Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the good work of the Delaware Mentoring Council and to celebrate the efforts of mentors across our great country. With the designation of January as National Mentoring Month, we focus national attention on the need for mentors, as well as how each of us--individuals, businesses, schools and community groups--can work together to increase the number of mentors and assure brighter futures for our young people.

Mentors serve as role models, advocates, friends, and advisors. Numerous studies document that mentors help young people augment social skills, enhance emotional well-being, improve cognitive skills, and plan for the future. For some children, having a caring adult mentor to turn to for guidance and encouragement can make the crucial difference between success and failure in life.

Delaware has been showing communities across the country the power of mentoring for quite a while. Mentoring has become an integral part of our school system in Delaware and is one of the keys to improving academic achievement among at-risk students.

As Governor, I helped recruit thousands of mentors as part of a statewide effort and was actively involved in recruiting individuals, churches, service clubs, students, and corporations to help in mentoring Delaware's at-risk children. I first experienced the joy of mentoring in 1997 when I became a mentor to Darryl Burton, a fifth grader at Wilmington's Warner Elementary School. More than 5 years later, we now meet at Delcastle High School, where he is a freshman, every week during the school year. I know from personal experience that there are few things more rewarding than making a difference in the life of a child. Literally hundreds of mentors have said to me of their mentoring experience over the past 6 years, ``I know I'm helping the young person that I mentor, but I get even more out of it than they do.''

We are making great strides in the First State in helping thousands of additional students realize their full potential, along with Delaware's rigorous academic standards. The Delaware Mentoring Council is, in large part, leading the way. We must continue to work to level the playing field and give every child the tools they need to succeed in school and in life.

I am proud to be part of Delaware's army of mentors. We know that there are thousands of other students in our schools who would benefit greatly from

having another positive role model in their lives, so I urge others to join us. For a child living in the shadows of life, an hour of our time can make a lifetime of difference for that child and for each of us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I have a couple comments. First, on the heels of what has been said by our friends on the other side, a little more than 24 hours ago we listened as the President addressed our Nation and shared with us how he thinks we are doing and how he thinks we could do better.

I thought it was, for the most part, a good speech, well delivered. There were a number of aspects of the address I especially welcomed. As a former Governor of Delaware, who has been a mentor for over 5 years, and who went out and recruited 10,000 mentors in our State, I especially appreciated his recognition for the importance of the roles of mentors in young people's lives and the call for other Americans to mentor children in their own communities.

I very much appreciated his, I believe, sincere commitment toward rallying the United States to help fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa and to put our money where our mouths are.

A year or so ago we sat just down the Hall in the House Chamber and the President talked about an axis of evil in which he included North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. I had some difference with what he said, particularly dealing with Iran. He simply seemed to lump all the Iranians together, whether they happen to be the ruling clerics, who are squashing human liberties, civil rights in that country, or whether they happen to be many of the younger people, those who have taken to the streets, who have demonstrated, risked their lives in a commitment to democracy.

I was very pleased when President Bush, in his comments the night before last, spoke to the situation in Iran and acknowledged there are two camps. There is a camp whose direction we do not endorse, we do not support, but strongly differ with. But there are a lot of good people in that country who are trying to do the right thing for themselves in a way we would welcome as they seek to restore civil liberties, human liberties, human rights, and to infuse a true democracy in that country.

There are a lot of people in that country who, frankly, like this country. On the heels on 9/11, and a time or two since, we have heard of spontaneous and organized demonstrations there where a number of people have expressed their sympathy with what we have suffered as a result of 9/11.

Those are just a few aspects of the President's speech in which I found favor.

There were a couple others that I thought were missing. Delaware is a State where we have had a remarkably strong economy. Our unemployment rate today is about 4 percent, which compares very favorably with other parts of America. I am not sure what the situation is in Montana, home of our Presiding Officer. Some States have unemployment rates of 6, 7, maybe 8 percent. We have a million or more people who don't have a job today than we did a year or so ago. I was disappointed in the President's decision not to acknowledge that these are tough times for a lot of States financially, that the cumulative deficits faced by the States this year are in the tens of billions of dollars, actually getting bigger, not smaller, as the year goes forward.

Some in this body think we should write out a check and provide revenue sharing for the States. I was never a big advocate for revenue sharing when I was a Member of the House or as a Governor for 8 years. I am not a huge advocate of revenue sharing today. Unfortunately, we actually don't have a whole lot of revenues to share these days, given the kind of budget deficits we face. But there are a couple of ways we might want to consider helping the States. I will just mention three. I will certainly pursue those with the administration and my colleagues.

No. 1, States are getting killed on Medicaid costs. As unemployment goes up, people are losing health care and more people are showing up asking for coverage under Medicaid, health care for low-income and unemployed people. There is a formula called the FMAP formula that specifies what percentage of Medicaid is paid by the Federal Government and what percentage is paid by the States. It varies from State to State. For my State, the Feds pay roughly half and the State pays half of Medicaid costs. In some cases, the

States pay less, in some cases maybe a bit more.

We ought to change that formula for a year or two, as the States try to get on their feet and provide a little bit more help--not forever, not permanently, but to make a modification for a year or two in the share of the Medicaid cost we are willing to bear, not by 10, 20 percent, but by a couple of percent.

Another area where we can help States--and it has a lot to do with doing what is right and also what is in the best long-term economic interest--is making sure we fully fund No Child Left Behind, something we debated at some length just last week. States don't need unfunded mandates. As their revenues are dropping, most States have adopted basic standards for math, science, English, and social studies, and they are measuring student progress towards those standards. States are under pressure to cut back on the extra learning time they put in place. They are under pressure to cut back on the funding they are providing for Head Start and early childhood education.

It is important for us to make sure we meet our commitment for funding No Child Left Behind, so as the States struggle to come up with the money to pay for a whole host of costs, at least we are meeting our side of the bargain for funding education.

One other area the President spoke to, at least indirectly, was State and local frontline defenders--police, paramedics, fire, and others-- when we have our next terrorist attack. Unfortunately, we probably will. The people who will be confronted with that initiative aren't so much those of us here in Washington; it is going to be the cop on the beat, the paramedic on duty, the fire station that gets the call; they are going to be among the first.

It is important that we do what we can and need to, working through our new Department of Homeland Security and funding the problems we have authorized, listening to the States where they believe their need is the greatest, and be responsive to that.

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office, on the heels of the President's State of the Union Message, brought up a subject that he did not; that is, the size of our budget deficit. The President did not bring up the size of our trade deficit either. The size of the Nation's trade deficit last month was about $40 billion. It wasn't that long ago, if we had had a trade deficit of $40 billion for 1 year, not 1 month, people would have been alarmed. A lot of alarms would have gone off in this city and around the country. Our trade deficit last month was $40 billion. Our trade deficit last year reached close to $400 billion. It has been a long time since we had a surplus on the trade side--far too long. But the numbers are going in the wrong direction. We need to be mindful of that and concerned.

The budget deficit numbers are going the wrong way, too. It wasn't that long ago that they were actually going in the right direction. Starting in 1998 and 1999, 2000 and 2001, we actually had budget surpluses for the first time since 1969. I don't recall, hearing the President's State of the Union Message, his mentioning the issue of budget deficits or trade deficits. If he did, I missed it. But to be honest with the American people and ourselves, they are important. They are problems. They are concerns. They need to be addressed.

The President, in an effort to try to get the economy moving again, has said what we ought to do is cut taxes. He has laid out a proposal for doing that, with getting rid of the double taxation of dividend income. In theory, it is not a bad idea, although his approach is one I am not sure is the best. It may make more sense to let businesses expense their dividend payments as they do interest payments, if they are interested in getting rid of this imbalance that is favored toward debt by companies. But I don't want to quarrel with that.

We have cut taxes two times now: 2001, a large tax cut; 2002, a smaller tax cut bill. It is like the quarterback or the coach who is calling a play. The President called the play in 2001: We have an economy that is not doing well; let's cut taxes. The economy is not doing well; let's cut taxes in 2002. The economy is still not doing well; let's cut taxes again in 2003.

As a former Governor, I used to cut taxes fairly regularly in my State. We cut them for 7 out of the 8 years I was privileged to be Governor. But we also cut taxes in a way that was consistent with a balanced budget, in a way that was balanced, fair, and equitable. We cut taxes in a way that we believed would stimulate the economy, the economic development and creation of jobs. We had a litmus test. A similar litmus test needs to be applied to this proposal. Will it stimulate the economy in the near term? Is it consistent with a balanced budget over the long haul? Is it broad based, equitable? And is there anything in there to help the States as a result of passing those tax cuts in 2001 and 2002? because so many State budgets or State tax laws piggyback on Federal tax laws. They are interconnected. When we cut Federal taxes, we also cut States taxes. As they are struggling to make ends meet, we are prepared to cut taxes again, another $4 or $5 billion added to an already heavy burden for States.

I have talked of late with a lot of business leaders in my State, and they acknowledge that the idea of eliminating the double taxation of dividends is probably the right thing to do. Intellectually, a number of them have said--and I agree in the context of overall tax reform--it may make sense. Doing it just on its own to stimulate the economy maybe doesn't. At least it won't have the kind of near-term effect for which many would hope.

What a number of people a whole lot smarter than I, who study the economy and economics, study our banking system, and who run companies, have said is, more than a tax cut right now to get our economy moving, more than a spending package to get our economy moving, we need to get rid of the uncertainty we face, not so much here at home, although the threat of terrorism is part of it, but around the world.

The President spent a lot of time talking about uncertainty--with respect to North Korea, an effort to pursue a diplomatic solution, which I believe is the right approach, and then with respect to Iraq, the approach he spoke to and which has been discussed here today. For myself, the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had just a few years ago, in the late 1990s, acknowledged they had a few years ago, I believe they still have. They have them hidden. They have not reported them. They have not destroyed them. I believe they have them.

The question is: What do we do to get rid of them? Take them away from Saddam Hussein, and his ability to deliver them in the region or outside that region?

On this one, we may have a difference of opinion, although I am not sure just how broad those differences are. I heard the President talk about his request of Colin Powell to go to the United Nations on February 5 and give an address with respect to what we believe we ought to do, given the early results from the inspections, what we should do next at the United Nations, the Security Council, for our country.

Sitting in the House Chamber, I heard the President say he is going to send the Secretary of State over to the United Nations on February 5 to give an address. I wonder if this is going to be like something that happened about 40 years ago when John Kennedy was our President and he sent Adlai Stevenson, Ambassador to the United Nations, as we were working on another potential military altercation, this one a very serious one between the United States and the Soviet Union, as we believed the Soviets were introducing intermediate-range ballistic missiles into Cuba which could target the United States. We asserted this was what the Soviets were trying to do. They denied it. We attempted to gain intelligence information, which was difficult to come by. Finally, we hit pay dirt. Intelligence flights over Cuba captured not only missiles but the site preparation that was on going. Our U.N. Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, presented that information to his colleagues at the U.N. in one of the most famous exchanges I have ever heard at the U.N. When the Soviet Ambassador was confronted with these photographs of all this material, larger and larger photographs, he said he needed more time to understand the translation of the accusations coming from our Ambassador. He said he needed more time to understand what he was hearing through the earphones. Adlai Stevenson said, ``You

know what I am saying, and you know what these pictures say, and I will wait until hell freezes over.''

That is a long time, until hell freezes over. I am not going to suggest we should wait that long for the Iraqis to fess up and turn over and enable to be destroyed that which I think they clearly harbor. But I hope, just as the President of 40 years ago chose to continue to work through the U.N., this President will do so as well.

Going back to the economy, the best thing we can do to get the economy moving is to eliminate all this uncertainty that flows out of Iraq--hopefully, peacefully, but in the end, if need be, through war. Hopefully, we can do it without going to war. If it is necessary, we should be prepared to do that. I have said all along, one of the reasons we were so effective in the Persian Gulf war--which I supported as a House Member and voted for as a House Member--I think one of the reasons we were successful there, and in Afghanistan, is we didn't do it by ourselves. It was not just unilaterally, us by ourselves. We led an armada of nations. If there is to be a military altercation, our chances for success are better enhanced if we do not do it alone and if we have the blessing of the U.N. and if we have broad-based military support from around the globe. I worry about the human cost to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in a war. We are going to win and, I think, without a great deal of difficulty. Taking the cities might be a lot more dangerous, and we face a threat from the biological and chemical weapons he has. Hopefully, we will win without a huge cost in lives.

The financial cost will be lowered if we have others by our side. What I am concerned about maybe more than anything is the cost of the postwar, the morning after, when we help try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together in a country that has no democratic memory or institutions, a lot of dissenting voices and ethnic groups--pulling them together and trying to help them become a democracy. It is going to take time, money, and a lot of patience. I don't want the U.S. to be doing that by itself.

How does all this fit into the economy? We can offer businesses all kinds of tax incentives to make investments and other decisions. When they are faced with uncertainty, they are not going to make the kind of investments we want them to make and they ought to be making. The sooner we can resolve--hopefully peacefully and, if not, through the use of force--the situation in the Middle East, I think that probably augurs better for the economy.

Having said that, let's be careful in our rush to judgment and keep in mind that our chances for early success, and for reducing the loss of life to Americans, and our chances for reducing out-of-pocket costs for the war and the postwar occupation are diminished if we have a lot of others with us. Especially in the next few weeks, we need to continue to be patient and share our intelligence with the inspectors and give them the best information for them to do their job on the ground.

I thank the Chair for the time. I look forward to yielding back whatever time I have and hearing from my friend and colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Peg Bradley upon her fiftieth birthday. She is a woman with a kind heart, diverse interests and great abilities. She is one of the most remarkable people with whom I served in State government. In a State as small as ours, her dedication and tenacity have become legendary. She truly embodies the best of Delaware. I consider it a privilege to have known her and an even greater privilege to have worked closely with her on Delaware's education reforms in the decade of the 1990s.

Just 50 years ago, Peg was born in Kansas to O. Wayne and Wilma Gordon. While her journey to Delaware took her many places in the years preceding it, when she arrived at the University of Delaware in the late 1960s, she found her true home. With her diploma in hand, Peg embarked upon a career that would set the tone for education innovations throughout the State of Delaware and across the Nation.

The proud mother of three children, Kirsten, Carrie and Cort, and the grandmother to 4-year-old Xavier, Peg lives her life through the eyes of children.

While Peg learned and honed her craft teaching elementary school children, she really made her mark when she opened and became the first Director of the Preschool at Concordia Lutheran Church. Then, in 1992, Peg ran for State Representative as a Democrat in the most Republican District in the State of Delaware and won. During her 2 years in the State House, she sponsored legislation that dramatically expanded Head Start opportunities for Delaware youngsters and began drawing attention to the important role that the first few years of a child's life play in their ability to learn and go on to live productive lives.

Peg served as my education adviser during most of my 8 years as Governor. She was instrumental in helping me work my education reform proposals through the legislature, through the education community, and through the public from their infancy to implementation. She worked tirelessly to ensure that the reforms we made reflected what was best for Delaware's children. Today, Delaware has rigorous academic standards, the ability to measure objectively student progress toward those standards, and real accountability, in no small part because of Peg Bradley's stewardship and persistence. Part of her legacy is the consistent improvement in academic performance at all grade levels in Delaware in core subjects like math, English, language arts and science.

Together, along with the support of the legislature, the business community, many parents and educators, we amassed a record of innovative accomplishments, including unprecedented support for charter schools and public school choice; standards-based education, statewide testing and accountability. She even persuaded me to support a public school choice bill written by a certain State Senator named Rick Hauge. Just last week they celebrated their first wedding anniversary.

Peg helped me win battles that seemed daunting. In doing so, she won the grudging respect of more than a handful of cynics along the way. More than almost anyone else, Peg Bradley helped shape the legacy of my administration and change the face of education in Delaware.

Peg was an invaluable advisor, mentor, and resource to me throughout the last decade. She takes pride in her work and has made hundreds of educators and parents proud to work alongside of her. During the time that I was chairman of the National Governors' Association, we focused a good deal of our attention on raising student performance. Peg's assistance to me during that stressful time was invaluable and afforded her with an opportunity to play a significant role on a national stage.

Today, I rise both to celebrate this milestone moment in Peg's life and to shine a spotlight on her momentous commitment and countless contributions to the community. She is living proof that a life filled with good works is a good life indeed. I thank her for her friendship, congratulate her on her first 50 years and wish her and her husband Rick only the very best in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. President, apparently within the next 24 hours we will have the opportunity to vote on the President's nominee to head our new Department of Homeland Security. The President has made an excellent choice. It is hard for me to imagine a better choice to undertake this responsibility than Governor Ridge.

Twenty years ago this month, Governor Ridge and I stood with about 80 other freshmen Congressmen and women at the other end of this building and raised our right hand and took an oath of office to defend our Constitution and country. He and I then served together in the House for the next 10 years and actually helped to lead one of the Banking Committee subcommittees as ranking Democrat and Republican.

Later we served as Governors in the neighboring States of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Even before we came to Washington, we served in the Armed Forces of our country where he served with real distinction in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war.

I will always be especially grateful for a breakfast Governor Ridge came to almost 20 years ago. I had just been elected the at large Congressman from Delaware and ended the campaign with a little bit of debt. We decided to have a fundraising breakfast to help take care of the debt, and Senator Biden, then the junior Senator from Delaware, was good enough to come and speak at our breakfast. We had a whole host of Democratic colleagues from the House, new freshmen who wanted to show their support for their new colleague. One Republican stopped by that breakfast, and it was the freshman Congressman from Erie, PA.

I will always be grateful for that appearance and for the friendship that has spanned some 20 years. I will be pleased to vote with my colleagues and join, I suspect all of them, in making him a unanimous choice for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

While I believe Governor Ridge is more than qualified for the job, the task he faces is daunting. Congress has given him a Department that at least on paper should be able to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks more effectively than Federal Government and State governments can today. We have authorized the transfers of literally dozens of agencies and tens of thousands of workers. We have outlined a skeleton organization that should be able to pull together under one roof information on threats and vulnerabilities and to use that information to improve security and better prepare our first responders.

Very little of what we have outlined, though, will be in place on day 1, and day 1 is tomorrow for all intents and purposes. A number of outstanding questions remain. Both in the Committee on Governmental Affairs where I serve and on the Senate floor, we have had a healthy debate over the details of how the transition to a new Department of Homeland Security should work. I know some of my colleagues are uncomfortable with what we have. I have a few concerns of my own.

That being said, I think it is important now that we put aside our disagreements and do what we need to do to enable this Department to do what it needs to do, to protect American lives.

Let me take a few minutes to discuss a couple of the issues I hope Governor Ridge will address early on during his tenure as Secretary of this Department.

First, let me touch on the subject of rail security. Now that the Transportation Security Administration has for the most part achieved the goals we set for them, it is time for them and for the Department of Homeland Security to focus on other modes that have received less attention, especially rail. As I said before, our failure more than a year after September 11 to act to improve the security of our rail infrastructure is an Achilles' heel in our Nation's effort to secure our total transportation system.

In New York City today, hundreds of thousands of people on their way to work pass through tunnels that are badly lit, poorly ventilated, and from which escape is very difficult. In fact, there is even a rail tunnel that goes under the Supreme Court and congressional offices just a couple of hundred yards from where we are gathered this evening. Every day thousands of people pass through that tunnel under this Capitol on their way to work or to home.

Passenger safety demands a real investment, but to ask Amtrak to do more with respect to security without providing more resources is, in my view, an unfunded mandate, not a solution. I thank Governor Ridge for understanding the importance of improving rail security, not just for passenger rail but for freight rail as well.

I also thank Governor Ridge for acknowledging at our hearing last week that Amtrak is likely to need some additional financial assistance, if it is expected to make the security enhancements that need to be made.

Let me also touch on the matter of first responders. States and localities are in desperate need of additional new resources to help prepare their police, their fire, and emergency personnel for any future terrorist attacks. At the same time, most State and local governments are suffering through extraordinary fiscal crises that are forcing some to raise taxes or cut services. We see that in Delaware, in Tennessee, and a host of other States as well.

I am disappointed that the omnibus appropriations bill on the floor this evening and today and again tomorrow probably does not provide State and localities with the level of first responder aid that they need. In the future, I hope Governor Ridge, soon to be Secretary Ridge, and our colleagues in Congress and the President will heed the calls from back home for more first responder aid.

I also hope Governor Ridge works quickly in the coming weeks to set up a communications link between the new Department and first responders so their needs can be heard and information on what they need to do to protect their communities makes its way down to them.

When the Committee on Governmental Affairs first marked up the Homeland Security Act and again when a modified version of the bill reached the floor, Senators Collins and Feingold and I offered an amendment to create an office of State and local coordination within the new Department. That would place a homeland security liaison office within each State. Our language, unfortunately, was not included in the final bill, but I do hope Governor Ridge will consider setting up something like what we recommended once this new Department is in place and he and his employees have gotten their sea legs.

I want to close with some comments on relations with employees. A matter that held up final passage of this legislation when we created the new Department last month was really relations with employees, what kinds of rights they have under the collective bargaining laws and under the merit rules of the civil service rules of our country.

Recently, ADM James Loy, head of the Transportation Security Administration--I am told a very able person--used the authority Congress granted him under the airline security legislation we passed after September 11 to forbid airport screeners from joining unions. He cited his view that the screeners perform sensitive national security work as the reason for his decision.

The admiral's decision may or may not have been the right one. Whether it was or not, it has not done much to improve relations between the administration and thousands of unionized employees who are being transferred to this new Department, who perform work just as sensitive as--or in some cases even more sensitive than--that performed by the screeners.

As he works with the Office of Personnel Management to develop a human resources management system for this new Department, I urge Governor Ridge to work swiftly to repair the strained relationship between the administration and the public employees' union. He will benefit by doing that, the employees of that Department will benefit, and I believe our Nation will, too.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

I would appreciate 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding 5 minutes. I also express my thanks to her, and especially Senator Hollings, for their work. I say to Senator McCain that I appreciate his comments and his willingness to join with the Senator from Delaware last year as we tried to address the issue of rail security.

It looks like we will pass, on a voice vote, an appropriation level for Amtrak which will carry Amtrak through the balance of this fiscal year. That sets the stage for a robust debate, which we need to have, on whether the future of passenger rail service in this country is the Northeast corridor and maybe some routes on the West Coast. If there are other high speed corridors that make sense, if there are long distance trains such as the Auto Train that make sense, I welcome that debate. The concurrence of reauthorization of T-21, reauthorization of our transportation programs along with reauthorization of Amtrak, is a very fortunate confluence of events. I think we will have the opportunity to maybe do the right thing not just by Amtrak but by the people of this country.

I have said on this floor before and I will say it again tonight, when Amtrak was created roughly 30 years ago it was created at a time when private rail companies wanted out of the passenger business. They could not make money carrying passengers. They said to Congress: Let us out of that business, and Congress freed them of that responsibility.

Amtrak was created with the private railroads, the freight railroads, giving to this new entity their old rolling stock, their old passenger cars, their old cafe cars, their old locomotives. Amtrak was given the old track bed from Washington to Boston. Amtrak was given the old repair shops, the old train stations. Somehow, given all this old equipment and being undercapitalized for 30 years, we said to Amtrak we expect them to make money when nobody in the private sector could make money.

There are a number of other countries around the world that have terrific passenger rail service. We have talked about some of them tonight. The reason why they have good passenger rail service is because they believe it is in the naked self-interest of their country to invest in passenger rail, and that is some of the reason why they do it. They want to reduce their reliance on foreign oil. They want to reduce the size of their trade deficits that grow out of importing foreign oil. They want to reduce the amount of congestion they have on their highways and at their airports. They are concerned about the quality of the air and the kinds of emissions that their cars, trucks, and vans put up into the air.

As a result, those countries rather generously support passenger rail service. They do not do it for reasons of altruism or nostalgia. They think it is in their naked self-interest, and it is. When we think about it, we have an interest in clean air as well in this country. We have problems with congestion around our airports and our roads as well. We have a huge trade deficit, $400 billion this year. About a third of that is imported oil.

I say to my friend from Arizona, I do not think it makes sense for us to run trains where people do not want to ride them. But today in this country, 75 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. Think about that. That provides for a lot of congestion, but it also provides for some wonderful high speed train routes that if we are smart we will figure out how to take advantage of and give people the chance to move throughout those densely populated corridors more quickly.

From time to time, there is going to be a train like the Auto Train which runs south of Washington, DC, down to Orlando. It leaves every day and comes back every day. It basically makes money. A lot of people ride the train. It is the longest train in the world. They take their cars, trucks, and vans, hitch them up to the train and head on south or bring them back from Florida. There are probably some other routes like that around the country that would make sense, too.

Then there are some States where, frankly, the States would like to put in some of their own money in order to have passenger rail service to routes that are losing money, but inexplicably, at least to me as an old Governor, I was never allowed to use Delaware's Federal transportation money or congestion mitigation money to help provide for passenger rail. We could use that money in our State for freight railroads, for bicycle paths, but we could not use it to help pay for passenger rail service. That makes no sense. We should give States and Governors the flexibility to use a portion--not all, a portion--of their Federal transportation money to invest in passenger rail if it makes sense for the States.

We will have a great debate this year. It is time for that debate. I am pleased to participate with all my colleagues on this. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership, Senator Byrd and Senator Hollings for their work, Senator Hutchison, Senator Specter, and others who believe in the cause.

I say to my friend from Arizona, we look forward to a debate that will lead to better passenger rail service and, frankly, the return of common sense.

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a moment to reflect on the life of Mr. Leon N. Weiner upon his passing. Leon was a good friend and a man who made remarkable contributions toward affordable housing for thousands of families in Delaware and many more beyond our state's borders. He was a man with a kind heart, diverse interests, great abilities, and boundless energy.

Leon was born in Philadelphia, PA. After graduating from Overbrook High School, he attended the University of Pennsylvania for 3 years before leaving to take up a job as an apprentice machinist at Westinghouse Electric Corp. in Essington, PA.

After serving his country in the Army Air Corps during World War II, Leon came to Delaware and joined his uncle in building Leedom Estates near New Castle. This was one of the first suburban housing projects in New Castle County and the first of more than 5,000 houses that Leon built across New Castle County during his 54-year career. At the age of 53, he turned his attention to the challenge of building housing for low- and moderate-income families and seniors.

A very colorful character, Leon spoke with a booming voice and always wore suspenders, something that became his trademark. To the end of his days his office was filled with honorary gavels, keys to cities, and pictures of him with leading Democratic figures. In 1979 he was inducted to the National Housing Hall of Fame and subsequently was given the National Housing Man of the Year Award. His appointment to the Kaiser Commission on Urban Housing led to the landmark Housing Act of 1968.

Leon leaves behind his wife of 53 years, Helen; as well as a stepdaughter; three grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. He also leaves behind many friends, colleagues and several thousand families who are living more productive, satisfying lives today because Leon was committed to building affordable housing.

Leon's lifelong dream was that low-income seniors and families would have the opportunity to afford their own homes, in the communities they called home. He lived to see that dream largely fulfilled.

Leon's legacy will live on in the lives of those he helped shape, in the rooms of affordable low-income housing he helped build, and in the hearts of those who were lucky enough to call him their friend. I rise today to commemorate Leon's life, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our thanks for sharing with the rest of us a truly remarkable human being. Although a resident of nearby Pennsylvania, Leon embodied the best of Delaware where his firm, Leon Weiner and Associates, was headquartered. He will be sorely missed. I know he can never be replaced.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 70th wedding anniversary of my dear friends Millard and Hattye Mae Biddle. Our friendship has spanned some three decades. I want to congratulate them on behalf of all Delawareans wish them both the very best in all that lies ahead.

As they celebrate this milestone in their lives, they will surely reflect on the many changes, successes, and accomplishments they have experienced together over the last 70 years. Theirs is a journey of which they can be proud.

The Biddles have lived in the Dover community for many years. For a number of those years, they owned a bed and breakfast in Wyoming, DE. At the start of my career, I worked in Kent County and lived in New Castle County in the northern part of out State. Their trademark hospitality was in full swing. I stayed so often as their guest, they finally gave me my own bedroom and a key to the House! They have always made me feel like a member of their family, and their home became, in many ways, mine as well.

Both Millard and Hattye Mae have lived their lives in the service of others. Long before it was popular, Hattye Mae recognized the tremendous need for early childhood education for kindergartners and preschool children in Kent County. She started a successful preschool called the Little School. Both the school and its students--hundreds of them--have grown up, stronger under her watchful eye.

Hattye Mae volunteers at the Old State House in Dover, giving tours to the many visitors. She has served as a member of the board of directors and is now an honorary member of the Board of Directors of Kent/Sussex Industries, a nonprofit organization that provides work opportunities for Delawareans each year. And no July in Harrington is complete without seeing her sweet smile at the annual Delaware State Fair.

Millard started his career delivering milk for the Frear Milk Company. After serving in World War II, Millard opened a grocery store. He returned to public service as a Kent County assessor shortly thereafter, from which he happily retired.

Millard served as a member of the Dover Housing Authority and served two terms on the Dover City Council. He is, in fact, the oldest living former council member. Millard has enjoyed many hours giving tours at the E.R. Johnson Victrola Museum in Dover, reading about the talking machines, records and other relics of the Victor Talking Machine Company of Eldridge R. Johnson Manufacturing Machinists. A wiz at clock making, Millard enjoys using old Victrola records and transforming them into clocks. They are, by all accounts, incredibly impressive.

Today, I rise to congratulate Millard and Hattye Mae on their 70th wedding anniversary. In a day and age where many marriages do not last 70 months or even 70 weeks, the strength and durability of their union serves as a source of inspiration to us all. In addition, each of them has demonstrated great devotion to their family, three children, nine grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren, and to their community in too many ways to number. I know that their years together hold many beautiful memories. It is my hope that those ahead will be filled with continued joy and contentment. They give true meaning to the words of the poet who wrote, ``Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.''