first established in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 were important factors in the successful bipartisan effort over the course of the 1990s to bring our Federal budget deficit under control.

At a time now when our deficit is again growing rapidly, it is most unfortunate that these budgetary constraints have been allowed to lapse.

One of the most important of the 1990 controls was the so-called pay- go law. The pay-go law requires the Congress to live under the same constraints as most typical American families.

American families--at least most of us--understand very well that if they want to spend more lavishly, they must find some way to bring in more income. Similarly, if one parent decides to leave the workforce to stay at home, then the family must find a way to make do with less.

Put simply, pay-go required that we acknowledge these same simple realities of life. It required the Congress come up with the revenues to pay for any new entitlement spending or else find ways to accommodate that new spending by tightening our belts somewhere else. It required that should Congress decide to reduce the revenues we use to pay for Federal spending, either we have to cut the spending those revenues financed or else find new revenues to pay for that same spending.

The purpose of pay-go is to prevent Congress and the President from running up the bill on our Nation's credit card, which is exactly what we are doing today, to the tune of nearly $1 trillion.

The pay-go law expired last fall, as Senator Feingold has said, as did the discretionary spending caps that were also part of the successful formula that brought the deficit under control by the end of the 1990s.

A related pay-go rule that we had here in the Senate was extended until this April 15. It was then replaced with new rules that are widely acknowledged to be weak and porous. The statutory pay-go requirement--the legally binding requirement--has not been renewed at all. This is a serious mistake.

We cannot undo today all the actions over the last 2 years that have led us to the point we are, but here we are preparing to raise the ceiling on the Federal debt by nearly $1 trillion. Today alone, we will pay $1 billion in interest on our national debt--not on debt service, not on principal payment--just on interest, $1 billion today alone.

By this time next year, some 20 cents of every revenue dollar we collect for the Federal Treasury will go to pay just for interest alone--20 cents of every dollar just to pay for interest alone.

While we cannot today retrace the steps that we need to, to ensure that all those wrongs will be righted, we can take a step to ensure that we will not be back here in a few months or a year to charge lavishly on the Nation's credit card once again.

Senators Feingold, Cantwell, Feinstein, and myself are proposing a first step in that direction--restoring one of the most important constraints that helped instill fiscal discipline in this place in the 1990s.

I hope our colleagues will join us and support this amendment.

I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership and for yielding time to me.