Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield?

I just want 1 minute, if I could.

Mr. President, on the issue the Senator raises in relation to the bankruptcy legislation, I make a point of clarification. This is an issue I care about as much as the Senator from Alabama. The language that died, after having been reported out to the conference committee, was language that said when a person commits a violent act for which they are convicted and fined, they cannot discharge that fine in a court of bankruptcy.

It does not say anything about abortion. It does not say anything about abortion clinics. It says if you have been convicted of a violent act, you cannot go to a court of bankruptcy and discharge that claim for which you have been convicted and fined. That is what it said.

I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. President, in considering the military priorities of our country, we are addressing one of the most important challenges facing our Nation and its Government. That challenge is to transform America's military to meet the threats of this century the 21st century, and to do so in an environment of increasingly severe budgetary constraints.

The spectrum of potential conflict in which America could find itself engaged over the coming years is practically limitless. From fighting major regional powers to pursuing shadowy bands of terrorists, the missions our military must be ready to perform are many, and they are varied.

Unfortunately, the resources available to us in preparing to meet these challenges are not without limit.

What was the largest surplus in the history of this Government just 2 short years ago has given way to the largest deficit in our Nation's history. And this has happened at a time when the demands on the Federal budget are growing and will continue to grow.

Recent reports out of Iraq indicate that the task of post-war reconstruction will be neither easy nor cheap. Recent events in Saudi Arabia and Morocco indicate that the war on terrorism may still be in its infancy.

There are also domestic priorities that demand attention. The bipartisan education reform initiative passed in the first year of the President's term has yet to be fully funded. There is a growing recognition that our health care system is fraying at the seams. And the baby boomers, my generation, are marching toward retirement. When they get there, it will place unprecedented strains on Social Security and Medicare.

Our present course is not sustainable. We will soon be asked to raise the ceiling on the national debt by nearly $1 trillion. At the same time, the administration is projecting that within 5 years funding for defense will rise to more than 20 percent above cold-war levels. Even at that high level, moreover, it is doubtful that the defense budget could accommodate the full cost of the administration's plans as they currently stand.

This is our dilemma. We cannot afford to forego military transformation. The threats to our security are simply too great. But neither can we afford to proceed without consideration to cost. After all, it is our quality of life that the military is charged with defending. It is that same quality of life that will eventually begin to erode in the absence of a sense of fiscal balance.

What I want to talk about for a few minutes this evening is one of the central components of military transformation. I want to talk both about its importance and about some of the choices we can make to address our security requirements in this area in a cost-effective manner.

Strategic airlift will be one of the cornerstones of successful military transformation. The imperative to transform our military is driven by the necessity to project force faster, with

greater precision, and over greater distances. As President Bush stated in his commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy in May 2001, America's future force will be ``defined less by size and more by mobility and swiftness.''

In the wake of the cold war, the United States has closed two-thirds of its forward operating bases. Yet the four services are all in the process of speeding up the timeframe in which they expect to deploy troops and equipment to the far corners of the globe.

The Army's stated goal, for example, is to deploy an Interim Brigade Combat Team--complete with 3,500 personnel, 327 armored vehicles, 600 wheeled vehicles, air defense weapons, artillery, and engineering equipment--anywhere in the world within 96 hours. Airlift is the only means to accomplish this objective.

In March 2001, the Joint Chiefs of Staff completed a review of our Nation's strategic airlift requirement. This study was completed before September 11 and all that has flowed from that terrible day. Still, the conclusion of that study was that the Nation's airlift requirement had risen 10 percent sine the last study was conducted just 5 years before.

Many believe that the changed security environment post-September 11 has actually increased our strategic airlift requirement still farther. We are requesting, as part of this bill, that a new review of the strategic airlift requirement going forward be conducted. We expect that what we will find is that the airlift requirement is higher than the 54.5 million ton miles per day specified before September 11.

Regardless of whether the requirement has risen or not, however, the fact remains that our present capacity falls short of the requirement as it was spelled out just 2 years ago. The question we must answer, therefore, is how will we maintain and how will we build a strategic airlift fleet that will meet the relevant requirement and do so without busting our budget even more. In other words, how do we provide cost- effective strategic airlift for the 21st century?

Some of the Air Force have launched a campaign to retire more than half of the Air Force's C-5 fleet over the next few years, specifically those that date back to the 1970s, the C-5As. Maintenance problems, particularly engine problems, have plagued the C-5As for years. The solution for some in the Air Force is to simply get rid of them and to rely primarily on the procurement of new aircraft to meet our growing strategic airlift requirement.

In order to meet the new, higher requirement for strategic airlift in the 21st century, we will certainly need to purchase new aircraft. The Air Force is currently in the process of purchasing some 180 new C-17s. I support this purchase. The C-17 is an excellent aircraft, and we are excited that a squadron of 12 C-17 cargo aircraft will be stationed at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware beginning in 2008.

Having said that, sending more than half of our Nation's C-5 fleet to the ``boneyard'' makes no sense. The C-5 is, and will continue to be, the workhorse of American airlift. The C-5 completed nearly 5,000 sorties during the recent Iraq war and delivered nearly half of the cargo and troops into combat.

Moreover, a balance of C-5s and C-17s offers the Air Force an advantageous mix of complementary capabilities. The C-5 can carry more, and can carry farther. The C-17 is more maneuverable on the ground. During the war in Afghanistan, much of the cargo was flown from the continental United States to Europe in large loads aboard C-5s. The cargo was then broken down into smaller loads and flown into theatre by C-17s.

As a former naval flight officer who has known firsthand the frustration of naval aircraft that had a propensity to break down, I can empathize with the frustration that some in the Air Force feel with respect to the C-5As chronically low mission-capable rates. But scrapping the entire platform is not the answer.

The wings and the fuselages of both the C-5As and the C-5Bs have useful lives--listen to this--of another 30 to 40 years. For the cost of purchasing a single new C-17 cargo aircraft, three C-5s can be outfitted with reliable new engines, modern hydraulics systems, and landing gear components, plus a new avionics package and radios that will bring C-5 cockpits into the 21st century.

All of these upgrades are off the shelf. They are readily available, and they are capable of bringing the mission capable rates of the C-5s in line with those of the C-17s.

Given the fact that one C-5 can haul 80 percent more cargo than one C-17, the same dollar invested in modernizing C-5s produces more than five times the airlift capacity of the same dollar invested in the purchase of new C-17 aircraft.

A strategic airlift fleet with a full complement of C-5s and C-17s offers the best of all worlds. Retaining the enormous cargo capacity of our C-5s, both As and Bs, will make it easier to achieve the full airlift requirement of our Armed Forces in the 21st century. Maintaining a healthy balance of C-5s and C-17s will offer the Air Force maximal operational flexibility. And taking full advantage of the cost savings that comes from modernizing, as opposed to scrapping, the C-5As will free-up resources to meet other Air Force priorities and reduce our Federal deficit over the long run.

Choices that are more cost-effective by ratios of 5-to-1 are precisely the kinds of choices we ought to be interested in making as we seek to transform our military without burying our children in red ink.

I want to take a moment, in closing, to thank a number of members of the Armed Services Committee. I particularly thank Senators Warner, Levin, Kennedy, and Talent for the work they have done to ensure that we continue to capitalize on the contribution that the C-5 can make to cost-effective strategic airlift in the 21st century. Besides calling on the Air Mobility Command to look again at our Nation's airlift requirement, this bill keeps C-5 modernization on track. In particular, it specifies that 18 C-5Bs and 12 C-5As will be revamped with modern avionics in fiscal year 2004.

This is a win--a win for our fighting men and women, and it is a win for the American taxpayer.

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

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

Sonide Blanchard of Seaford and Jeffery Lawson of Newark have been selected as Delaware's top youth volunteers for 2003. As State Honorees, each received a $1,000 award, an engraved silver medallion and a trip to Washington, DC from May 3, 2003 to May 6, 2003 for the program's national recognition events. I am proud that they represented the State of Delaware.

Seventeen-year-old Sonide, a senior at Seaford High School, devotes a significant amount of her time to tutoring Haitian students in the English as a Second Language, ESL, program at her school. She also serves as a translator for both students and adults. When she was younger, Sonide began translating for her mother and realized how much that helped her. She soon was translating for people throughout the Haitian community. ``I feel that I am helping the community rise, and I am helping the Haitian people adapt to a new culture,'' she said. Later, she was inspired by her French teacher not only to translate, but to tutor other students as well. She now spends 2 hours a day working with ESL students to help them succeed in school despite their limited English skills. Dedication and a strong sense of responsibility have been key to her accomplishments.

Jeffrey Lawson, a 13-year-old seventh grader at St. Edmonds Academy in Wilmington, is a peer mentor to second-grade children who are in special education. He also volunteers with the Delaware Special Olympics. While attending elementary school, Jeffrey volunteered in a special education class by reading books to students and giving up his recess time to mentor the children. After Jeffrey transferred to a private school, he missed the kids with whom he had worked and decided to go back and volunteer. Jeffrey was able to volunteer 20 days last year. ``Volunteering is important because it teaches kindness and good citizenship,'' said Jeffrey. He receives much of his inspiration from the children he mentors.

Today, I rise to congratulate Sonide and Jeffrey. These two youngsters are fine examples of community spirit and leadership. They serve as role models not only to their peers, but to all of us, as well as to the people they've touched through community service.

Reserving the right to object, if the Senator will defer for just a moment? I ask unanimous consent to make a brief statement, maybe 1 minute.

Mr. President, early this morning the train I was traveling on from Wilmington to Washington experienced mechanical difficulties causing us to arrive at Union Station more than one-half hour late. As a result, I missed maybe my second or third vote in the U.S. Senate. I missed the vote on the Resolution of Ratification of the NATO expansion treaty. Had I been here I would have voted yes.

I ask unanimous consent the Record reflect my reasons for missing the vote and how I would have voted had I been here.

Mr. President, this May, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People... The Citizen and the Constitution program. It is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I am proud to announce that a class from Smyrna High School will represent the State of Delaware in this national event. These students, with the leadership of their teacher Marc Deisem, have worked diligently to reach the national finals. Through their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy.

This 3-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe their depth of understanding and ability to apply their knowledge.

Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People... program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. The program affords students a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government.

It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the principles of our Government. These principles identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation. It is important for our next generation to understand the values and principles that serve as the foundation in our ongoing effort to preserve and realize the promise of democracy.

These students from Smyrna High School are currently conducting research and preparing for their upcoming participation in the national competition in Washington, DC. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People... national finals. They represent the future of our State and Nation, and they give us cause for great hope as we look to the future.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senator Lincoln and Senator Hutchison for making sure we had this opportunity again today to remember those who are serving and their families who are here supporting them and pulling for them and praying for them.

The video from the other side of the world--the visual images from the other side of the world over the last 24 hours are extraordinary to us all and, for the most part, they are encouraging. While many of us are troubled by the scenes of looting that occurred in parts of Baghdad yesterday, we will remember for many years the scene of the jubilation where people were realizing a time of oppression in their lives was coming to an end when the prospect for greater personal freedoms and liberties was denied. I know not everybody in this country and in this body supported the notion of our engaging in an armed conflict with Iraq at this time. We all, regardless of how we felt as we approached the day of decision, celebrate how well and effectively our men and women have served in that conflict. We regret the loss of life in that conflict.

I want to talk about two young men from my State for whom the last respects will be paid this Saturday as we lay them to rest. Before I do that, I was privileged to be Governor of Delaware for 8 years. One of the things I liked most about being Governor was, as an old Navy officer, they let me be chief of the Delaware Army National Guard. In the last several months, we have had the opportunity to send off unit after unit within the Delaware National Guard, to be mobilized and, in many cases, deployed and, in some cases, closer to home and, in other cases, to be sent to the other side of the world. I want to mention some of the work those men and women are doing. Some of them fly C-130 aircraft, which are part of the air bridge between America and the Middle East. The beginning of the air bridge, in many cases, is a C-5-- we fly those out of Dover Air Force Base--which is the largest cargo aircraft in the world. They are being flown today by active-duty personnel and by the Reservists, and they fly very much as one team, one unit, literally as a wonderful, coordinated, combined team.

At the very end of the air bridge is, in many cases, the C-130s. They are flown by members of the Air National Guard out of Delaware, Alaska, Arkansas, Texas, and other States. Those men and women who are flying those, or maintaining those aircraft, or serving as military police, whether in this country or in the Middle East, and those people who are using heavy equipment, those who are providing health care--a number of those people come from my State of Delaware. They are male, female, officers, and enlisted. In many cases, they have left behind a spouse, children, their families, in order to serve us and, in some cases, they are doing so at great economic disadvantage to their families and, in some cases, at considerable danger to themselves.

We are grateful for their service. We are proud of each one of them. I say today to their family members--those who are tending the home fires and making sure the families stay together and the kids are going to school and are getting fed and clothed and all--a real special thank you for your willingness to share with us at a challenging time in our Nation your sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, and dads.

At the Dover Air Force Base, we traditionally carry a lot of the materiel and men and women who need to go around the world in support of our military actions. During the Afghanistan war, roughly 30 percent of the equipment that moved into Afghanistan in support of that conflict came through Dover Air Force Base and flew out on C-5s from there. We are continuing to carry a large part of the strategic airlift burden from Dover and places like Travis and other Air Force bases around the country.

There is another unit stationed at the Dover Air Force Base that gets probably even more attention these days than do the C-5 aircraft, and that unit is the mortuary. We hear almost every day of the remains of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, that are being returned to America and to their loved ones. En route to their loved ones, those remains come through the Dover Air Force Base and the mortuary there. I visited there last month and also in the past. While the people who work there get precious little recognition for the work they do, they do some of the toughest work of anybody in this country--military or civilian.

I stand here today and take my hat off to those men and women. Some are

active duty, some Reservists, and others have volunteered for the service. But there is no more emotionally demanding and draining work that you or I could do for our service men and women and their families. I really want to express my gratitude--and, I know, that of every Member of this body--for the work going on there at this moment.

Among the bodies that have been returned to their loved ones through that Air Force base in Dover through the mortuary are two young men, one 21 years of age from Seaford, DE, Army Ranger SP Ryan Long. Another is a young marine sergeant from New Castle, DE, who grew up in New Jersey and came to Delaware when he went to high school and married his high school sweetheart. He perished last week at the age of 23 on the other side of the world. His name is Brian McGinnis. As our Presiding Officer knows, one of the toughest tasks we do as Senators is to call families of those who have died and try to convey to them our anguish, grief, and our sympathy, and offer whatever we can to be supportive and encouraging in this tough time. As a father of two young boys myself, 13 and 14, I cannot imagine the difficulty of living with the loss of your child. Life prepares us to know that some day our grandparents will pass away, and eventually our parents, and maybe our siblings, and maybe even a spouse; but there is little in this life to prepare us to know that we are going to lose a child.

In this case, the Long family and the McGinnis family have lost their sons. They will be laid to rest this Saturday in the First State, Delaware.

I wish to mention the service of each of them. Ryan Long comes from a family that has served in our military for generations. He is fourth generation. While at Seaford High School, he was vice commander of the junior Navy ROTC unit. He ended up joining the Army and became a ranger.

He was at a checkpoint barely a week ago in an area northwest of Baghdad. A car driven by a woman went through that checkpoint. Out of that car emerged another woman who appeared to be pregnant. She came out of the car screaming, and three Army personnel approached the car. The car exploded, and the driver, the woman who had fled from the car, and our three Army personnel, including Ryan Long, were killed. The soldiers approached that car believing there was a problem and attempted to extend a helping hand. For that, they lost their lives.

I am sorry to say that the Ryan family has lost their son. To Rudy and Donna Long--I had the privilege of speaking with the dad who is a retired major--we extend our heartfelt sympathy.

Seaford is the home of the first nylon plant ever built. It is the first ever built in the world. Ryan used to play golf at the Seaford Nylon DuPont Country Club. He played on the golf team at school and did a lot of other activities in the community before he enlisted in the Army.

In the northern part of our State, there is a beautiful little town called New Castle. It has the largest high school in our State, the William Penn High School. Brian McGinnis went to William Penn High School, having grown up in New Jersey earlier in his life. At that school, Brian met a gal named Megan. He did not just meet her, he married her after school. He leaves behind a widow, a dad who lives in New Jersey, Bill Mcginnis, and a mom, Mildred Williams, who now lives in Port Charlotte, FL.

Brian was flying a helicopter. The helicopter, as we have seen too often in this war--any aircraft, whether fixed wing or rotary--crashed. He was aboard the helicopter, a Huey, and his life was lost. He will be buried this Saturday in New Castle, DE.

I send to his dad with whom I have spoken, to his mom, and to Megan, his bride, our sympathies. My office, my staff is doing whatever we can to be of help and support to them. We remember them today. We feel their anguish. Our hope is time will heal some of that pain. Again, we stand ready to provide whatever assistance and comfort we can throughout our State of Delaware to help the two families who have lost their loved ones.

I close with a comment on the war itself. Many of us have said the toughest part of the war lies ahead. There is still fighting to take place in other parts of the country that are not under allied control. The tough part of the war does lie ahead. It is not just keeping the peace and restoring order in places such as Baghdad and to stop the looting, but it is helping to build a democratic institution within a country where there are disparate groups--Shiites, Sunnis, and the Kurds in the North.

There is a history of distrust and hatred. We need to help put to bed those generations of mistrust. That is not going to be an easy job. It is not a job we and the Brits should assume. This is a job which others should join in fulfilling, tackling, and also paying. We should welcome their involvement.

Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have not consumed.

Mr. President, today along with Senators Lincoln Chafee and Judd Gregg, I am introducing comprehensive legislation to reduce harmful emissions from our Nation's power plants. Developed after extensive input from electric generators who would be affected by such legislation, leaders in the environmental community, and State and local regulators who will enforce any new requirements, the Clean Air Planning Act is a balanced approach to a difficult challenge.

The Clean Air Planning Act takes a market-based approach that would aggressively reduce electric power generators' emissions of sulfur dioxide, SO2, by 80 percent, nitrogen oxides, NOX, by 69 percent, mercury by 80 percent, and return carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions to 2001 levels within a decade. It provides planning and regulatory certainty to electric generators who would be required to achieve these regulations.

The negative public health and environmental impacts of SO2, NOX and mercury emissions have been well documented. While there is bipartisan agreement that emissions of these three pollutants from power plants need further control, there is disagreement over how much and how fast. The bill includes a flexible trading system that allows for attainment of the caps

in the most efficient manner and updates the new source review program to help encourage emission reductions to occur.

There is also a growing consensus that greenhouse gases such as CO2 emissions from power plants are contributing to climate change. The time has come to set up mechanisms that will address these emissions without impeding economic growth. The Clean Air Planning Act establishes modest goal of capping CO2 emissions from electrical generators at 2001 levels by 2013. Generators could meet that goal with a flexible system that allows both trading between generators and earning credits through off-system reductions of greenhouse gases.

Today, America's power plants will emit over 6 million tons of harmful emissions. They will also power the world's most productive economy. Reducing emissions while retaining affordable electricity is the goal of the Clean Air Planning Act, and I urge others to join in this effort.

In the months ahead, this clean air bill and others will be compared and debated. Opponents and supporters will be heard, but at the outset I believe we should agree on a set of guiding principles.

Four is better than three: A comprehensive four-emission strategy that includes carbon reductions provides regulatory certainty and offers the greatest environmental and economic benefits.

Markets work: Cape and trade based emission standards provide the maximum incentive to achieve cleaner power.

Stairs are better than cliffs: Prompt but gradual reductions through multi-phase or declining caps are more desirable than single phased cuts.

Eliminate redundancy: Existing regulatory programs will need some modernization in light of tight emission caps.

Clean air is a basic right all Americans deserve. The responsibility to ensure that right falls to Congress and the President. By putting our differences aside and focusing on the challenge at hand the result will be healthy citizens breathing clean air, a vibrant economy with abundant affordable electricity, and a model for the rest of the world to follow.

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

Mr. President, today along with Senators Lincoln Chafee and Judd Gregg, I am introducing comprehensive legislation to reduce harmful emissions from our Nation's power plants. Developed after extensive input from electric generators who would be affected by such legislation, leaders in the environmental community, and State and local regulators who will enforce any new requirements, the Clean Air Planning Act is a balanced approach to a difficult challenge.

The Clean Air Planning Act takes a market-based approach that would aggressively reduce electric power generators' emissions of sulfur dioxide, SO2, by 80 percent, nitrogen oxides, NOX, by 69 percent, mercury by 80 percent, and return carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions to 2001 levels within a decade. It provides planning and regulatory certainty to electric generators who would be required to achieve these regulations.

The negative public health and environmental impacts of SO2, NOX and mercury emissions have been well documented. While there is bipartisan agreement that emissions of these three pollutants from power plants need further control, there is disagreement over how much and how fast. The bill includes a flexible trading system that allows for attainment of the caps

in the most efficient manner and updates the new source review program to help encourage emission reductions to occur.

There is also a growing consensus that greenhouse gases such as CO2 emissions from power plants are contributing to climate change. The time has come to set up mechanisms that will address these emissions without impeding economic growth. The Clean Air Planning Act establishes modest goal of capping CO2 emissions from electrical generators at 2001 levels by 2013. Generators could meet that goal with a flexible system that allows both trading between generators and earning credits through off-system reductions of greenhouse gases.

Today, America's power plants will emit over 6 million tons of harmful emissions. They will also power the world's most productive economy. Reducing emissions while retaining affordable electricity is the goal of the Clean Air Planning Act, and I urge others to join in this effort.

In the months ahead, this clean air bill and others will be compared and debated. Opponents and supporters will be heard, but at the outset I believe we should agree on a set of guiding principles.

Four is better than three: A comprehensive four-emission strategy that includes carbon reductions provides regulatory certainty and offers the greatest environmental and economic benefits.

Markets work: Cape and trade based emission standards provide the maximum incentive to achieve cleaner power.

Stairs are better than cliffs: Prompt but gradual reductions through multi-phase or declining caps are more desirable than single phased cuts.

Eliminate redundancy: Existing regulatory programs will need some modernization in light of tight emission caps.

Clean air is a basic right all Americans deserve. The responsibility to ensure that right falls to Congress and the President. By putting our differences aside and focusing on the challenge at hand the result will be healthy citizens breathing clean air, a vibrant economy with abundant affordable electricity, and a model for the rest of the world to follow.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Little Sisters of the Poor in caring for the elderly in Delaware. Since their opening in 1903, the Little Sisters have touched the lives of thousands of people. Sharing their homes

and hearts, they have cared for the elderly in the spirit of humble service.

The Congregation of the Little Sisters of the Poor has aided and given comfort to the impoverished elderly worldwide for over 163 years. This organization, which has spread its loving arms to over 30 countries worldwide, was founded by a group of caring women who were led by Jeanne Jugan. After taking in an elderly blind woman in 1839, Jeanne and two other women purchased a home where the poor could take shelter. Over the years, Jeanne took the place of the elderly women on the streets and began a campaign of soliciting in order to raise funds. By 1879, her ranks had grown to include 2,400 Little Sisters, and her beliefs and thoughtful nature had spread throughout Europe. Although Jeanne Jugan passed away later that year, she succeeded in inspiring and improving the lives of thousands of needy people.

Over the 163 years that the congregation has existed, the Congregation of the Little Sisters of the Poor has opened 242 homes that presently serve 22,000 residents. Their tireless efforts to bring comfort to those who need a shoulder to lean on shows that the Little Sisters not only represents the values of America but also the unremitting concern for one's neighbor.

The Little Sisters have faithfully served the people of Delaware for the last century. Opening St. Joseph's Home for the Aged on Fourth and Bancroft in Wilmington in 1903, the Little Sisters became a beloved and well-known part of the community. In 1978, the Jeanne Jugan residence opened in Newark, where the Little Sisters continue their work to this day, providing the highest possible level of care for their residents. The non-denominational home cares for low-income individuals of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

The Little Sisters have provided care for over 4,700 people during their time in Delaware. Blessed by the generosity of the community in which they serve, the Sisters continue to work towards their mission of humble service to the elderly among us.

I rise today to commemorate all the work that has been done by the Little Sisters of the Poor in aiding the elderly. What began in 1839 as an effort to gather funds for a poor blind woman in France has become an international community of compassionate individuals who have chosen to give their lives in the attempt to improve the well being of the elderly.

Mr. President, just an hour or so ago, barely 50 feet out this door, many remaining members of the Delaware Army and National Guard were gathered. Coincidentally, it was a day that had long been scheduled for them to be on the Hill. National Guard associations from all over the country have converged on Washington, DC.

In the last several weeks, many of their colleagues in the Army and National Guard have since deployed to the Middle East, to the area around Iraq, and some to Iraq. On Sunday night, at a National Guard headquarters hangar in Wilmington, DE, at the airport we said goodbye to almost 100 of the members of the 166th Military Airlift Command as they set off to join their colleagues and their aircraft on the other side of the world. They are the maintainers of the C-130s which are part of the air bridge from the United States to Iraq.

It starts here with a very large C-5 aircraft and includes the C-17s, and at the end of the delivery system, the end of the air bridge, the C-130s, the smaller sort of rangers. The maintainers, the members of the 166th who have gone to join their colleagues, are the folks who make sure the landing gear works, the radio works, the hydraulic works, the avionics systems work. Without them we would not have C-130s that function, and without C-130s we would not have the kind of air bridge that we need to be successful in this war.

I was privileged to be there to salute them and send them on their way, as were our former Governor, former commander in chief of the Delaware National Guard, Mike Castle, our Congressman, and our Governor, our current commander in chief of the Delaware National Guard, Ruth Ann Minner. I was privileged to be their commander in chief for much of the last decade when I served as Governor of Delaware.

As we said goodbye to the men and women of the 166th, we also had important words for the families of those who stayed behind, the wives and the husbands, the children, the parents of those whose loved ones are climbing on to that C-5 and getting prepared to fly thousands of miles from home. In some cases--and I say this as one who deployed on several occasions as a naval flight officer in the Navy back during the Vietnam war--the deployment is tougher not on the one being deployed but on the ones who stay behind. To those families we owe a lot because they have shared their loved ones with us, and in many cases they put their families in difficult straits at a tough time.

We voted today on several amendments to the budget resolution which are designed to lighten the load a little bit for those who are being deployed, particularly those who are being put into a hazardous place to perform their duties. I am grateful for that and would express on behalf of not just the families of the 166th whose loved ones deployed this Sunday but on behalf all the members of the Delaware National Guard who are now serving in this war, thank you on their behalf and on behalf of their families for thinking of them, for remembering them along with the other Guard and Reserve men and women who are being called to active duty around this country.

During the time I served on active duty in Southeast Asia, we would from time to time receive a Reserve air crew that came in usually from the west coast, but flying their P-3 aircraft for 3 years hunting for Red October, tracking Soviet nuclear submarines, but also flying low- level missions along the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia.

In those days, back in the early 1970s, when we had a tough and dangerous job to do, we would never turn it over to a reserve air crew. The Active-Duty crews would take care of that, and we would be careful to send the Reserve air crews on a job where they could not get in trouble or could not get hurt. That was 30-some years ago. Today it is such a different world. We have guards men and women, activated, deployed, reservists called to active duty who are serving alongside full-time soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They are doing the very same jobs, dangerous jobs, tough dirty jobs in some cases, and to them we owe an enormous debt of gratitude.

A closing word to my friend Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota whose son is over in Iraq, and I am sure a matter of great concern to him and to Barbara, his wife, a concern that is shared by literally tens of thousands of families across this country. I say a special prayer for Brooks and for the Johnson family, and remember them and all who have been deployed and serve our Nation at this tough and challenging time.

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

Mr. President, amendment No. 330 is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Chafee, Senator Feinstein, and myself, and I thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln for joining us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, if my colleagues are looking for a balanced approach to balancing the budget by 2009, this is it. If my colleagues are looking for tax cuts that would be effective immediately, this amendment does that.

This amendment takes the 10 and 20 percent bracket cuts and makes them effective immediately. The estate tax exclusion is set permanently at $6 million per family. We grow the child credit. We eliminate the marriage penalty. We allow small business to expense their equipment purchasing at $75,000 for this year and for next. We pay for that by deferring further cuts in the 35 and 38.5 percent rate until we balance the budget.

We also work on the spending side. We adopt the committee's increased defense numbers. We use about an $80 billion offset with the President's numbers to actually add to domestic discretionary spending. We put back in place controls that have been allowed to lapse: Pay-go controls and reinstatement controls. It is a good, balanced approach. We would appreciate your support.

Two hours? Ten minutes would be just fine.

Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas invited several of us Democratic Senators to a briefing in her office on Capitol Hill. She also invited several Members of the House of Representatives who are Democrats. There were several of them in the room. They call themselves Blue Dog Democrats.

The Blue Dog Democrats, for those who have not heard that term before, tend to be budget hawks. They believe balanced budgets do matter, and the idea of running chronic budget deficits year after year is not good for this country. In fact, it is very troublesome for this country. Blue Dogs are willing to take tough votes on defense spending, nondefense spending, entitlement

spending, and taxes as well to get us closer to a balanced budget.

I served for 10 years in the House of Representatives and as Governor of Delaware. I guess I was a Blue Dog before we had Blue Dogs. I believe I am today.

Tomorrow a number of us, including a Republican, Senator Lincoln Chafee, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and I will offer a budget alternative that is modeled after the approach offered by the Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives which was voted on earlier this evening and I understand received about 170, 175 votes. It fell short, but it was a respectable showing. I want to talk about the provisions of that approach and why I think it makes sense.

A number of my colleagues talked tonight about the need to stimulate the economy and the need to do so in part with tax policy. In the alternative we will propose tomorrow, we do just that. Those who want to effect the 10-percent rate cut to accelerate it, we do that, in fact, this year. Those who want to accelerate the 27-percent tax bracket cut, we accelerate that this year. Those who want to expand and increase the child credit, we do that this year.

To those people who would like to allow small businesses to expense not just $25,000 in investments they make but $75,000, we let them do that this year to encourage that kind of investment.

To those who want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty--we did that in Delaware when I was Governor--we would do that immediately under the proposal that will be before us.

We raise the exclusion for the estate tax to $6 million for a couple, and we do that this year, effective immediately, and leave it at that rate.

Those are some of the provisions we do right now. It would have an immediate impact, and I think a very positive impact on the economy at this time.

For those people who happen to be in the 10-percent bracket, they would realize some tax savings, but so would those people whose income is not just $15,000 or $20,000 but $150,000. They would realize a savings, too, by accelerating the tax cut for those in the 27-percent bracket. We are not just helping people in the middle-income portion of the spectrum, but it also helps people at the top of the income spectrum.

What we do not do in our approach is reduce further the 35-percent rates and the rate to the 38.6 rate, the top two rates. We defer those cuts until two things happen: One, we pay for the war in Iraq; and, two, until we have actually balanced the budget. That is what we do on the taxing side. That is what was offered in the House of Representatives this evening as well.

On the spending side, what we have done is to essentially embrace the discretionary spending numbers proposed by the President. In the House of Representatives, the Blue Dogs took the President's defense discretionary numbers and put that in their proposal. In the Senate, we elected in our version of our budget alternative to take the defense numbers proposed by the Budget Committee. They are a bit less than the President's proposal, I think, by about $85 billion over a 10-year period of time. But we embrace the numbers from the committee itself.

We then take that roughly $85 billion and use those moneys to add to the domestic discretionary spending side to help pay for No Child Left Behind, to help meet some of the health care needs in this country, and to help meet some of the agricultural needs in this country. It is roughly $80 billion to $85 billion. It would shift from the defense side to the nondefense discretionary side.

Even at the end of that, we would still be spending above the baseline of more than the rate of inflation over the next 10 years for defense and a little less than the baseline in our domestic discretionary spending. But I like the balance a little bit better than what was debated and voted on in the House earlier tonight.

The third piece we address is budget controls. I will focus on one, but there are actually several others that are included in the measure we will offer tomorrow.

Pay-go: The concept is if a Senator or a House Member wants to cut taxes, or a Senator or House Member wants to raise spending in a way that makes the deficit larger, they have to figure out a way to pay for that so it is budget neutral starting now, not starting next week or not starting next month but starting now.

In our alternative, in our substitute, pay-go provisions become effective now. They are reinstated now. If anyone wants to increase spending, they are free to have at it. If they do, they have to offset it by cutting spending somewhere else, or if they cut taxes in one area, they have to raise taxes in another area or do something on the spending side to offset that.

We have budget controls that address issues of emergency spending and other provisions as well. I will not go into all those tonight because it is late. That is an important component of what we are trying to do.

Let me sum up. We reduce taxes, we do a number of things that have an effect immediately this year, but we pay for them. The overall effect of the tax reduction over 10 years is roughly $100 billion, $115 billion. Most of that is loaded in the first year or two.

We provide real spending restraint both on the defense side and on the nondefense discretionary side, and we put in place budget controls, some of which have been allowed to lapse. We put them back into effect to strengthen in the way they ought to be effective.

Today it is March 20. The day is almost over. During the course of this day, we will pay as a nation in interest on the national debt roughly $1 billion. That is not principal; that is interest on our debt, $1 billion. We will pay that tomorrow, the next day, and the next day after that.

We are a nation marching off to war. Tonight we have tens of thousands of young men and women on the march in a war I hope is mercifully brief for both sides. There is a great irony here as we are sending tens of thousands of our young people marching off to war. We are actually talking about reducing the revenues available to finance that war, to mobilize the troops, the cost of the war, the postwar occupation, and instead of raising the revenue and the means of financing the war, we are taking away those resources, which sits logic on its head, at least for me.

As we send those tens of thousands of young men and women marching off to war, their parents and grandparents are on a different kind of march, but a march nonetheless, with a different destination. It is called retirement, and the baby boomers, which I am one, are on the march and starting at roughly the end of this decade and throughout the course of the next decade.

The impact that is going to have on Social Security, Medicare, and other spending is the boomers, as they march off into their golden years, will create a financial burden that we are not even a little bit prepared to address.

My fear is if we take the course that has been proposed by the administration and is incorporated in this budget resolution, we will have not really been consistent with what the President said in his State of the Union Message.

I think one of the finest statements he said in his State of the Union Message is when he said the American people, our Government, should not pass on the problems of today to the next President, to the next Congress, or to the next generation.

I am afraid this is exactly what we are prepared to do with respect to the way we spend our money and the way we meet our financial obligations. We do not have to do that. We can do the right thing.

I have been looking for months for an approach that I could believe in and say let's do this because it is the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do.

I thank those who join me in offering this substitute tomorrow. I especially thank the Concord Coalition for embracing it today and the Blue Dog Democrats for giving us the inspiration in the first place. I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. William B. DeLauder upon his retirement from Delaware State University. He has served as president of the university for more than 16 years. His leadership over that span of time has lifted this small, historically black land grant college of the 21st century and won him the respect of faculty and students alike, along with the gratitude of our entire State. He has been, and remains, a trusted friend and advisor to me both in my previous role as Governor of Delaware and now as our State's junior United States Senator.

One of Dr. DeLauder's most noteworthy achievements has been the transition of Delaware State College to Delaware State University. I had the privilege of formalizing this transition by signing into law the official name change that signified this accomplishment when I was Governor in 1993 to more accurately reflect the depth and quality of the University's academic offerings. The changes have been profound.

Under President DeLauder the university has undergone a remarkable transformation in academics, student life, fund raising, and in appearance, Alumni returning to visit their alma mater today after an absence of many years are amazed at the appearance of its campus. A beautiful pedestrian campus has replaced the old network of streets that for years divided the old campus into an unattractive series of squares and rectangles. An array of new buildings have been constructed including a modern library, a cutting-edge science center, a home for the School of Management, and a new administrative building. On-campus housing capacity for students has roughly doubled, too. With all of that completed, Dr. DeLauder has begun one final major project--the building of a modern, new stadium and a health and fitness complex.

Those may be the most visible signs of change, but they tell only part of the story. During Dr. DeLauder's 16 year tenure, the university also expanded its academic programs by adding new graduate programs in biology, chemistry, and physics, as well as new undergraduate programs in airway science, computer science and mass communications. The university also increased its number of faculty with doctorates from 44 to 72 percent. Admission standards have been raised, as well. In addition, DSU became the first higher education institution in Delaware to receive national accreditation for its teacher education program during his presidency.

During his tenure, President DeLauder also founded a board of visitors that consists of State government leaders and corporate executives. The board's purpose is to provide support and assistance to the fund raising and development goals of the university. In 1994, he led Delaware State University on its first major fund raising effort. The campaign raised more than $10 million for the enhancement of academic programs, faculty development, and student financial aid.

Dr. DeLauder's accomplishments have been recognized through numerous honors and awards. For example, in March 1994, he received the Thurgood Marshall Award for outstanding contributions to the higher education of African-Americans. In 1995, he received the prestigious leadership award in Delaware presented by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. In November 2001, he was inducted into the Delaware State University Sports Hall of Fame for his support of the school's student- athletes and teams. That same month, he received the prestigious Buchanan award by the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce. In June of last year, President DeLauder was appointed chairman of the United Way of Delaware's Board of Directors.

Dr. DeLauder earned his bachelor of science degree from Morgan State University and a doctorate in physical chemistry from Wayne State University. He conducted post-doctoral research in physical biochemistry at the Centre of Biophysical Molecularie du C.N.R.S., Orleans-LaSource, France. Bill is married to a delightful woman, the former Vermell Faulk. She has served as an invaluable partner and University First Lady during this time of remarkable change at Delaware State. The DeLauders are blessed with two children, William Jr. and Ellen, and three grandchildren.

Dr. DeLauder is a humble and selfless man who takes pride in his work but is always quick to share the credit for Delaware State College's successes with others. Through his tireless efforts, he has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of students and enhanced the quality of life for an entire state. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for the generations that will follow. I thank him for the warm friendship that we share, and I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him, his wife Vermell and their family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

I am pleased today to be able to join my friend from Maine, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This bill is of vital interest to the future of the Postal Service and enjoys the strong support of postal management, postal employees and postal customers.

According to OPM and GAO, the Postal Service will significantly overfund its obligations to its employees enrolled in the Civil Service Retirement System if it continues paying at the current rate. The Reform Act addresses this by reducing the amount of money the Postal Service is required to pay into CSRS each year to reflect a more accurate estimate of its obligations that has been prepared by OPM. In the current fiscal year, this will reduce the Postal Service's annual