December 14, 2007 — Washington, DC:The holiday season is a wonderful time of the year for most of us! Like many of you, I look forward to spending time with friends and family, enjoying good food and holiday cheer, and sharing gifts and memories with loved ones.

Also like many of you, I haven't finished my Christmas shopping yet! In fact, if truth be known, I've barely started it. Fortunately, we are not alone. According to the National Retail Federation, only about 11 percent of Americans are completely finished their shopping ten days before Christmas, so we're in good company.

Holiday shopping accounts for roughly 20 percent of all annual consumer spending. This year, Americans will spend about $475 billion during the holiday season. Now is also the time for charitable giving and Americans will donate almost $300 billion to charitable organizations this year. It is a time to open our hearts and our pocketbooks but unfortunately, our loved ones or favorite charity are not the only ones who may benefit.

During this season, many consumers may fall victim to one of the many scams that are out there, scams that can result in costly identity theft and loss of valuable time and money. It is so important for everyone — whether you shop in stores or online, buy gift cards, donate to charity, or make an end-of-the-year investment — to be aware of scams and alert to avoid them. I urge all of my constituents to use common sense when shopping and making donations.

I believe the best way to fight back against holiday scams is to arm shoppers with knowledge. To that end, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, Dec. 13, called "Shopping Smart and Avoiding Scams: Financial Literacy for the Holidays."

Often congressional hearings are investigative in nature, but this hearing was more of a dialogue. I asked representatives from AARP, the American Bankers Association, the Wise Giving Alliance and others to share with me and committee members tips to avoid holiday scams that we could pass on to the people of our home states.

Below is some of their best advice:

Carefully Read the Terms of a Gift Card Before Purchase. Sometimes gift cards actually decrease in value or have "activation" or "maintenance" fees attached. This means your gift could be worth less over time.

Be Smart About Charitable Giving. If you decide to give to charity, make sure that it is a reputable organization. Organizations like the Wise Giving Alliance (www.give.org) will tell you — free of charge — whether a charity is in their database of over 1,000 charities and also provide prospective donors some insight into effectiveness of the charity.

Get the Most Out of Your Rebate. If you buy an item with a mail-in rebate, don't forget to mail in the required materials before the rebate deadline expires. Keep a copy of everything you sent as a record if something goes wrong. If a company doesn't live up to its obligations in getting you your rebate, contact the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov or 877-FTC-HELP), the State Attorney General's office (800-220-5424) or your local Better Business Bureau (www.delaware.bbb.org).

Stay Safe and Secure Online. When shopping online, make sure the site is secure before giving your credit card information. Also, never provide your social security number or other sensitive, personal financial information to someone contacting you over the internet. One of our witnesses cautioned against using a debit card to make online purchases, explaining that credit cards offer protections in these situations that debit cards do not. Organizations like the National Cyber Security Alliance (www.staysafeonline.info) have issued tips on how to shop online safely.

End of the Year Investments. Always ask for written information and contact the Delaware Securities Commissioner (302-577-8424) if you have any questions.

Your basic rule of thumb when shopping, giving, or investing all year long — but especially during the holiday season — should be: Pause, think and check it out. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

If, heaven forbid, you or a loved one should fall victim to identity theft or another scam, there are resources to help, like the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov or 877-FTC-HELP). The FTC's website has a wealth of information addressing all aspects of what consumers can do when they suspect that they may be the victim of identity theft. There are also links to reports, agencies and other resources.

I hope that you found this information to be helpful. I know I did, and I have shared it with my family, as well.

Let me wish you a happy, healthy, safe and scam-free holiday season! Happy Holidays to you and yours!

November 26, 2007 — Wilmington, DE: As this year comes to a close, our dependency on foreign oil continues to grow. The price of a barrel of oil hovers close to $100. Roughly a third of our nation's $750 billion annual trade deficit is attributable to our addiction to foreign oil. Our planet continues to grow warmer largely because of our dependence on fossil fuels, and the air in too many parts of our country remains unhealthy to breathe. When Congress returns to session on December 3, we have an opportunity to make progress on all of these fronts. It's imperative that we do so.

How? By completing work on a comprehensive energy bill in December and sending it to the President for his signature prior to the end of this year. And, how likely is that? It may be more likely than most observers think. Even during the Thanksgiving recess, negotiations continued on one of the most controversial provisions in that bill — raising for the first time in 22 years the fuel efficiency standards of the cars that are sold in this country.

The last time the Congress voted to raise CAFE standards was in 1975. At the time, the miles per gallon average for the American auto fleet was somewhere around 14 mpg. On the heels of an oil embargo, President Jimmy Carter and the Congress sought to raise that average over a ten year period of time to 27.5 mpg. The move brought howls of protest from some automakers. One Ford spokesman proclaimed that the hike would mean the end of the full-size sedan. A GM representative asserted that, if the increase was approved, the largest car that GM would be making in the U.S. in 1985 would be a Nova. For those of you who don't remember the Nova, it was not a very big car.

Nonetheless, Congress passed the legislation and the President signed it into law. Detroit went to work, and when 1985 rolled around, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy of the cars sold in this country had reached the mandated goal of 27.5 mpg, an impressive accomplishment. Interestingly, full-size sedans were still being built and sold in this country, and vehicles far larger than the Nova would soon be selling in substantial numbers.

In those years, just a third of our oil came from foreign countries. Our trade deficit was measured in tens of billions of dollars, not hundreds of billions. As most people know, both our dependency on foreign oil and our trade deficit have grown appreciably since 1985. So has the size of the vehicles that we buy. Meanwhile, the average fuel economy of the cars sold in our country continues to hover around 27.5 mpg, and the fuel economy of the light trucks, SUV's and minivans sold in America is closer to 20 mpg. The Clinton administration sought to raise fuel efficiency standards in the 1990's through a regulatory process led by an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its official name is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and it is commonly called NHTSA, pronounced "Nit-suh." Rather than embrace President Clinton's initiative, Congress passed legislation barring NTSHA from using federal dollars to work on the new regulations, and the initiative died.

As our dependency on foreign oil continued to grow in this decade, the Bush administration, with the encouragement of Congress, concluded that it was time to begin ratcheting up the fuel efficiency requirements for light trucks, SUV's and minivans. As a result, NHTSA began drafting regulations two years ago — since challenged in federal court by environmentalists — that would move fuel efficiency requirements for light trucks and SUV's from around 20 mpg today to 24 mpg by 2011.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, the Senate adopted CAFE legislation I helped to coauthor which calls for raising the overall average fuel economy for cars, light trucks and SUV's to 35mpg by 2020. This new standard also ensures that improvements are made in the fuel economy of every kind of car sold in the United States no matter the size of the vehicle or where it is manufactured. This means that all small cars would have to improve and reach the same standard, and the same thing would be true for mid-size cars, full-size sedans, small SUV's, pick-up trucks, etc. Most automakers selling vehicles in this country have objected to the new mileage mandate; however, they've moved off their earlier total rejection of the 35mpg by 2020 standard somewhat and have begun to negotiate with the House and Senate in an effort to find a compromise they can live with.

I believe that our goals for legislation should be threefold. First, we must reduce both our dependence on foreign oil and our enormous trade deficit. Second, we need to reduce the emissions of harmful pollutants into our atmosphere. And, third, we need to accomplish these two goals while seeking to ensure that there will still be a viable domestic automotive manufacturing industry in this country in 2020 and beyond.

It isn't enough for the federal government to tell the Big 3 to raise the fuel efficiency of their vehicles over the next dozen or so years either. I believe that we have an obligation to help them succeed. How? In several ways. For example, by investing federal dollars in fuel cell technology, as well as in other advanced technologies like lithium-ion battery research and development in order to help make plug-in hybrid prototypes like the Chevrolet Volt a reality in 2010. In addition, we should use the federal government's purchasing power — both on the civilian and the military side — to help commercialize energy-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles. And, third, the federal government should use utilize tax credits to encourage consumers in this country to purchase highly energy-efficient vehicles when they come onto the marketplace in America, whether those vehicles be flex-fuel, plug-in hybrids; low-emission diesels; fuel cell powered vehicles; or other equally promising technologies.

While raising CAFE requirements over the next dozen years is a major component of a broad-based energy bill that the House and Senate are endeavoring to reach consensus on prior to recessing just before Christmas, it is not the only element of that bill. Another relates to something called a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS. The House of Representatives included an RPS requirement in the version of the energy legislation that its members passed earlier this year. The Senate fell just short of the 60 votes we needed to break a filibuster on this subject, so our bill is silent on this important topic, just as the House-passed energy bill is silent on raising CAFE standards. The House bill mandates that 15 percent of America's electricity be produced in 2020 using renewable forms of energy like solar, wind power, and geo-thermal.

If the House and Senate can find common ground on comprehensive energy legislation next month that includes something akin to the Senate's provisions on CAFE and the House’s provisions on renewable portfolio standard (also known as a renewable electricity standard), we'll enable our country to make real progress in reversing our growing dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuels while reducing harmful emissions into our air. In my book, that's a win-win situation, and it comes not a minute too soon.

November 12, 2007 — Washington, DC: It’s been a while since my last entry here at Carper’s Corner. I'd like to use this blog to share with you a little bit of what my staff and I have been working on this fall. Much of our time has focused on clean air, clean energy and energy independence.

Since arriving in the Senate over six years ago, I've worked to reduce the emission of four harmful air pollutants from power plants. Taken together, our American power plants spew about a quarter of our nation's nitrogen oxide emissions, 40 percent of our mercury, 40 percent of our carbon dioxide and almost two-thirds of all sulfur dioxide emissions into our air.

Nitrogen oxide in our air leads to ozone, or smog. Breathing it can lead to respiratory disorders like asthma. One out of every eight children in Delaware suffers from asthma today, the highest rate of any state in America. Some 3,000 children in Delaware will miss school this year because of asthma attacks. Many of them will be hospitalized.

Mercury emissions fall from the sky when it rains. Mercury then finds its way into the food chain in different bodies of water and can end up in some of the fish we eat. When pregnant women eat those fish in sufficient quantities over time, mercury can build up in their bodies and harm the brain development of their unborn children. This year, more than 600,000 pregnant women in America with elevated levels of mercury in their bodies will give birth to babies who are at risk because of that mercury.

Sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants alone will kill close to 25,000 Americans this year. That’s almost 500 this week and nearly 70 each day. Many, but not all of the victims, are elderly. Heart disease is the symptom, sulfur dioxide is the cause.

Unlike the other three pollutants, carbon dioxide emissions don't cause breathing disorders or harm unborn children, at least not directly. Instead, these emissions contribute to global warming, allowing the sun's rays to enter our atmosphere and warm our planet, but not allowing the emissions to leave as readily as they once did.

Most scientists today have concluded that unless we begin to rein in carbon dioxide emissions, and soon, our planet will continue to grow warmer, contributing further to sea level rise. Life on earth may change dramatically as weather patterns become more extreme. Moreover, large parts of our planet that support the growth of crops and trees today are likely to turn into deserts in the decades to come if we do nothing.

Over five years ago, I introduced legislation — updated earlier this year — mandating reductions in the emissions from power plants by 2015 of all four pollutants, mercury, CO2, NOx and SOx. Under the legislation that a bipartisan group of 10 other senators joined me in cosponsoring, nitrogen oxide emissions must be reduced by almost 70 percent; sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants must be cut by over 80 percent; and, mercury emissions must be cut by 90 percent, all by 2015.

Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be reduced as dramatically as the other three pollutants without causing economic calamity in this country, but our legislation requires the growth of CO2 emissions from power plants to be slowed, then stopped and finally reversed. By 2015, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants must be brought down to where they were in 2005. By 2050, CO2 emissions, under our legislation, must be reduced by almost half when compared to emissions that occurred in 2005.

Over the past dozen years, scientific evidence that our planet is warming and humans are contributing to it has become widely accepted. With that acceptance, support has grown on Capitol Hill and in many states across America to begin reducing carbon dioxide emissions not only from power plants but from other sources including the vehicles we drive and from various industries. Growing support has led to legislative efforts to mount an economy-wide assault on CO2 emissions from many sources.

I've previously supported an economy-wide CO2 bill, authored by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. It never garnered enough support to pass in the Senate, but it served as a precursor to the current legislative efforts by Senators Lieberman and John Warner, a highly respected Republican from Virginia, to craft a broad climate change bill.

That legislation was introduced several weeks ago with the support of Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, whose Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee I chair. The legislation has been reported out of the global warming subcommittee that Senator Lieberman chairs. Chairwoman Boxer held a hearing on that bill this past week and has scheduled additional hearings in the weeks ahead, along with informal briefing sessions for committee members and our staffs. Senator Boxer also has announced tentative plans to debate, amend and vote on the bill during the first week of December.

At last week's hearing, I made clear to my committee colleagues that, while I support the thrust of the bill, I plan to reserve judgment on whether I will support reporting it out of committee next month until I receive assurances on three fronts.

First, I need to be assured that language calling for significant reductions in emissions of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury from power plants by 2015 will become part of the climate change legislation when the bill comes before the full Senate.

Second, I need to be assured that the bill's cap-and-trade approach to curbing pollution will do a better job of rewarding utilities that produce more electricity using less energy.

And, third, I need to be assured that the bill that we report out of committee does not punish or disadvantage companies that took early action to reduce those emissions posing a threat to the earth's atmosphere.

That's all for now. I'll report later back next month on the progress we make on this global warming bill and on the three fronts that I've mentioned above.

In my next blog entry, I want to share with you an update on the progress made in building consensus around major energy legislation in recent weeks that — among other things — calls for:

• phasing in higher fuel efficiency standards for the vehicles we drive;
• reducing our energy needs through conservation; and,
• generating more electricity from renewable sources of energy.

August 23, 2007 — Wilmington, DE:  Earlier this year, I wrote about breaking a bone in my right foot when I stepped on a rock about one mile into running my 25th Caesar Rodney Half-Marathon.  A couple of weeks later, when the fracture hadn't healed on its own, an orthopedic surgeon in Delaware inserted a two-and-a-half-inch screw into my foot.  A month later, when x-rays showed the break was on the mend, my doctor cleared me to begin easing into running.  That's what I did, slowly increasing my mileage until I felt almost as good as new.

Then, something went wrong.  I began noticing stiffness in my right knee when I would stand up after sitting in a car, riding the train or just sitting in a chair for more than a few minutes.  The same knee became swollen and the fluid that was gathering around the knee made bending it difficult and uncomfortable.  So, I stopped by the doctor's office in the Capitol.  He examined the knee, looked me in the eye and said, "rice."  I asked what rice had to do with it, and he replied, "Not 'rice', but 'RICE'."  "RICE?" I asked.  "Yes," he replied.  "Rest.  Ice.  Compression.  And, Elevation." "Ah," I replied.  "RICE!"  He nodded in agreement.

So later that day, I put the elastic band he had given me over my knee and tried to stay off of it a bit more than usual.  That night, when I took the band off to wrap it with an ice pack, I noticed that my knee was more swollen than ever.  Nonetheless, early the next morning, I applied the ice wrap to my knee again, put the elastic band on it and headed for the train station to catch the train to DC.  By mid-day, my knee was swollen more than ever.  I took the band off, put it in a drawer and haven't worn it since.

But I still sought to follow a daily regimen of rest, ice, compression and elevation to see if it would restore my knee to its earlier vigor.  By the end of last week, they hadn't done the trick, so the surgeon who had done the original surgery on my foot asked me to stop by his office near Christiana Care and get a "standing X-ray," followed by an MRI at a nearby imaging center.  Armed with the information that the X-ray and MRI would provide, he would be able to prescribe a rehab regimen or perform some minor corrective surgery on my knee, if needed.  Indeed, he might even remove the screw from my foot in an effort to restore my stride to what it was before the screw was inserted enabling the broken bone to mend.

By chance, earlier this week my schedule took me to Milford to tour Bayhealth Medical Center's brand-new imaging center.  There, patients with all kinds of maladies from cranky knees to clogged-up hearts can stop by for X-rays, ultra-sounds, CAT scans or MRIs.  The facility has been open barely a month but already has seen hundreds of patients.  One of the health care providers there told us that for a cost of around $1,500, they can determine if a patient really needs a heart by-pass operation costing 20 to 30 times that amount.  Moreover, the imaging techniques — individually or in tandem — can help guide a surgeon directly to the part of, say, a damaged knee that's causing a problem and fix it the first time rather than requiring a series of hit or miss procedures.

As I travel around Delaware and outside of it during this month's recess period, I listen to people's concerns about many challenges facing them today.  Right at the top of the list is the ever-rising cost of health care in this country, the lack of health care coverage for over 40 million Americans, and the fact that some of us are our own worst enemy when it comes to the food and beverages we consume and the exercise routines we start but all-too-soon discontinue.

Later this fall, I'll use this blog to explore some of the steps that can help us make real progress on this front in America.  As it turns out, there is no shortage of good ideas.  Among them is extending coverage to several million uncovered American children by expanding the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program known as S-CHIP, or helping more people obtain and take consistently the medicines prescribed for them.  Another good idea is to provide uninsured families with health care opportunities by opening more federally funded health centers in hundreds of communities.  By receiving primary care, families can avoid relying on hospital emergency rooms when they get really sick that may lead to extended hospital stays, costing all of us more in the end.

By the way, this month is "National Health Care Center Month."  There's at least one center in each of our three counties, and their dedicated, hard-working staffs do a terrific job. If you know someone who doesn't have access to primary health care in our state or can't afford it, please let one of my three state offices know, and we'd be happy to steer them in the right direction.

August 6, 2007 — Wilmington, DE:  When I was a kid in elementary school, people would sometimes ask me what my favorite subject was.  Without hesitation, I would reply, "recess."  Now that I serve in the United States Senate, when people ask me what I like most about working there, I still occasionally reply — with tongue in cheek — "recess."

And speaking of recess, the Senate began its traditional August recess just before midnight this past Friday night, just a few days ago.  We'll come back into session the day after Labor Day.

My serious answer to the question about my favorite part of serving in the Senate, however, is a bit different.  I like getting things done.  I like the Senate most when we set aside our partisan differences, use some common sense, and work together across the aisle to address the problems and challenges facing our country that need to be addressed.

While our colleagues in the House of Representatives engaged in the waning days of July before recess in what reminded me at times of legislative guerrilla warfare, the Senate righted itself a couple of weeks ago, and went to work with a spirit and determination that allowed us to accomplish as much in the past 10 legislative days as we had in the previous 10 weeks.  And if truth be known, we probably accomplished more.

The turning point for us occurred in the debate on the reauthorization of our nation's Higher Education Act a couple of weeks ago.  It had been reported out of committee to the full Senate on a near-unanimous, bipartisan vote.  But instead of debating the measure on its merits, a number of our Republican colleagues began offering dozens of unrelated "message" amendments to the bill in what appeared to be an attempt to "slow walk" the measure and consume so much time that we would be hard pressed to get much more done before the August recess.  If we were unable to accomplish much this year or next, it would lend credence to the assertions by some of our Republican friends that the new Democrat majority in the House and Senate is inept and shouldn't remain in the majority after next November's elections.

Our side was tolerant of these delaying tactics on the higher education bill for the first week or so of debate.  After all, there were times when Democrats were in the minority that our side used similar tactics to accuse the other side later of not getting anything done.  But as it became clearer what some of our Republican colleagues were trying to do, tensions began to mount.  They exploded late one night in mid-July on the Senate floor in an exchange of recriminations and dueling amendments that presented the Senate at its worst in the six-plus years I've served there.

But just as both sides in the Senate looked into the abyss of all-out partisan warfare, we stepped back.  Some apologies were exchanged.  Agreement was reached to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to the higher education legislation, and the next day, we were off to the races.  Actually, given the deliberate pace of the Senate, it's a legislative body that's rarely off to the races, but at least in this case, we got off the dime and went to work.

In the two weeks that followed, we finished and passed by a wide margin higher education legislation that will help hundreds of thousands of academically qualified American students enroll in college and go on to complete it.  And, we paid for it, rather than simply increasing our national debt.

In addition, we passed and sent to the President the Homeland Security appropriations bill to fund our efforts to foil threats, foreign and domestic, against — among other targets — our ports, rail and transit systems, civilian aircraft, and against the metropolitan areas that are the most likely targets of terrorists today.

We also funded the expansion of a number of efforts that have the greatest potential to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into this country.  Among them are 23,000 additional trained border security personnel, the funding to construct hundreds of miles of walls and fencing along portions of our border with Mexico where it makes sense, and expanding detention facilities to discontinue the self-defeating policy of catching and releasing many who come across our southern border illegally.  We also called for harnessing existing technology to deploy additional unmanned aircraft and land-based radars that can detect the movement of people toward our border in all kinds of weather, 24 hours a day.

The Senate didn't stop there either.  We passed and sent legislation to the President to overhaul the ethics laws intended to ensure that special interests do not run amok on Capitol Hill.

In the future, earmarks on appropriations bills can no longer be done in secret, but must be fully disclosed, along with the name of the member requesting them.  That information must be posted on the Internet 48 hours before its consideration.  In addition, earmarks can no longer be offered or adopted that somehow reward a family member of a Senator or Representative.

Among the many other reforms in that bill are these:

1. Senators who leave the Senate are not allowed to lobby the Senate for at least two years after leaving, thus slowing the "revolving door," which has allowed a Senator to retire and walk out of the Capitol one day, only to walk back in the same door as a lobbyist the next day to lobby his or her former colleagues and their staffs;
2. Gifts from lobbyists, including gifts involving travel, are prohibited, and lobbyists must disclose their activities more often and in more detail; and, are largely eliminated, while those that are not eliminated must be fully disclosed; and
3. House and Senate members convicted of public corruption, such as bribery and perjury, will not be eligibile for taxpayer-funded pensions.

August 1, 2007 — Washington, DC:  Speaking of the White House, few things are getting less action from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but more action at the state and local level, than climate change.

In 2005, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles encouraged cities across America to begin taking little steps on their own to address climate change.  He knows, and we know, that climate change can't be solved if one city — even a big city like Seattle — buys a few hybrid busses.  But, what began with a small handful of mayors has grown today to include over 600 cities that represent 70 million Americans.

In another city last month, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez was recognized for his AlbuquerqueGreen program.  It has reduced greenhouse gas emissions citywide by — listen to this — 67 percent since 2000.  Sixty-seven percent!

Meanwhile, Austin Mayor Will Wynn has called for 100 percent renewable energy to power all city facilities, to convert Austin's vehicle fleet to alternative fuels and electric power, and to reduce greenhouse gases in every city department.

And at the state level, 11 northeastern states have banded together to form "RGGI," the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to save energy, reduce harmful pollution, and protect jobs.  To everyone from coast to coast who's dreaming up and working on important initiatives like these to make America better, I have just three words to say to you:  "Bring it on!"

But even if we didn't face the challenge of climate change, we would still be looking for ideas on how to save energy or use less fossil fuel.  Our nation needs to focus even more on alternative energy sources.

We have the ability today literally to turn our country's cornfields and soybean fields into oil fields.  In fact, from Montana to Minnesota to the Delmarva Peninsula, we're already doing it.  And in response to what's happening on farms throughout America, many of my colleagues in the Congress and I have established national mandates for renewable fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.  Those mandates will do more than help American farmers, they will help America do better, too.

Other even more promising work is underway at places like DuPont to create cellulosic ethanol and biobutanol from corn stalks, switch grass and the like.  If we're really smart, though, and I think we are, we'll use technology like that to raise farm income without raising the prices of a lot of the food that we produce and consume in America and sell around the world.

And speaking of smart policies, in North Carolina, Lieutenant Governor Beverly Purdue has worked to provide tax credits and incentives for businesses that focus on alternative, sustainable energy, including biofuels production, energy efficient technologies, green building design and other green technologies.

In Iowa, Governor Chet Culver created a $100 million state fund to invest in cutting edge research and development for renewable fuels.

In Minnesota, State Representative Aaron Peterson authored ambitious legislation, signed into law two months ago, requiring that 25 percent of the electricity produced by the state's utilities come from renewable fuels by 2025.  That's up from 5 percent today.  Way to go, Aaron!

As you know, solar and wind energy are two other areas where state and local governments and communities are making great strides, sometimes greater than we're making at the federal level.

The California Solar Initiative is the biggest solar program in the United States and the second largest in the world behind Germany.  It is expected to create 40,000 new jobs in California alone.  It is also forecast to save Californians as much as $18 billion dollars over 25 years.

To complement efforts like this one, earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Energy launched close to a dozen partnerships in states from coast to coast with some of our top colleges and universities and with companies like GE Solar, headquartered in Newark, DE.  Their goal?  To produce electricity from solar energy by 2015 at prices that seemed impossible a decade ago.  If we can reach that goal, solar energy will be off to the races, and so will the United States of America.

Fortunately, we don't have to wait until 2015 to harness the potential of wind power in this country.  The technology is here today.  Experts at the University of Delaware tell me there is enough available wind off the East Coast to provide all the new electricity required for the entire East Coast and to displace virtually all old fossil-fuel electric plants as they retire.

In Delaware, where electricity prices recently spiked by close to 60 percent last year, our state is now negotiating an agreement that should produce the nation's first-ever offshore wind farm in a few years.  Our state motto is, "It’s good to be first," and we're trying hard to live up to that motto when it comes to off-shore wind power.  But I'm hoping that we'll soon have a lot of company in off-shore wind and, when we do, that will be a very good thing for America.

And speaking of leading the way, Iowa, long a leader in corn and caucuses, is quickly becoming a leader in wind energy, too.  Almost 1,000 wind turbines have been installed in Iowa, and it now trails just California and Texas.  This success did not come about by chance.  My friend, and former DLC Chairman, Governor Tom Vilsack saw the future of wind when he signed legislation in Iowa clearing the way to develop the largest land-based wind facility in the world.

By putting in place generous production tax credits, the federal government has demonstrated that we're learning from what's happening with wind-energy in states like Iowa, Texas, Delaware, North Dakota, and California.  What these states and others are doing will help the rest of us in America do even better.

Before I conclude, let me mention that as promising as conservation, wind, solar, biofuels, and other renewable fuels are, 20 percent of our electricity in America today comes from roughly 100 nuclear power plants.  Another 50 percent still comes from coal.  We have more coal in the ground than Saudi Arabia has oil.

Along with all the other challenges that I've mentioned here today, let me add one more.  We've got to start burning coal cleanly, capturing the carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury that coal plants produce along with all that electricity.  The good news is we have the technology to do that today, but we’ve got to bring it to scale.

The clean air and global warming debate that will ensue in the Congress later this year offers us a tremendous opportunity to begin to do that.  Our policies should reward utilities that implement clean coal technology.

And not only that, working with states across America, we should just say no to building new coal-fired plants whose carbon dioxide emissions cannot be fully and safely sequestered within a reasonable period of time.

As for nuclear energy, I realize that not all Americans are sanguine about maintaining or increasing our reliance on nuclear energy.  I readily acknowledge that we still have our work cut out for us to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel.  But let us remember that we are the nation that invented the automobile, the airplane, the television, and the Internet.  We are the nation that split the atom to harness its potential and put a man on the moon.

We survived a civil war and the Great Depression, won two world wars and the Cold War, emerging at the dawn of this century as the mightiest force for justice on this planet.  If we can do all that, in the last two centuries, surely we can figure out how to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel in this century.

And while we're at it, if we listen to and act on the terrific ideas and initiatives that are bubbling up in cities, states and counties across America, we can also figure out how to reduce and, eventually eliminate, our dependence on foreign oil.  We will clean our air, too.

And, we will develop technologies and products that we can sell in this country and in countries around the world, providing employment opportunities for a new generation of Americans for as far as the eye can see.

That is our challenge and our opportunity.  Let us seize this day.  Carpe diem!

July 31, 2007 — Washington, DC:  After sitting on the ground for five hours at the Philadelphia airport this past Sunday, I finally flew on to Nashville, Tennessee to participate in the last part of an annual event hosted by the Democratic Leadership Council, of which I serve as vice-chairman.  It's called the DLC's National Conversation, and it offers a forum for hundreds of state and local elected officials — including governors, mayors, county executives, legislators, and other state and local officials — to learn how moderate Democrats in other parts of the country are grappling with some of the same thorny issues they are facing.

Among other attendees from Delaware scheduled to be there were State Senator Patti Blevins, State Representatives Helene Keeley and Valerie Longhurst, New Castle County Executive Chris Coons and our State Treasurer, Jack Markell.  They participated in several breakout sessions on Saturday and Sunday, focusing on a variety of specific issues including education, health care, public safety, and immigration.  Monday morning's primary session was capped off by a luncheon address from former President Bill Clinton.

Preceding President Clinton to the podium was DLC Chairman Harold Ford; governors from the states of Tennessee, Kansas, Montana, and Maryland. And, oh yes, a "recovering governor" from Delaware.  That would be me.

I was asked to provide an overview of what state and local governments across America are doing to help lessen America's dependence on foreign oil, combat climate change, clean up our air, and create new employment opportunities for Americans in the 21st Century.  As it turns out, collectively, we're doing quite a bit.  Those efforts — coupled with a number of federal initiatives that I've worked on in the Senate — are cause for encouragement.  "Hope in a Hopeless World" as I like to describe it.  A lot of hope, actually.

In any event, what follows are some excerpts of my message to those who were gathered together on Monday in Nashville.

"In Washington, DC, as in most places, everything we do, we can do better.  And in particular, we could do a lot of things better if we looked to the people in this room for ideas emanating from state capitols, city halls, and county seats throughout our country.

For many of the challenges facing our nation, I bet there is a smarter solution that's already being implemented somewhere out there by one of you or by somebody you're working with.

Few challenges in America need more attention today than our nation's energy policy.  Our cars, our homes, our businesses, and our way of life rely on energy that — for too long — a lot of us took for granted.  Our short-sighted energy policies of the past are contributing to an undeniable warming of this planet — which, left unchecked, threatens life on Earth as we know it.

There's got to be a better way.  It's our job to find it.

A way that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, cuts harmful emissions into our air, and harnesses technology to create products that we can use here at home as well as sell in China, in India, in Japan, and in markets all over the world.  I believe we can do that, and I bet you do, too.

Our Republican friends have been in charge in D.C. for most of the past six years.  Given that, it’s not unfair to ask what do they have to show for it on the energy front?

Has the cost of oil and gas fallen during the past six years?  NO!

Has your electricity bill dropped in the past six years?  NO!

Have we reduced the amount of oil that we import in the past six years?  NO!

Have we turned a corner in the battle against global warming during the past six years?  NO!

Would we be engaged as deeply in Iraq today, or focused as much on Iran, if those two countries didn't sit on some of the largest oil reserves in the world?  NO!

And, would the actions of Venezuelan President Chavez be watched as closely today if that country wasn't the single largest source of foreign oil for the U.S.?  NO!

Together, America can do better than that.  The American people are counting on US to do better than that.  Our party can't let them down.  Everyone in this room, and everyone within the sound of my voice, can help.  As it turns out, many of you already are.

This is not just a "government problem," although there's plenty for government, including the federal government, to do.  Let's use the auto industry as just one example.  Our government can invest in promising new technologies like lithium ion batteries to help make flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt a reality in 2010.  Our government can use its purchasing power to help commercialize new automotive technologies when they come into the market place.  And, our government can use tax policy to encourage consumers to buy energy-efficient hybrid vehicles or the new low-emission, energy efficient diesels that Chrysler is launching this year and next.

But don't look to Washington for all the answers.  We don't have them.  As it turns out, cities, states and regions all across America already are leading the way.  You're coming up with new ways to cut energy use and give businesses and consumers incentives to develop and use new and renewable energy sources.  Together, you're doing more than make our nation better.  You're making sure that America will not just be competitive in the 21st Century, but that we'll remain a leader in the world in the 21st Century.

One of the smartest ways to tackle energy issues is simply to use less of it.  If you don't believe me, just look at California.

Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use for the U.S. overall has jumped 50 percent.  The average California family spends almost $1,000 less per year on electricity today than it would have without the efficiency improvements of the past 20 years.

And in 1982, California adopted an innovative approach to utility regulation so that utility profits were no longer linked to simply selling more energy.  Now, the state and its utilities spend $700 million per year to promote energy efficiency.  That's how California is doing better.

Meanwhile, on the other side of our nation, the state of Maryland, led by its dynamic new Governor, Martin O'Malley, convened an energy summit in Annapolis just last Wednesday.  Wisely, they've put conservation at the top of the agenda, and Governor O'Malley has set a goal of reducing energy use by 15 percent by 2015.  That's how Maryland can do better.

In Arizona, under the leadership of Gov. Janet Napolitano, the state's administration and transportation department and Arizona's universities will cut their energy use by 15 percent by 2011.  In doing so, they're expected to reduce their energy bill by $90 million.  That's how Arizona can do better.

In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daly had a new green roof installed on the fire station at O'Hare Airport not long ago.  There, it's reducing the heating and cooling costs of the building.  A lot.  In fact, it's been such a success that the airport is already working on installing green roofs on other buildings, too.

Some folks are even talking about putting green roofs on some of those airplanes that are sitting for hours on taxiways around the country, waiting to be cleared for take off, like the one I was on this past Saturday.  Personally, I’m not sure that idea will ever fly, but these days, you never know, do you?

Well, it may be a while before we see a green roof on an airplane, or on the White House for that matter, but the lessons of Chicago and other cities are starting to make a difference.  Taken together, they'll make the U.S. better and stronger, too.  And, they'll make our future brighter.

July 20, 2007 — Washington, DC:  As a former naval flight officer, I am a great admirer of the C-17 aircraft.  It is a highly reliable workhorse whose mission capable rate hovers around 85 percent.  It can land on large airfields and small airstrips.

The Dover Air Force Base now receives a squadron of 13 of these fine aircraft.  In Delaware, we’re excited and enthusiastic about their arrival.

Having said that, let me add that the cost of modernizing a C-5 is roughly one-third the cost of purchasing a new C-17.  Moreover, a C-5 can carry twice as much cargo as a C-17.  By modernizing a C-5, we buy twice as much hauling capacity for a third of the cost.

Some dispute these figures.  First, they argue that modernizing a C-5 costs more than one-third the cost of purchasing a new C-17 by suggesting the C-5 re-engineering program is experiencing dramatic cost growth.  Again, the facts say otherwise.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), claims that the cost of C-5 modernization have gone up substantially “appear to be somewhat at odds with official cost reports from the DOD Comptroller.”

The December 2006 Select Acquisition Report for the C-5 re-engineering program showed average procurement unit cost growth of 2.9 percent.  It is never good news when a program’s costs increase over expectations, even by a little.  But a 2.9 percent cost growth is unremarkable when compared to other defense acquisition programs.

Moreover, the CRS reports that “projections of future cost growth are driven in large part by an Air Force decision to slow down C-5 modernization production and to extend it by two years.”

Over the past five years, the Air Force has pushed the modernization farther and farther out into the future– not just two years, but five.  Because stretching out the program leads to inefficient production rates, costs have increased.

The contractor responsible for modernizing the C-5s has offered the Air Force a firm, fixed-price contract to guarantee no more cost over-runs.  All the Air Force has to do to nail down a definite, affordable price that does not stretch out the program any further.  The ball is in the Air Force’s court.  If the Air Force chooses not to keep the program on schedule—thereby securing an affordable, fixed price—I wonder whether it is really interested in making the most cost-effective choice for taxpayers.

Advocates of retiring C-5s have also disputed the fact that a C-5 can carry twice as much as a C-17.  In fact, they have begun to refer to C-5s as “C-17 equivalents,” when meeting our airlift needs.

However, the C-5 clearly boasts a greater payload capacity than the C-17.  When compared to the C-17, the C-5 can haul twice as many M1A1 tanks, twice as many Bradley Fighting Vehicles, twice as many Apache helicopters, twice as many Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, and twice as many Patriot Missile Launchers.

Despite the fact that its cargo capacity in cubic feet is only 60 percent more than the C-17, the C-5 hauls double the load in some cases, and actually makes more efficient use of its cargo space when transporting large weapons systems.

Despite the size advantage of the C-5, advocates of retiring the C-5 still make two arguments to ignore the vehicle’s greater hauling capacity.

First, they say C-5s have reliability problems that negate the C-5s’ greater size and capacity.  The problem with this argument is we are addressing the C-5 reliability problems through modernization.

The second argument for overlooking the C-5’s superior hauling capacity is that in practice it doesn’t actually matter.  Some claim that since both C-5s and C-17s often fly missions carrying less than the full weight they can carry, it makes little sense to compare what they are capable of carrying when fully loaded.

My office was told that the reason C-5s and C-17s generally carry less than their capacity is that they “cube out” first.  That means the limiting factor is more often the number of pallets these aircraft can carry rather than the weight they carry.  However, this point reinforces that C-5s carry twice as much as C-17s, since C-5s have 36 pallet positions, and C-17s have only 18.

So, can we fix the aircraft we have for less than the cost of replacing them with new aircraft?

The answer is yes.  To paraphrase the CRS report, “Current cost estimates of (modernizing) the C-5 are about one-third that of a new C-17, and the C-5 will carry twice the payload of the C-17.”  Thus, retiring C-5s and replacing their hauling capacity with C-17s costs roughly six times as much as upgrading the C-5s.

We can fix the aircraft we have, and it’s clearly less expensive than buying new aircraft.  But can we afford to purchase new aircraft anyhow, even though it is unnecessary and exceedingly costly?

In 2006, the federal government ran a deficit that was just under a quarter of a trillion dollars.  The Office of Management and Budget tells us the deficit for FY2007 will be around $200 billion.

We are rapidly approaching the retirement of the baby boomers, which will put unprecedented strains on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  We are spending beyond our means.

The Defense Science Board tells us “each year of additional [C-17] production beyond 2008 will represent an additional $2.4 billion acquisition and $2 to $3 billion life cycle cost commitment.”  There are better uses for this money than purchasing aircraft the military has not requested and credible studies say we don’t need.

Even if we confine our focus to the Air Force budget, it is clear there are better uses for this money.  The strategic airlift fleet is the youngest of the Air Force’s aircraft fleets.

If we have several billion dollars lying around, I would suggest there are other fleets in the Air Force inventory in more urgent need of new aircraft than the strategic airlift fleet—Tankers, C-130s, to name a few.  If you ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force he will tell you this is the reason the Air Force has not, and will not, put money in its own budget to retire C-5s and replace them with new aircraft.

When we actually sit down and do the math, it is difficult to argue that C-5s, whose wings and fuselages have another 30 to 40 years of useful life, should be retired and replaced with new C-17s.  It is even more difficult to argue it is cost-effective to do so.

The only reason left to consider for why we would possibly want to retire C-5s and replace them with C-17s, is that C-17s can perform missions that C-5s cannot.

It’s true the C-17 and the C-5 have different attributes.  The C-17 can land on short, austere runways that the C-5 cannot.  But it’s important to keep in mind, only a small minority of strategic airlift missions involve taking off from, or landing on, short, austere runways.

On the other hand, the C-5 can carry outsized cargo that the C-17 cannot.  In fact, the evidence suggests that if we have a deficit, in terms of matching our capabilities with our needs, we have too few modernized C-5s, not too few new C-17s.

For instance, during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the Department of Defense has been forced to lease An-124 aircraft to carry outsize and oversize cargo because C-17s cannot carry this cargo, and not enough C-5 aircraft have been available.  An-124s are Russian aircraft that are comparable to C-5s.  Indeed, they are even larger than C-5s.

It is ironic that some are talking about retiring C-5s, when the number of C-5s we have are insufficient to meet our needs, and we must rely on an even larger Russian aircraft to fill the gap.

Let me be honest with you.  Sometimes we in the Congress act as though our regular obligation to be careful stewards of the taxpayer dollar does not apply when it comes to defense spending.  When we spend beyond our needs, there is an opportunity cost.  We end up shortchanging our troops in the field, failing to provide them with the body armor and up-armored vehicles they need.  Or we end up shortchanging our troops when they come home, failing to adequately tend to their physical and psychological wounds.

Let me conclude by commending the leadership of the Armed Services Committee and its Seapower Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this issue in the Senate.  They have shown a commitment over the years to identify the facts and make decisions based on the facts.

The defense bill reported out of the Armed Services Committee retains the requirement in current law that we fully flight test the three C-5s that have been modernized before making any further C-5 retirement decisions.  The committee also approved report language requiring the Air Force to provide Congress with a report this year, giving us an up-to-date assessment on the performance of these three C-5s that have undergone modernization upgrades, as well as the projected cost of upgrading the rest of the C-5 fleet.  I hope the Senate will pass a Defense Authorization bill soon, and the Senate will retain these key provisions when we works out the differences later this year with the House version of the Defense Authorization Bill and send it onto the President for his signature.

July 19, 2007 — Washington, DC:  The Congress is working on legislation to best equip our armed forces, meet our national security threats and keep America safe.

Determining our nation’s defense priorities is one of the foremost responsibilities of the House and Senate.  And our armed forces are charged with providing our commander-in-chief with flexible options to respond to a wide variety of threats.

Right now, in Iraq, our armed forces are trying to hold back a civil war and protect civilians from terrorists.

In Korea, our armed forces guard borders and deter aggression from a large conventional military.

In the Pacific and the Persian Gulf, our armed forces protect America’s interests through naval power and carrier-based air power.

At home, our National Guard enables governors to respond to and cope with natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina.

At times, it seems the demands on our military are practically limitless.  Unfortunately, the funding that allows our military to meet all these demands is not limitless.

At a time when our federal budget is in the red, we need to meet our military requirements in a fiscally responsible manner.

That is why I recently spoke at length on the Senate floor about the importance of cost-effective airlift in the 21st century.

Although the airmen of our strategic airlift fleet rarely receive the attention they deserve, the reality is our military could not perform any missions if it were not for the airmen’s hard work and dedication.

Strategic airlift involves the use of cargo aircraft to move personnel, weaponry and materials over long distances — often to combat theaters on the other side of the globe.  During Operation Desert Storm, for example, U.S. aircraft moved more than 500,000 troops and 540,000 tons of cargo.

In this war in Iraq, airlift sorties have made up the majority of the nearly 30,000 total sorties flown by U.S. aircraft.

Strategic airlift enables our military to respond to threats in real time.

Not only must our fighting men and women be transported to the fight; they must be continuously supplied.  Airlift makes that happen.

Most of the supplies, material and weaponry move aboard ships.  Almost all of our personnel and a good deal of cargo, however, are transported by aircraft, military and commercial.

The three military aircraft doing most of the heavy lifting are the C-5, the C-17 and the C-130.  Together, they provide an “air bridge” to Iraq, Afghanistan and other trouble spots around the world.

Over the past 10 years, the United States has reduced its Cold War infrastructure and closed two-thirds of its forward bases.  Therefore, to maintain a high level of global engagement, U.S. forces must deploy more frequently and over greater distances.  Since 9/11, the scale and pace of operations has increased dramatically.

There have been several efforts in recent years to measure our military’s strategic airlift requirement.  The most recent one—the Mobility Capabilities Study commissioned by the Pentagon —was completed in February 2006.  It concluded the nation’s airlift requirement could be met with a fleet of 112 C-5s and 180 C-17s.

Our current strategic airlift fleet — including aircraft flying and aircraft on order — consists of 111 C-5s and 190 C-17s.  An update to the Mobility Capabilities Study included in the President’s budget this year confirmed this mix is sufficient to meet our airlift needs.

The problem is not that we have too few aircraft.  The problem is that most of the C-5s in our airlift fleet are not as reliable as they could be.  There are two ways to address this problem: We can fix the aircraft we have, or we can buy new ones.

Families face a similar choice when they have a problem with their car.  Should they fix their old car or buy a new one?  If the car can be fixed, is it cheaper to fix than buying a new one?  Or do they have so much money they can afford buy a new car anyhow?

We should ask ourselves the same questions when it comes to paying for military aircraft within the confines of a responsible federal budget.

In the case of our strategic airlift fleet, I believe the answer is clear.  Can the aircraft we have be fixed?  Yes.  Can they be fixed for less than the cost of purchasing new aircraft?  Yes.  Can we afford to buy new aircraft anyhow, even if it is unnecessary and more costly?  No.

First, let’s consider the question of whether existing aircraft can be fixed.  Currently, C-5s are being upgraded, with new engines, new hydraulics, new avionics and more than 70 other improvements.

The contractor making these upgrades has promised the Air Force that the aircraft improvements will result in at least a 75 percent mission capable rate.

If that level of reliability can be achieved, our current fleet of C-5s and C-17s is sufficient to meet our airlift needs now and for the foreseeable future.  That is the conclusion of both the military’s latest analyses of our airlift needs and an independent analysis in 2000 by the Institute for Defense Analyses.

To date, three C-5s—one C-5A and two C-5Bs—have received complete upgrades eventually planned for the entire fleet. General Schwartz, commander of U.S. Transportation Command, said he is encouraged by the performance of these aircraft and believes that the target mission capable rate of at least 75 percent will be met, and possibly exceeded.  Gen. Schwartz isn’t the only one giving the modernized flights high praise.

One of the modernized B-models came to Dover AFB recently for an annual inspection where I viewed it and talked to the crew.  I asked one of the pilots, who has 4,000 flight hours in the C-5, “How does it fly?”  His response: “Like a rocket!”

While most acknowledge the C-5s can be fixed, some argue many are not worth fixing.  I’ve heard two versions of this argument.  The first is that even if most of the fleet can and should be fixed, at least 25 to 30 of the older C-5As are such “bad actors,” they should be retired.

Unfortunately, this claim is rarely substantiated.  Congress has asked the Air Force to provide the tail number of each of these “bad actors,” but so far it has not done so.

A recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) suggests that perhaps these “bad actors” don’t exist.

According to CRS testimony from May, “An examination of C-5 reliability and maintainability statistics for the past three fiscal years does not identify any obvious subset of the C-5 fleet that stands out as notably ‘bad actors.’"

The other version of the “some C-5s are not worth saving” argument draws a line in the sand, not among the “bad actors” and the rest of the fleet, but among older C-5As and the newer C-5Bs.  It is a common perception that the C-5As do not perform as well as the C-5Bs, but that perception is contradicted by the facts.

Again, to quote the CRS study, “C-5A performance and reliability is not uniformly inferior to C-5B performance.  Over the past three years, for example, the C-5A fleet has averaged a higher mission departure reliability rate (83.1 percent) than the C-5B fleet (81.3 percent).”

Some claim, however, that even if the C-5As are not less reliable, inevitably they will have structural problems because they are older than the B-models.  This claim continues to be made even after the Air Force established a Fleet Viability Board in 2003 to evaluate the C-5A fleet and render judgment on its suitability for continued service.  The Board reviewed all relevant data and concluded the C-5A fleet is structurally sound and viable for at least 25 years, and probably longer.

Just to be sure, the Air Force actually tore a C-5A apart in late 2005 to inspect it from top to bottom.  The aircraft was given a clean bill of health.

The evidence at hand strongly suggests we can fix the aircraft we have.

July 4, 2007 — Wilmington, DE:  On this Independence Day, 2007, I’d like to pause for a few minutes to reflect on our growing dependence on foreign oil.  Almost two-thirds of the oil America consumes today comes from abroad, and much comes from nations that don’t like us very much.

I’m convinced some of the money I spent filling up the tank of my venerable Chrysler Town & Country minivan last weekend may well be used to hurt our nation in some way.  I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t make much sense to me.  America needs to get on a path that will eventually free us of that foreign oil dependence, and the sooner the better.

As it turns out, the U.S. Senate last month passed, by a more than two-to-one margin, bipartisan energy legislation that seeks to put us back on the right track.  It does so in a number of ways.

First, it promotes a greater reliance on renewable fuels  Second, it strengthens conservation by requiring more energy-efficient appliances and building.  And third, for the first time since 1975, it calls for significant increases over the next 13 years in the fuel efficiency of the cars, trucks and vans sold in our country.

Not surprisingly, this third piece drew cries of outrage from Ford, Chrysler and General Motors  But to be honest with you, it’s hard to reduce our growing reliance on foreign oil if we don’t somehow reduce the amount of petroleum we consume on American highways.  In fact, the 237 million vehicles we drive in this country account for some 44 percent of all the petroleum we’ll consume in the USA this year.

Thirty-two years have passed since the last time the Congress and our President made a run at increasing the fuel efficiency of the vehicles that we drive.  In 1975, cars sold in America got roughly 14 miles per gallon (mpg).  That year, after being buffeted by oil embargoes and OPEC, Congress passed, and President Ford signed, legislation establishing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy — nicknamed CAFE — mandating that by 1985, our car fleet in the United States get 27.5 mpg, and that light trucks and vans achieve 20 mpg.

Not everyone thought that was a good idea.  Foremost among the skeptics and critics were the Big 3 U.S. automakers.  Here’s what a couple of them had to say at the time.

A GM spokesman said in 1975, “If this proposal becomes law and we do not achieve a significant technological breakthrough to improve mileage, the largest car the industry will be selling in any volume at all will probably be smaller, lighter and less powerful than today’s compact Chevy Nova…”

A Chrysler spokesman said in 1974, “In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models, including most full-size sedans and station wagons.  It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact-size cars, or even smaller ones, within five years…”

When 1985 rolled around, a lot of vehicles smaller than the Chevy Nova weren’t being made and sold here, but the Big 3 reported a net income of $8.1 trillion that year  They also made a lot of full-size sedans and light trucks in 1985, and they were laying the groundwork for launching minivans and SUV’s, as well.

Fuel efficiency ratings for cars sold in America haven’t been raised since 1985.  Recently, the target for light trucks and SUV’s began going up by a modest 2 percent per year and will reach 24 mpg in 2011.  Other than that, we’re still in the same spot we were over two decades ago.

For the past 22 years, the Big 3 have called on Congress and a series of American presidents not to raise CAFE standards again.  In so many words, they’ve said, “If you do, we’ll lose market share, we’ll lose money, we’ll close plants, and we’ll lay people off.

So, for 22 years, Congress has not acted.  Meanwhile, for much of the past 22 years, the Big 3 have lost market, lost money, closed plants and laid people off.  In fact, their collective market share dropped to roughly 50 percent last year, and their losses from North American automotive operations reached some $15 billion.  Ironically, much of that lost market share has been taken away by foreign auto makers who produce more energy-efficient vehicles than those generally made here by domestic automakers.

As the Senate prepared last month to take up legislation that would ratchet up the overall fuel economy of vehicles sold in this country over the next 13 years to 35 mpg, you might have thought it was 1975 all over again if you listened to our friends at Ford, GM and Chrysler.

This time, however, the Senate didn’t buy it.  It wasn’t because we don’t believe in the importance of a strong manufacturing base, particularly a strong automotive manufacturing base.  But we also believe it’s equally important to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and to reduce harmful emissions into our air.  Emissions from our cars, trucks and vans not only help make our air less healthy to breathe, these mobile sources also account for close to one-third of all the carbon dioxide we emit into our atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

The energy legislation the Senate passed and sent to the House last month has at least three goals.  They are: 1) reduce our nation’s growing reliance on foreign oil; 2) reduce harmful emissions into the air; and, 3) accomplish the first two goals without further undermining the competitiveness of the U.S. domestic auto industry.

One of the reasons the Big 3 have been concerned about potential increases in CAFE standards is because they feared we might impose them in a way that allows foreign competitors to use their more fuel-efficient car fleet to mask the relative energy inefficiency of the growing number of light trucks and SUV’s they’re selling — and want to continue selling — in this country.  The Senate actually heard those concerns and structured our legislation to address it.

As a result, we agreed that the Congress should not attempt to micromanage the process of raising fuel efficiency requirements over the next 13 years.  Instead, we have delegated to an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation called the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the responsibility for working with both domestic and foreign automakers selling products here between now and 2020 to ensure that the overall fleet of cars, light trucks and SUV’s being sold here reach an average fuel economy of 35 mpg in 13 years.

Beyond 2020, NHTSA is directed in our legislation to continue to work with automakers for an additional decade to raise fuel efficiency standards by what the automakers agree is the maximum amount that is technically feasible.

In its simplest terms, here’s how the process will work.  In consultation with domestic and foreign automakers, NHTSA will set the same fuel efficiency requirements for the small cars of each auto manufacturer selling its products in America over the next 13 years.  Similarly, NHTSA will set a somewhat lower fuel efficiency standard for the mid-size cars of each auto manufacturer selling products in America, and an even lower fuel efficiency standard for full-size cars.

In much the same way, NHTSA will set a fuel efficiency standard for the small trucks and small SUV’s of each automaker, as well as a somewhat lower fuel efficiency standard for the mid-size trucks and SUV’s sold by each automaker and an even lower fuel efficiency standard for full-size trucks and larger SUV’s.

In short, Toyota’s small cars must reach the same fuel efficiency requirements as those that Chrysler or GM’s small cars must reach.  And, Toyota’s light trucks and SUV’s must achieve the same fuel efficiency that Chrysler and GM’s light trucks and SUV’s must achieve.

By 2020, however, the combined fleets of cars, light trucks and SUV’s sold in America should achieve an overall fuel efficiency rating of 35 mpg.  In saying that, I should add that automakers like VW whose product mix is more reliant on cars will have to achieve an efficiency standard that is somewhat higher than 35 mpg.  Automakers like Chrysler whose product mix is more reliant on light trucks and SUV’s will have to achieve an efficiency standard that is somewhat lower than 35 mpg.

It isn’t enough, though, for Congress to tell the domestic auto industry to “eat your spinach” and achieve these higher fuel efficiency standards over the next 13 years.  We have an obligation to help them.  Just like they say in the Home Depot ads, “You can do it.  We can help.”  That help comes in a variety of ways in the legislation that the Senate passed late last month.

First, under an amendment I offered with Senator Joe Biden’s encouragement, the federal government is authorized to invest $50 million per year over the next five years in new battery technology to help make possible the development of the next generation of lithium-ion batteries needed to make flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid concept cars like the Chevrolet Volt a reality several years from now.

Second, the federal government is directed in the Senate bill to use its purchasing power to help commercialize advanced technologies in more energy-efficient vehicles that will be coming into the U.S. marketplace in coming years.  That mandate could provide a significant boost to the sale of hybrid Dodge Durangos and Chrysler Aspens when Chrysler’s assembly plant in Newark, Delaware, begins manufacturing them in 2008.

A third way the federal government can help the domestic auto industry reach more rigorous energy efficiency standards by 2020 is by offering tax credits to consumers who purchase energy-efficient hybrids or low-emission diesel-powered vehicles when automakers produce them.  The earlier 2005 energy bill that Congress passed provides credits for both; however, the credit for low-emission, energy-efficient, diesel-powered Chrysler vehicles is not scheduled to kick in until 2009.

I lobbied the Senate Finance Committee hard last month to include a provision moving the effective date of that tax credit up a year so that consumers purchasing Chrysler’s new low-emission, diesel-powered vehicles in 2008 will benefit, along with Chrysler.  It looks like the committee will do just that, and I’m grateful for their support.

There are plenty of other things the federal government can do to help the Big 3 meet higher fuel-efficiency standards over the next dozen years or so.

We can mandate the setting of fuel standards for fuels like B20 and B30 bio-diesel fuel which contain, respectfully, 20 percent and 30 percent bio-fuels, like soybean oil.  Otherwise, automakers like Chrysler, which expect to sell ever-larger numbers of low-emission, energy-efficient diesel-powered vehicles will find it difficult to warranty the engines of those vehicles.

Also, we need to require oil companies that own service stations to begin ensuring company-owned stations have at least one pump dispensing fuel that can be used by the flex-fuel vehicles.  As one of my colleagues asked, “What good does it do to require automakers to manufacture flex-fuel vehicles if the people who buy them can’t find a service station that sells E-85 or some other bio-fuel?”  The federal government needs to make sure that the infrastructure is in place for these vehicles and, later on, for fuel cell vehicles that will run on hydrogen.

Let me close with a brief mention of a conversation I had in my office last month with the CEO of one of our country’s three domestic automakers.  He is someone I deeply respect and admire.  He outlined for my staff and me his heartfelt concerns over the difficulty that his company and the other two American companies will face in complying with the tougher requirements of the next 13 years.

When he had finished, I responded by saying that his primary responsibility in this debate over higher fuel-efficiency standards is to his stakeholders and employees.  I went on to say that while I have a responsibility to them as well, my primary responsibility is to all Delawareans and to all Americans.  Citizens are looking at my colleagues and me to provide the leadership to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and to reduce harmful emissions into our air.  They are also looking to us to reduce the likelihood that we’ll end up in wars in unstable places like Iraq which sits on the second largest known reserves of oil in the world.

I suppose I could be wrong about this, but I honestly believe that in the end, by phasing in higher fuel-efficiency requirements for automakers like we do in the Senate-passed legislation, and then establishing a real partnership between the Big 3, the federal government, other technology companies and a number of our research institutions and universities, we will do more than reduce our reliance on foreign oil and reduce harmful emissions into our air.

We’ll end up strengthening the competitiveness of the domestic auto industry in America in the years ahead.  That is a goal worth striving for, and one America can achieve, as well.

After all, this is the country that invented the automobile, the airplane, the television and the Internet.  We split the atom and harnessed nuclear energy.  And, we set a goal of putting the first man on the moon in one decade and went on to do it.  If we can do all of those things, surely we can achieve the energy efficiency standards called for in the legislation the Senate passed in June.

To our friends at GM, Ford and Chrysler, let me say again, “You can do it.  We can help.”  And, we will.

June 28, 2007 — Wilmington, DE:  In September, under legislation signed by the President last month, General Petraeus must report progress to the Congress on 18 benchmarks laid out it the funding bill that supports our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.  Among the elements Petraeus must report on are:

• action by the Iraqi Parliament on plans to share the country’s oil wealth and power among that nation’s three major factions – the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds;
• action by the parliament to allow some former Baathist members, and past Saddam supporters, to play a role in running Iraq’s government;
• action by the parliament to amend the Iraqi constitution, as promised when it was adopted almost two years ago, and to allow municipal and provincial elections to go forward;
• action by the Iraqi government to control militias, many of which have infiltrated local police departments; and,
• progress by units of the Iraqi army to lead the fight with U.S. troops or to engage the enemy without U.S. troop support.

One of the biggest hurdles we face in Iraq is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to make the tough decisions, including those outlined above.

Even Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd with whom we recently met in Baghdad, readily acknowledged there is little sense of urgency among his country’s leaders to take bold steps to avert a full-blown civil war and put Iraq on a more promising course.  He’s right.

Borrowing from a basketball analogy, Iraq’s parliament and other leaders act like the game is in the first quarter and they have plenty of time to make the tough decisions and adjustments.  I told the leaders they are mistaken.  Patience is wearing thin among the American people and their elected representatives in Washington, D.C.

This is not the first quarter in Iraq.  This is the fourth quarter.  The shot clock is running, and half the Iraqi team is still on the sidelines arguing about who’s going into the game, what play to call and who will take the shot.  The leaders of Iraq need to stop bickering, and start playing like a team, while there’s time.  If they do, it will unite the disparate factions that threaten to pull their country apart.  If they don’t, no military surge will save them.

I realize there are some in our country who question whether it’s appropriate for Congress to play an oversight role with respect to Iraq.  To those critics, I invite them to read Section 8 of Article I of our Constitution, compare it with Section 2 of Article II of the same Constitution, and judge for themselves who has overplayed their constitutional hand.  The role of Congress, outlined by our Founding Fathers, was not meant to be a rubber stamp when it came to waging war.  In my judgment, the appropriate role of Congress with respect to war is to exercise our constitutional responsibilities with regard to the use of force and to conduct oversight of the executive branch’s conduct of war.  Our responsibilities in this war are no different.

I also believe we have an obligation to convey to Iraq’s leaders that the window of opportunity will not remain open forever, or even much longer.  Defense Secretary Gates, who was in Iraq the same day as our delegation, has confirmed the role Congress is seeking to play is a constructive role.

The oversight our congressional delegation performed in Iraq and Kuwait — over contractors operating there — was equally constructive.  According to the Department of Defense, there are just over 127,000 contractors in both countries supporting our war effort.  They do everything — prepare meals, do laundry, drive hundreds of trucks thousands of miles to resupply U.S. and Iraqi forces, repair vehicles damaged in the war and, even provide protection to congressional delegations that come to Iraq on an almost weekly basis.

Many of the contracts our government has participated in during the past four years have been on a sole-source, no-bid or cost-plus basis.  As a result, billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been wasted.  For example, if a contractor agrees to perform a task for $100 but can perform it for $90, the contractor keeps that $10 gain.  However, if the cost to the contractor turns out to be $110, the contractor “eats” the $10 loss.  We’ve got a long way to improve contracting practices, but I believe we’re finally on the right track.

Over the past five months, Congress has started to pressure the executive branch to end bad contracting practices.  Slowly, they are disappearing and will, with our continued oversight, be replaced with fixed-price contracts and competitive bidding.  The key is to stay on it.

Let me close by returning to the role Iraq’s leaders must play.  More than ever, they must act in the weeks and months ahead with courage and selflessness at least as great as that of our troops these past four years.

In short, Iraqis must decide whether they want a country.  We can’t do that for them.  Our continued presence there buys them more time to make and abide by the tough decisions.  The time to act is now.

A year from now, there will likely be a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.  Look at Kosovo or at South Korea, where modest numbers of American troops remain even today.

Having said that, our troops should not be policing a civil war among Shiites and Sunnis a year from now.  A year from now, it may be appropriate for us to continue to train Iraqi troops and police forces in Iraq, to join Iraqi forces in certain counter-insurgency operations, to help Iraqis better secure their borders, and protect U.S. assets in that country, but there should not be 160,000 American troops in Iraq.

As luck would have it, the evening after our return from Iraq and Kuwait, I was at the White House with my family and many of my colleagues and their families for the annual congressional barbeque on the White House lawn.

There, I had a chance to share briefly with President Bush two takeaways from our trip.  I told him it was imperative to replicate in other Iraqi provinces the success experienced in Anbar province.  He nodded in agreement.

I also told him we need to keep increasing the pressure on Iraqi leaders to make the tough political decisions.  He again nodded and replied, “We are doing everything we can think of.” I hope we are.

June 25, 2007 — Wilmington, DE:  I returned home a week ago from a four-day congressional delegation mission to Iraq and Kuwait.  I arrived back in Delaware just in time on a Monday morning to participate in the sendoff of 150 members of a military police unit of the Delaware National Guard at Fort Dix, headed to Iraq.

The situation awaiting them in Iraq remains dangerous, and the challenges our troops face there are daunting.  The assessment we received in an hour-and-a-half-long meeting with General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was sobering, but it was not devoid of hope.

Americans and Iraqis continue to die in Iraq in numbers that are heart-wrenching.  The numbers of those seriously wounded are even greater.  Iraqi borders leak like sieves, often allowing foreign insurgents and weapons to enter without difficulty.

We heard first-hand accounts from American troops of Iraqi police who were intimidated from performing their duties for fear of deadly reprisals by militia members.  We also heard of some Iraqi army units still reluctant to take the lead in patrols and other operations.

In a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, output remains pitifully low.  Although the United States has recently started a dialogue with them, Iran and Syria continue to create problems within Iraq.  The effects of long, and sometimes multiple, deployments are taking a terrible toll on our troops, particularly those with young children back home or with businesses they need to run.  And as temperatures approach 120 degrees, electricity is still unavailable most of the time in Baghdad.

On the political front, the Iraqi Parliament remains besieged by divisions that, by comparison, make the U.S. Congress look like a bastion of bipartisan cooperation.  Despite months of prodding, Iraqi lawmakers have yet to agree to plans to share their nation’s vast oil wealth or to share power.

Similarly, most Baathist party members who ran the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein have been purged, and efforts to bring in the most capable to serve in some capacity have been blocked, further fueling the Sunni insurgency.  Proposed changes to the Iraqi constitution, adopted almost two years ago, have yet to materialize.  Moreover, while there’s been a lot of talk about provincial and municipal elections, even the legislation mandating elections has yet to be approved by the full parliament.

Despite the unrelenting flow of bad news, all is not gloom and doom in Iraq today.  That message was delivered to me loud and clear by most of the two dozen members of the Delaware National Guard who I met shortly after landing in Baghdad.  They expressed — almost to a person — their frustration that news stories emanating from Iraq are overwhelming negative and that stories of positive developments are not being reported or are drowned out by negative news.  Amidst the doom and gloom, they said there are positive developments.  Here are a few of them:

While electricity in Baghdad is still hit-or-miss most days, the availability of electricity in most provinces outside Baghdad exceeds the levels that existed before the overthrow of Saddam.  Significantly, several days before our arrival, the availability of electricity in Baghdad finally exceeded the levels existing prior to the regime overthrow.

While 107mm shells were fired into Baghdad’s International or Green Zone during one of our briefings there, much of Baghdad remains far calmer than it was just a few months ago.  Many of the “bad guys” appear to have gone underground, for now, or have headed for other parts of the country to cause mayhem.

On our second day in Iraq, our congressional delegation donned helmets and body armor, and headed out of the International Zone onto Haifa Street aboard Strykers or armored personnel carriers.  A curfew had been lifted earlier that morning in the capital city, and there were a lot of people on the sidewalks and cars on the streets.  Many of the pedestrians — young and old, men and women — returned our waves.  To my surprise, a number of them smiled when waving back.

We walked through one of the residential neighborhoods alongside Haifa Street where a major urban redevelopment project is underway, led jointly by the Americans and Iraqis.  One combat-trained U.S. Army colonel walking with us said there are days when he feels more like a city planner than a combat soldier, but he wasn’t complaining.  The relative calm we witnessed along Haifa Street contrasted sharply with the situation there several months ago – a situation highlighted by the pock-marked buildings we saw that had been hit by gunfire from earlier firefights.

The calm was also in stark contrast to the sectarian violence that exploded in many parts of Iraq a year ago when a sacred Shiite mosque — the al-Askariya in Samara — was bombed, allegedly by Sunni insurgents or by others intent on fomenting civil war among Shiites and Sunnis.  The bombing did just that as Shiites murdered Sunnis by the hundreds and destroyed dozens of Sunnis mosques in the weeks that followed.  A second bombing of the same mosque in Samara just a few days before our delegation’s arrival elicited a different response this time.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, immediately after the bombing, went to the mosque, denounced those who did the bombing, promised retribution against them and imposed an immediate curfew.  His quick action won kudos from Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds alike, as well as from Americans.

An even more dramatic turnaround has occurred in Anbar Province, the large Sunni-dominated province that stretches just west of Baghdad all the way to the Syrian border.  Ever since the toppling of Saddam’s regime, violence and insurrection have dominated Ambar province.  Among the Americans badly wounded there was Sean Barney, a member of my Senate staff and Marine reservist who was shot in the neck by a sniper in Fallujah and nearly killed.

Earlier this year, though, a new chapter began to be written in Anbar Province.  One by one, Sunni tribal leaders began to redirect their anger and fire away from American and Iraqi troops and toward al-Qaeda in Iraq — a group of Sunnis who had infiltrated the province, leaving death and destruction in their wake.

Remarkably, a joint effort by the Sunni tribal leaders and coalition forces has succeeded in driving virtually all of al-Qaeda out of Anbar.  As calm has returned to the area, the United States Agency for International Development has come in to help rebuild and get the economy moving, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun several major public works projects, including a waste water treatment plant near Fallujah.

Efforts are now underway to replicate in other provinces the minor miracle that has occurred in Anbar.  And while no one, including me, expects that to be easy, no one in Iraq or in the United States, even just one year ago, would have believed possible the dramatic turnaround we have witnessed in Anbar.

June 17, 2007 — Delaware:  I was pleasantly surprised when The News Journal recently invited me – along with another half-dozen or so Delaware fathers — to participate in a story that they were compiling about Father’s Day.  Each of the fathers was asked to answer the same three questions relating to fatherhood.  Let me acknowledge upfront that it’s hard to capture in three relatively short paragraphs the blessing that our sons are to us every day.  Having said that, I thought that on this Father’s Day, I might use my blog to share with fathers (and mothers) what the newspaper asked us and how I responded.  I hope you enjoy reading what I had to say and that in doing so, it causes you to reflect a bit on this day on your own father or on your role as a father to your own children or step-children.

1. How has becoming a father changed your life?
My wife and I were blessed with children later in life than most.  In fact, we weren’t sure if we’d ever be able to have a family.  I know it probably sounds corny to some, but helping to raise our boys and to see them grow into the kind of young men they’ve become has made my life complete.  They are a source of joy and pride for us every day.  They also inspire me to work a little harder every day, too, in order to turn over to them and their generation a better country and a better world than the ones we inherited from my own parents.

2. What are your tips for being a father?
When our boys were young, and I’d ooh and aah about every little remarkable thing they did, a friend of mine whose kids were teenagers, said to me, “Just you wait until they’re teenagers,” and he proceeded to give me this tongue-in-cheek advice: “When children turn 13, they should be put into a barrel and fed through a hole in one end of the barrel.  When they turn 16, plug the hole.  When they turn 18, let them out.  They’ll be fine and so will you.”  Fortunately, we never tried that approach.  We did try something entirely different, and here’s what I’d advise other fathers to do.  Read to your children from the time they are infants. Try to do it every day.  Hold them in your lap while you read to them.  Hug them while you do it.  Pause every now and then to kiss them on the head and tell them you love them.  If you do, several things will happen. Your children will develop a love for books and for reading.  Their vocabularies will expand dramatically.  They’ll be better prepared when they begin kindergarten, and they’ll build on that success in the years that follow.  One other piece of advice — tell your kids that you love them every day.  Say it like you mean it, and hug them when you say it.  All too soon, the day will come when they’ll be grown and gone.  You want to make sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know you love them deeply, and they take the security that comes with that knowledge with them wherever they go in life.

3. What was your relationship like with your own father?
Our father had been a chief petty officer in the Navy during WWII.  He was one tough cookie.  He had high expectations for his daughter and her younger brother and didn’t hesitate about letting us know it on a regular basis.  Fortunately for us, his wife — our mother — was among the most patient and loving women that God put on this earth.  Together, they made a good parenting team.  Ironically, they were both Republicans and probably went to their graves wondering where they went wrong in raising their boy.  Actually, we learned a lot from them both.  From our dad, we learned that, “If a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well.”  We also learned to, “Just use a little common sense.”  And, we learned from his own example that even if you’re born into a family of very modest means, if you work hard and never stop learning throughout your life, you’re likely to exceed by more than a little bit the expectations that a lot of people had for you as a child.

Almost all of us have learned important lessons from our fathers.  Our worlds are shaped by them in so many ways.  I hope that we will all take a moment to thank fathers this weekend — whether quietly in prayer, in a card or face-to-face — and take time to remember the difference fathers made in our lives.  Happy Father’s Day.

Sen. Tom Carper spoke about the need for immigration reform legislation during the Senate debate on Thursday, June 7, 2007.

While later in that debate, Sen. Carper voted in support bringing the immigration reform legislation to a vote, the reform legislation was pulled from the Senate debate because it did not receive the 60 votes needed to bring it to a vote.

Due to the increased number of phone calls, letters and e-mails sent to Sen. Carper on the issue of immigration reform, a condensed version of the senator's June 7 Senate floor statement appear here to explain why he supports passing immigration reform legislation this year.

I would like to comment on the immigration reform debate we focused on in the Senate in the last couple weeks.

We debated about what we need to do to secure our borders, what we need to do to make sure employers are not knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, and what to do about the 12 million people here undocumented, roughly 60 percent of whom came here illegally.

Unfortunately, in my view, the worst thing we can do, is do nothing.  I don't believe the status quo is acceptable.  It was the status quo that last summer found as many as 10,000 people coming across our borders illegally every week, mostly seeking work.

It is clear that before we do anything else in our immigration system, we must secure our borders.

With respect to securing of our borders, let me mention a couple of things this legislation would have required us to do.  We have thousands of border patrol personnel on a couple-thousand-mile border.

The legislation basically said we are going to double the number of border patrol personnel.  They have to be better trained and better equipped.

Today we are supplementing their numbers with the National Guard.  And, as a former governor who once was commander in chief of our National Guard in Delaware, I am all for continuing to deploy those assets to secure our borders and to supplement our Border Patrol personnel.

But our border patrol personnel have to be better trained.  They have to be better equipped.  We have technology today that, frankly, we did not have three, five years ago to deploy along the borders.  We have unmanned aircraft that can see for miles in all types of weather, see when people are moving on the ground at night.  We have these capabilities today.

We also have surveillance cameras to look long distances, in all kinds of weather conditions, day and night, to detect the movement of people toward our borders.

This legislation would have moved us in the right direction to deploying and funding these new technologies.

We have the ability to provide ID, identification for people applying for jobs in this country, identification that is largely tamper proof.  If I were an employer, I would take great solace in knowing the identification being presented to me was genuine, was real, had not been tampered with, and to know that I could trust the technology.  This legislation seeks to make sure that employers have that confidence.

I believe one of the major problems that has led to a greater influx of people coming in illegally is that when we catch them at the border, if they happen to be from Mexico, frequently our border patrol takes them back across the border into Mexico.

However, if we catch people who are not from Mexico — Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries to the south of us — we take them to a detention center.

If we have ample space in the detention center, bed capacity, these detainees are registered, charged and have the opportunity to argue whether they are here as refugees, whether they are being persecuted for their political or religious beliefs.

But for too long when we have captured people not from Mexico and we take them to detention centers, they do not have the bed capacity to detain those who crossed our borders illegally so we cannot book them or hold them in custody because they just do not have enough beds.

So what do we do?  Well, we register them, find out who they are, and then we essentially release them on their own recognizance and say: “Come back in a couple months for a hearing.  Surprise, surprise — we never see them again.  They just disappear.  They melt into the fabric of the communities across this country.

For the most part, they get jobs and go to work, stay out of trouble.  But the idea that people can come in illegally like that, and then are not detained is a flaw in our immigration system that needs to be addressed.  This legislation would have substantially increased the number of beds in our detention centers.

There are clearly flaws and gaps in our immigration system that furthers illegal immigration and must be fixed.  It is especially unfair if you happen to be somebody who is trying to come here legally, waiting in line patiently for years to enter the country legally, abiding by the law.

When you look at our flawed immigration system, it says to people trying to play by the rules: You're foolish.  It sends absolutely the wrong message.

One of the major problems that need to be addressed is that we are not enforcing the laws against employers.  There are sanctions in current law and they need to be applied.  We actually saw the number of employers prosecuted under the law in the last six years drop by some 30 percent below what it was in the last decade.  Too few employers have been prosecuted.  We must make sure employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants are prosecuted with every ounce of energy we have under the law.

The best way to deter, to put a chilling effect on those who come across illegally, is to make sure employers know if they hire illegal immigrants, they are going to pay a severe price.  If employers will no longer hire illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants will no longer have a reason to unlawfully cross our borders—because there will be no jobs over here for those who break our laws.  That sends a strong message to those who otherwise would take a chance and come here illegally.

Other questions remain.  How about all those people who may have come here legally and then their visas expired and they stayed on?  When added to those who came across the borders illegally, it totals some 12 million people.

I can understand the views of some folks in my state that we ought to simply put them all on buses and send them home.  But I would say I don't know how realistic that is.  But amnesty is not the answer.  It sends the wrong message to those people who have been waiting patiently to legally come here for years.  It says to them: You are foolish for playing by the rules.  That is one reason why I do not support amnesty.  Although the majority of these illegal immigrants are hard-working, family-oriented residents, they came or stayed in the United States illegally and must face the consequences.

The legislation we debated in the Senate for two weeks said: If you came here legally and stayed beyond your time, or if you came here illegally, we want you to step out of the shadows.  You have to (1) register with the government, (2) submit to security and health screenings, (3) pay a fine as restitution for having been in the America illegally, (4) agree to study English and civics, (5) maintain a clean work and criminal record, (6) and get to the back of the line for permanent visas.

You have basically one chance to take advantage of this opportunity, and if you are willing to meet the conditions during several years of probation then you can work your way toward legal status.  It might take eight years, it might take more.

Let me close, by mentioning that in my Senate offices in Delaware we try to do a good job on constituent service.

I get reports every week on how we are doing on constituent services.  We do a monthly survey for the people we serve through constituent services.  They can evaluate our services: excellent, good, fair, poor. About 95 percent of our staff gets good to excellent reviews.  We are very proud of the work they do.

In one of these weekly reports, my head of constituent services included an update about an elderly, uninsured woman showing early signs of dementia that was admitted into the hospital.  She had overstayed her visa and is one of the 12 million illegal immigrants in our country.

The federal government refused to assist Bayhealth/Kent General because the woman is an illegal immigrant.  The hospital was left to its own resources.

The hospital had to continue to pay for her care indefinitely or find an acceptable alternative, which it finally found.

But not before they had to spend upwards of $250,000 to hospitalize her for over 240 days even though it was only medically necessary for her to be hospitalized for two days.  This is money that the hospital will most likely never recoup.

I would like to say that is probably the only time that has happened in this country but unfortunately it is not.  And it is unfortunate that a lot of times it is a failure of us at the federal level to secure our borders, or, as with this case, when people stay beyond their limited period of time.  There are probably other hospital facilities that it has cost a lot of money.

It is being borne by other people in my state who paid for their health care, and oftentimes state and local governments end up picking up the tab for what really is a failure at the federal level.  It is not right.  It is unfair.  This immigration reform legislation we considered but did not pass in the Senate would begin to address this kind of costly local concern.

Let me close with this thought.  Last year, when we debated immigration reform, when I talked about the legislation, I always used the words, ``tough,'' ``smart,'' and ``comprehensive.

I still those three words applies today.  I would add a couple of other terms.  One of those is ``fair'' - fair to taxpayers in this country.  What we pass in the Congress, hopefully some day soon, ought to be fair to taxpayers, not just federal taxpayers but state and local governments, including hospitals, and fair to American workers.

The idea that people are coming to the United States and in some cases taking away jobs from people who are willing and able to do the work is not acceptable.  The idea of having a large guest worker program like the President has envisioned is not acceptable.

The last point I would add is “practical.”  What we have to do is find a way for undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows.  If they do not abide by the law, take them home.  But if they are willing to work hard, pay taxes, stay out of trouble, learn English, learn our customs and our laws, they can have a chance over time, over several years to work toward a documented legal status.  I think that is the right approach.

And, hopefully, sometime in the upcoming weeks or months we in the Senate will return to pass comprehensive immigration reform that is tough on border, fair to taxpayers and practical to enforce.

June 8, 2007 — Milford, DE:  In 1976, three years out of the Navy and one year out of business school at the University of Delaware, I got to run for state treasurer because a lot of other people weren’t clamoring to run.  At the time, I was working at what is now the Delaware Economic Development Office.  When I was unable to secure an unpaid leave of absence for a five-month campaign, I resigned from my post, and hit the trail full-time, never looking back.

During the five months that followed, I covered just about every square foot of our state.  Where two or three were gathered together, there I was, more often than not.  I knocked on thousands of doors, walked most of our towns, campaigned at the State Fair, church carnivals, picnics, swimming pools, festivals, plant gates, office complexes, bowling alleys, supermarkets, senior centers and, even, a hospital or two.

My most unforgettable campaign foray, however, was to the Wilmington Wastewater Treatment Plant.  There, the odor of sewage being treated was so pungent that I don’t believe I could smell anything else for several days.  As I was leaving the facility following a two-hour tour, and having shaken every hand in the place, I thanked the employees for their hard work and for their hospitality.  They told me that I was the first candidate they ever remembered having come there and promised they wouldn’t forget me.  I promised that I wouldn’t forget them either.  And, believe me, I haven’t.

That story — 31 years later — came back to me last week when I pulled up to the Kent County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in Milford on Thursday, May 31, 2007, during a week-long congressional recess.

I last visited the plant about 10 years ago, and I was surprised — pleasantly — by all of the changes I witnessed upon our arrival, as well as by the fact that the place didn’t smell like a lot of wastewater treatment plants in this country!

I remembered from my visit there a decade ago a fairly small plant where operations were hardly state-of-the-art and where its environmental record was not highly regarded.  With the growth that our small state has been experiencing, this facility is doing more than just keeping up, though.  It has begun setting the standard for a growing number of wastewater treatment facilities in America to follow– some as far away as Honolulu.

The 34-year-old plant is now an advanced secondary waste treatment facility that receives wastewater from Kent County, southern portions of New Castle County and northern portions of Sussex County, serving about 125,000 customers.

This wastewater facility is the only one in the country with an Environmental, Health and Safety Management System that is certified to all three of the following essential programs:

• Occupational Health Safety Assessment System (OHSAS) 18001 program.  (OHSAS 18001 is an Occupation Health and Safety Assessment Series for health and safety management systems. It is intended to help organizations to control occupational health and safety risks)


• ISO 14001 standard (ISO 14001 is an international standard that specifies a process for controlling and improving a company's environmental performance)


• National Biosolids Partnership’s EMS program.

The facility is one of only two publicly owned wastewater treatment plants currently in the United States EPA National Performance Track program, which is a partnership that recognizes top environmental performance among participating U.S. facilities.  Program partners are providing leadership in many areas, including some that are not currently regulated, such as energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. Speaking of energy use, for years as governor of Delaware and more recently with my colleagues in the Senate on ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the emissions of harmful pollutants into our air.  How?  By increasing our reliance on renewable forms of energy like solar, wind, and bio-fuels while promoting energy conservation.

I was pleased to learn that among the many initiatives either underway or under construction at the Kent County plant are ones involving a 5 megawatt solar/wind power plan, complimenting other projects already underway in Delaware.

For instance, Allen Family Foods is using solar panels to create electricity for use in some of the 5,000-plus chicken houses on the Delmarva Peninsula.  In addition, our state’s Public Service Commission has recently given the nod to Blue Water Wind to build a wind farm about 10 miles off our coastline to convert wind power in electricity for much of Delmarva.

Another interesting proposal at the wastewater treatment facility calls for instituting a program that is already successful at two landfills here in Delaware — the recycling of methane gas.  A proposed plan would harness methane gas from the decomposing solid waste on site to produce about 750 kilowatts of electricity, which is enough to substantially substitute current electric usage at the facility.

Right now, the facility is also producing a dry, fertilizer-type of material called Kentorganite that local farmers find helpful when spread on most agricultural land.  Kentorganite consists of bio-solids and calcium oxide, which, when mixed, kill existing pathogens and becomes a granular, spreadable material without much odor.  The facility will even deliver and help spread the fertilizer for a modest fee.  Talk about being dedicated to recycling!

The Kent County Wastewater Facility has something that most other wastewater facilities don’t have: a FOG program.  The Fat, Oil and Grease program sets standards and a best practice manual for septic tanks, and another for local restaurants, but they don’t just depend on those entities to do the right thing.  The facility has one employee dedicated to FOG compliance, who visits restaurants on a regular basis to ensure their cooperation.  Just think of how much “FOG” is kept out of our pipes that way!

Between 2004 and 2005, the plant received approximately $120,000 in federal funding from the Department of Homeland Security to add security for the site and the chemicals that are used there to treat the waste water before it’s discharged back into a man-made channel, commonly referred to as the “gut.”  The “gut” is directly connected to the Murderkill River.

And, the plant is being recognized almost yearly for its achievements, from modernization to operations, including a 2006 Honorable Mention for Facility of the Year by Environmental Protection Magazine.

This “First State” wastewater treatment facility is setting the bar high for others like it across America to follow, and is dedicated to helping the people of Delaware.  With a strong support of the Kent County Levy Court, the facility and its employees are leading the charge to make our environment in central Delaware safer through continuous improvements and without compromising their commitment to quality service.

What’s next? Among other things, one additional step will be added before long to the treatment of the wastewater at the facility.  That step will convert this advanced secondary treatment process into a tertiary process and make its effluent, which is discharged into the Murderkill River, almost clean enough to drink.  Moreover, the addition of that new step in the treatment process will enrich the value of the Kentorganite to farmers.  That sounds like a win-win proposition to me, and just one more reason to applaud the efforts of all who’ve had a hand in the remarkable transformation.

Like my visit to Wilmington’s wastewater treatment system some 30 years ago, I won’t soon forget last week’s visit.  It won’t be the odor that I remember this time either.

April 9, 2007 — Wilmington, DE: The past week has been an eventful one on several environmental fronts, both here and abroad.

Some of the most interesting developments in the United States and on the Delmarva Peninsula, as well as around the world, centered on climate change and global warming.

Defining the odds, the Supreme Court and ruled on a 5-4 vote that under the Clean Air Act the Environmental Protection Agency already has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.  The justices said the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gases from automotive vehicles was not justifiable under the Clean Air Act.  That means no change is needed in the law.  "EPA, you are free to regulate automotive emissions of carbon dioxide starting tomorrow," the court essentially said.

Because the issue before the Court dealt only with vehicular emissions, the justices chose not to address whether EPA already is authorized to regulate CO2 emissions from utility plants and other sources.

In a related move dealing with something called New Source Review, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when utilities or other stationary emitters modify their facilities to increase production or output, they generally have to incorporate the latest in emissions controls at the same time.

While that was coming down in D.C., scientists from around the world sought to find consensus on how global warming could impact different parts of the world.  Diplomats from many of the same nations worked to see if they could find consensus on their own.

Although neither group entirely agrees, they still came up with a fairly extensive list of global warming winners and losers.

Among the "winners" were people living in more frigid lands in the northern and southern hemispheres where the growing seasons for plants and crops will grow longer.  Another "winner" is a shipping company that can move cargoes through ice-choked shipping lanes for greater portions of the year.

If global warming worsens, among the "losers" are people living in low-lying coastal areas, such as Delaware, and on islands, as well those who inhabit now-fertile lands in temperate climates that may become too dry and hot to grow any crops.

While all that was going on, a bit of sunshine (figuratively) broke through on this subject at an unlikely place — on a chicken farm just outside of Laurel, Delaware.

On a farm, owned by Seaford-based, Allen Family Foods, became the first on the Delmarva Peninsula to use solar panels to harness light energy and turn it into electricity to operate a number of its poultry houses.

There are more than 5,000 chicken houses on the Peninsula.  The electricity costs to operate each chicken house runs from $2,000 to $5,000 a year.  Add it up, and the cost of electricity to keep all those chickens comfortable, year-round, falls from $10 to $25 million.  Where I come from, that is not exactly chicken feed.

We know electricity costs are the highest in the summer when people run their air conditioners and many other electric appliances are working extra hard.  Even with all the generating capacity going full-tilt to provide customers with electricity on the hottest summer days, we are not immune from brown outs, which can create health hazards, economic calamity and a fair amount of old-fashioned discomfort.  That economic calamity can include the death of thousands of chickens in houses where temperatures get too high.

A number of folks have partnered to conduct a three-year demonstration project to see if they can harness the sun's rays to meet the electricity needs of poultry farmers throughout much of the year — especially in the dog days of summer.

When the solar panels are generating more electricity than is needed during a portion of a day, the extra electricity can be used to charge back-up batteries or sold to utilities and used to meet electricity needs in other parts of the region or the country.

Some of the partners in this endeavor include the Allens, the University of Delaware, the State of Delaware's Clean Energy Program, the federal government, and GE Solar which is located near Newark, Delaware.

I have been interested since my days as an MBA student at the University of Delaware where I designed a rudimentary production facility to make solar panels as a research project.

Later as a congressman, I accompanied researchers from the University of Delaware to encourage House members to include language in legislation making researchers eligible for federal assistance in some of their photovoltaic research.

Still later as governor, I signed legislation authored by state Sen. Harris McDowell creating the Green Energy Fund, and I supported Delaware's efforts to provide support for Astropower, the fledgling solar energy company that grew out of the University.

When Astropower ran into financial trouble earlier this decade, I helped to encourage a company with deep pockets to help bring Astropower out of bankruptcy.  GE answered the call.

And more recently, along with other members of our state's congressional delegation, I have supported the use of federal tax credits to help underwrite the cost of investment in facilities that transform sunlight into electricity.

Will the solar project in the Laurel poultry farm prove to be a success?

But last Wednesday when we cut the ribbon on the project, the skies were cloudy, and it had been raining off and on all morning.  Even so, the panels were still generating electricity.

It gives me hope that when the sun is beating down on Delmarva, we will be helping to fight carbon dioxide emissions and our dependence on foreign oil from an unlikely source just outside of the town of Laurel.

April 2, 2007 — Wilmington, DE: After graduating in 1968 from Ohio State University, where I had been a Navy ROTC midshipman, I headed for Pensacola, Florida.  There, I began training to eventually become a naval flight officer and mission commander of the Navy's P-3 aircraft, used in low-level surveillance missions off the coasts of Vietnam and Cambodia, as well missions involving Soviet nuclear submarines throughout the world.

Before we set foot in any aircraft in Pensacola, however, we put our bodies to the test in a rigorous physical conditioning regimen that lasted the better part of a month.   I was in decent shape when I arrived in Pensacola, thanks to an active youth playing baseball, basketball and football.  But by the time I left Pensacola and headed west to my next training squadron, I was arguably in the best shape of my life.  I made a vow to myself to try to maintain that level of physical condition for as long as the good Lord would let me.  That is a promise I have kept, and the Lord has been — well — good to me.

For almost as long as I can remember, I've been working out five, six, even seven days a week.  Year in and year out, I've worked out in military base gyms, in YMCAs and in hotel fitness centers around the country and around the world.  I've run or biked in a lot of those same places, too.  Staying in shape has been part of my life for a long time.  I hope that it will continue to be for a lot longer.

Martha and I married later than most and started our family when I was in my early 40's.  I think that part of what has fueled my passion to stay in shape was the desire to be able to play ball or tennis or swim or bike with our sons — now 17 and 18 years old.  Fortunately, I have been able to do all of those things and more with them.  Now, our oldest boy swims for his college swim team and is training to compete in a mini-Ironman triathlon in New Hampshire in June.  Our youngest plays on his high school tennis team, and works out with weights several days each week.  Pretty soon, they'll leave me in the dust.  In truth, they probably already have.

I also work out for a lot of the same reasons that other people do.  It makes me feel better physically, as well as mentally.  I have more energy.  I'm (a bit) sharper mentally.  I tend to be (a little) kinder and more patient when I work out.  And, I just feel better, too.  That's probably because when we work out strenuously, our brains create something called beta endorphins, a morphine-like substance that makes us feel good.  Over the years, I've also concluded that working out regularly speeds up our rate of metabolism, enabling me to eat a lot of food — most of it good for me — and still weigh 170 pounds today, roughly what I weighed when I got out of the Navy after 23 years of active and reserve duty.

During each of those 23 years, I received an annual physical from Navy doctors and corpsmen.  As a U.S. senator, I've elected to pay a monthly fee — on top of paying for part of my family's health care coverage — to use the Office of the Attending Physician in the Capitol.  There, several Navy doctors and corpsmen run a primary health care clinic, which provides, among other services, annual physicals.

Some people approach their physical exams with a sense of dread.  I do not.  In fact, those yearly visits have provided me with a lot of positive reinforcement to continue with my fitness regimen.  For example, a few years ago, I received a call from the Navy doctor who had given me my annual physical, and to tell me what they had learned from my lab tests.  I'll never forget him saying that I had the highest level of good cholesterol and the lowest level of bad cholesterol that he had ever seen in a man.

I'm convinced the secret to those cholesterol numbers and other positive indicators is a combination of fitness and diet.  Together, along with picking the right parents — both of whom are deceased now — fitness and diet have enabled me to go for 25 years or more without missing a day of work due to sickness.  Maybe, exercise kicks my immune system into high gear.  Something is working.

With all of that said, three weeks ago, I broke a bone in my right foot apparently when I stepped on a stone around the first mile mark of the Caesar Rodney Half-Marathon in Wilmington, Delaware.   I had somehow injured the foot the day before while playing in a volleyball tournament at the University of Delaware.  I iced it down that night to control the swelling, took an ibuprofen the next morning, and headed for Rodney Square as the sun came up on a picture-perfect Sunday morning.

At 9 a.m., sharp, as honorary chairman of the event, which raises money for the America Lung Association, I welcomed some 1,500 runners to the race, a toy cannon fired and off we went.  It was my 25th Caesar Rodney, and I was determined to finish it.

When I stepped on the stone, I didn't feel a snap, crackle or pop, but I did feel something in my right foot give way, and I thought, "This can't be a good thing."  As it turned out, it wasn't.   I did go on to finish the race in one hour and 52 minutes — two minutes off my time a year earlier — and shook hands with runners coming in behind me for a half-hour or so.  Later that afternoon, I noticed my foot was swollen and turning purple.  I continued to ice it down and to take ibuprofen periodically over the next 36 hours.

On Tuesday morning, though, after getting off the train from Delaware at Union Station in D.C., I headed straight for the attending physician's office in the Capitol.  There, after an X-ray and cursory examination of my foot, the doctor said, "The reason why your foot is swollen and purple is because you've broken it.  You've got a Jones fracture."

Upon hearing my doctor's words, I immediately had visions of my foot in a cast, and being told no workouts for a long time.  As it turned out, though, the podiatrist who saw me later that day took pity on me, and said let's first try putting your broken foot into an orthopedic boot that comes almost up to your knee and then hope for a miracle.

Two weeks later, my foot felt a lot better in the boot, and I went back for another X-ray, expecting to hear ooohs and ahhhs about the miracle that was taking place in the safety and security of that orthopedic boot.  Instead, the second X-ray disclosed the break was worsening instead of getting better, and that if we didn't do something about it, my running days would be over, and my walking days might not be much to brag about.

Anyway, I made my way back to my office last Tuesday morning, thinking — among other things — about my unanswered prayers of the past two weeks.  When I arrived, an appointment was waiting for me.  It turned out that our nation's podiatrists had descended on Capitol Hill that day, and two podiatrists from Delaware were waiting for me in my office.  One of them was Scott Newcomb, a young man who is now the president of Delaware's Association of Podiatrists.  And, as it turns out, I have known Scott for much of his life.  His mom and dad are long-time friends of ours.

What followed was a Capitol Hill office call that was probably different from any other that took place on the Hill that day.  Instead of just talking about proposed changes in Medicaid, I received a tutorial on Jones fractures and treatment options.  Two days later, when it was confirmed that surgery would be needed, I phoned Scott back in Delaware to ask him to recommend a doctor who might perform a procedure that included inserting a two-and-a-half inch platinum screw in my foot.  He told me that one of the finest orthopedic surgeons in the state was his dad — my longtime friend. As luck would have it, Dr. Bill Newcomb is a highly regarded surgeon who specializes in — among other things — Jones fractures. Not only that, but he was able to make room for me in his operating schedule the next day at the First State Surgical Center near Christiana.

So, on Friday morning, my wife drove me to the surgical center.  The staff could not have been nicer.  Intake and a thorough briefing took an hour or so, during which time I slipped into one of those glamorous hospital gowns and put on a blue hair net, while they hooked up an IV and gave me a localized anesthesia called a "foot block."  Fortunately, no paparazzi appeared.

I'm told the actual procedure took an hour.  So did the recovery, and then we were on our way home, with my new crutches by my side, along with a neat electronic gizmo that patients with broken bones can strap onto their fractured limbs.  The device emits electromagnetic waves that apparently stimulate the circulation of blood in the area around a fracture to hasten the healing process.  By wearing the gizmo for at least 10 hours a day to encourage healing, I should be good to go within six weeks, and say goodbye to those dreaded crutches.

Let me digress for a moment to say that most people are surprised to learn that there's a non-denominational Bible study group that meets with the Senate chaplain a little after noon on most Thursdays when we're in session.

There, in Room S-219, just 60 feet from the Senate Chamber and a hundred yards from the attending physician's office, a small group of Democrat and Republican senators meet weekly for 30 to 45 minutes.  Our chaplain, Barry Black, is a retired rear admiral and former chief of chaplains of the Navy.  He conducts something like an adult Bible school class.  We read the Scripture and pray together.  And we just talk with one another.

For the last several weeks, the theme of our lessons has been the blessing of unanswered prayer.  That is, not getting what we ask God for, but in the end getting something even more valuable to us.  As I sat in the den of our home this past weekend, with my big old foot propped up on a stack of pillows and my trusty crutches by my side, I've had a chance to reflect on my own unanswered prayers of the last few weeks.  I initially had hoped to run a great time in the half-marathon.  Then, after playing in the volleyball tournament, I prayed that my foot wasn't hurt.  Later, after running 13.1 miles, I prayed that it wasn't broken.  Still later, when he fracture was diagnosed, I prayed that by some miracle, it would heal if I simply wore an orthopedic boot and stayed off of my feet for a while.  None of those prayers were answered, at least not in the way that I hoped they would be answered.

Having said that, I feel remarkably upbeat today about the predicament in which I find myself.  Dr. Newcomb tells me that I'll be able to ease back into my workouts with weights in a week or so at the "Y," and not long after that, I can ease back into a little cardio there, too.  Within a month, I may be able to lay my crutches aside and use a walking boot for a week or two before putting on my regular shoes again.  God willing, I'll even be able to start running later this spring and should be ready for my 26th Caesar Rodney Half-Marathon next March.

But far more important than all that, I've learned, or relearned, some valuable lessons.  I've been reminded over the past three weeks of how fortunate I have been to be blessed with good health for all of my adult life.   And speaking of blessings, for the last three weeks, I've been surrounded almost non-stop and lifted up by the kindness and good wishes of hundreds of people, maybe thousands of them — family and friends, colleagues and staff members, fellow Amtrak commuters, constituents, perfect strangers and many more.

I've also been reminded of how fortunate I am to have access to good health care and of the need to work harder to ensure that everyone in this country does as well.  I've had a hint of what it's like to be disabled and to have to face life and all of its challenges with one hand or leg figuratively tied behind one's back.  And finally, when I think of the annoyance or inconvenience of hobbling around on crutches for the next month or so, I'm reminded of the soldiers and Marines, recently returned from Iraq, whom I visit from time to time at Bethesda Naval Hospital.  Some of them have come home without their eyesight, their hearing, or an arm or a leg, yet they somehow manage to keep their heads up and remain upbeat about their futures.  Who am I to complain about a month or two on crutches?

And speaking of soldiers, one of them — whose name we don't even know -— wrote the following about unanswered prayers a number of years ago. Chaplain Black shared it with us recently and when I read it now, I do so with a clarity and insight that was missing earlier.  That prayer goes something like this.

"I asked for strength that I might achieve; I was made weak that I might learn humbly how to obey.
I asked for health that I might do great things; I was given infirmity that I might do better things.
I asked for riches that I might be happy; I was given poverty that I might be wise.
I asked for power that I might have the praise of men; I was given weakness that I might feel the need of God.
I asked for all things that I might enjoy life; I was given life that I might enjoy all things.
I got nothing that I asked for, but everything that I had hoped for.
Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered. I am, among all men, most richly blessed."

And to that, I can only add, "Amen."

March 15, 2007 - Georgetown, DE: As some of you may know, I am passionate about recycling.  I serve as co-chair of the Recycling Caucus in the United States Senate.  I've blogged before about recycling here on my website, but, if you'll forgive the pun, I think it is a topic that bears – well – recycling.

My family recycles just about everything.  Our recycling is picked up in front of our home every other week.  I also make occasional trips to the local recycling igloos near our home.  Earlier this week, however, I used the igloos at the Delaware Solid Waste Authority landfill just outside of Georgetown, Delaware to recycle some household batteries and a bunch of plastic bags that I'd been carrying around in the back of my Chrysler minivan.

While there, I toured the Authority's Jones Cross Roads facility to learn more about how the Delaware Solid Waste Authority handles some of the 72 million pounds of material recycled statewide last year.  That's a lot of recycling!

We all have a general idea of some of the items that can be recycled – aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic soda and milk containers, newspapers, junk mail, cardboard and plastic bags.  As it turns out, the Solid Waste Authority now recycles a lot of other materials today that used to end up in landfills.  Some of them may surprise you.  For example, the Authority recycles tires, computers, televisions, appliances, textiles, oil filters, used motor oil and yard waste.  These bulky items are recycled at the Cherry Island landfill in New Castle County, Sandtown landfill in Kent County, and Jones Cross Roads landfill in Sussex County, as well as at transfer stations at Pine Tree (near Townsend), Milford and Harbeson.

At Jones Cross Roads, the Solid Waste Authority is even recycling old mobile homes that would otherwise become eyesores.  The Authority also takes yard waste and turns it into mulch by composting at its Sussex operation.   In addition, the Authority is considering expanding composting to New Castle, which now only mulches yard waste due to limited supply of material and space.

Basically, you bring yard waste to the Sussex landfill, separate it from other trash and recyclables, and it is shredded, moistened and piled by landfill staff under a Gore-Tex™ membrane.  The membrane is made by local company, W.L. Gore.  The membrane and computer-controlled aeration help keep the piles moist and diminish the odor generally associated with composting.  So, it is good for the environment and their neighbors don't seem to mind!

In New Castle County, the yard waste is separated from trash, a tub grinder shreds the material into mulch, and the county parks use this material on their trails.

The Delaware Solid Waste Authority offers curbside yard waste collection for residents affected by the yard waste ban at the Cherry Island Landfill, and residents may call 1-800-404-7080 for more information.

What I find even more encouraging is that the Authority is producing almost 20 megawatts of green power daily.

The Delaware Solid Waste Authority is literally recycling . . . recycling.  It takes methane gas, which is produced naturally from decomposing organic waste, and produces electricity.  In Sussex County, the Solid Waste Authority partners with Ameresco, an energy service company, to harness the methane and produce about four megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power the annual electricity needs of some 3,500 homes.  The Sandtown landfill in Kent also sends three megawatts of gas to Ameresco.

Ameresco then generates electricity from the gas and sells it to a national power supplier called Constellation NewEnergy.  In the northern part of New Castle County, the Cherry Hill landfill sends about 12 megawatts of gas directly to Conectiv.

The impact of the Authority's plan is equivalent to removing more than 60,000 cars from Delaware's roads each year.

As a long-time advocate for renewable energy and as one who is always looking for ways to decrease our reliance on foreign oil, what the Solid Waste Authority is doing just makes sense.  The Delaware Solid Waste Authority has frequently been criticized for not doing enough to facilitate recycling in the past.  I'm sure that some of that criticism has been merited.  Having said that, I certainly liked what I saw earlier this week just outside of Georgetown, and I hope it proves to be a harbinger of things to come from the Authority.

February 14, 2007 - Washington, DC:  DaimlerChrysler today announced plans to cut its North American workforce by 13,000 employees over the next several years.  One of the two shifts at the Newark, Delaware plant -- numbering 700 employees -- would be "idled" at the end of June.  A number of those employees would be transferred to a "Job Bank" and continue to draw most of their pay and benefits for the next year or so.  The plant and most of its remaining 1,400 employees would continue to operate with one shift until the end of calendar year 2009, building Durangos and Chrysler Aspens all the while.  If no new products were identified for the plant by then, the plant itself would be "idled."

While none of us regard any of this as "good" news, it could have been even worse.  DaimlerChrysler officials could have announced plans to "close" the plant in a year or two.  It's important to note that they did not do that.  Instead, they left the door ever so slightly ajar to the possibility that if enough of the fifteen or so new vehicles the company will be launching this year and next catch on with consumers, and there's a need to preserve manufacturing capacity, Newark could live well beyond 2009.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should.  We've seen this movie before.  In fact, we saw it 14 years ago.  In November of 1992, GM announced it would be closing its plant outside of Wilmington along with more than a dozen other GM plants across North America.  Why?  Because the company's capacity to build vehicles exceeded demand for those vehicles.  GM, however, didn't leave the door ajar in announcing its decision to shutter the plants.  The decision was final, GM officials said.  End of discussion.

Sure enough, one by one, the targeted plants were closed.  All, I believe, but one.  The Boxwood Road plant here never closed.  It was idled for a while and may have gone to a one-shift operation for a while, but it never closed.   Today, the Boxwood Road plant is a three-shift operation where roughly 2,000 employees build two popular roadsters -- the Pontiac Solstice and the Saturn Sky.  Customers in the U.S. and Europe snap them up almost as fast as they roll off the assembly line.

As we listen to the sobering news from DaimlerChrysler this week, we should stop and ask what – if any – lessons can we take from that harrowing experience nearly 14 years ago?  The answer is "plenty."

Then, and now, the work force at GM's Boxwood Road plant enjoyed a stellar reputation within the company.  In fact, its commitment to quality, productivity and good labor-management relations was second to none within GM.  "Why would you close one of your best plants?" I asked GM CEO Jack Smith in a 1993 meeting in Detroit with him and UAW Vice-President for GM Steve Yokich.  He explained that the vehicles assembled at Boxwood Road – the Chevrolet Corsica and Beretta – were nearing the end of their product life cycle and would be phased out in a year or two.  It didn't make a lot of sense, Smith said, to spend a bundle of cash to retool a plant – even one with a good reputation – to build new or different models, especially when GM already had more manufacturing capacity than it needed.

The reaction to the grim news by the employees at Boxwood Road, along with their local UAW leaders and the plant's managers, surprised a lot of people.  Rather than give up, they worked even harder and smarter, too.  They focused even more on raising productivity, improving quality and fostering better labor-management relations.  Encouraged by both labor leaders and plant managers, the work force adopted the Saturn operating agreement for the Boxwood Road plant, clearly signaling their commitment to innovation and to thinking outside the box.

When the economy began rebounding in 1994, and GM 's market share stabilized, the company needed a place to build some of its new products.  Delaware got the nod.

If history is to repeat itself here in the First State, the well-regarded work force at DaimlerChrysler's Newark plant, led by its local union leaders and plant managers, needs to focus like never before in the months ahead on productivity and quality, on labor-management relations and on innovation so that if a number of DaimlerChrysler's new product offerings do take off in the marketplace, and the company needs to add or preserve capacity somewhere, Newark is the obvious choice.

But that alone is not enough.  Equally important, DaimlerChrysler has to bring to showrooms across America vehicles that customers want to buy.  Vehicles that are eye-catching and highly reliable as well as more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.  The company needs to take a page out of Toyota's book and move expeditiously into flexible manufacturing where as many as three or four different models are built under the same roof, and readiness for launching yet another new vehicle is underway.

State and local officials, fresh from completing a much-needed overhaul of the workers' compensation program here, must continue to find other ways to provide in our state a more nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation in our state, particularly with respect to manufacturing jobs.

Also, our congressional delegation should continue to support smart R&D funding in promising new technologies like next-generation lithium-ion batteries for the flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles that will start appearing on America's roads within the next decade.  We should insist that the federal government use its purchasing power on both the civilian and defense sides to help commercialize promising new automotive technologies.  We ought to continue to support tax credits to incentivize consumers to purchase innovative products like highly-energy-efficient hybrids and energy-efficient low-emission diesel-powered vehicles that run on bio-fuels.  And while we're at it, we need to be on the lookout for possible currency manipulation by other countries seeking to gain advantage for their products, even as we redouble our efforts to rein in the growth of health care costs in the U.S., costs which add close to $1,500 to the price of vehicles made in America.

In short, there's plenty for a lot of us to focus on in the months ahead as we pull together in an effort to save the Newark plant and put it in position to offer good-paying jobs for years to come.  If each of us does his or her part, lightning might strike again, just like it did on Boxwood Road more than a dozen years ago.  Sometimes miracles do happen, but hoping for one isn't enough.  We've got to work hard.  We've got to work as a team.  And, most importantly, as long as there is hope, we can't give up.

January 28, 2007 - Wilmington, DE: It isn't every day that a guy turns 60, but that's exactly what happened to me last Tuesday. As I rode the train from Wilmington to Washington, D.C., on the Monday morning before my birthday, I perused my schedule for the week ahead and mused to myself that it had the makings to be one of my most interesting weeks in the Senate to date. Looking back, that's exactly what it turned out to be.

Thanks to a couple of impromptu birthday celebrations, sandwiched between a high-stakes Banking Committee hearing focusing on Delaware's credit card industry, a week of debate and votes in the Senate on a proposal to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes for small businesses, and the President's State of the Union address followed by his visit to Delaware, last week more than lived up to my expectations.

At 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, I walked up Delaware Avenue from Union Station to the Capitol and into the LBJ Room on the second floor. It was packed with business and environmental leaders from all over the country, as well as a slew of House and Senate members from both sides of the aisle. Before the meeting wrapped up just before 11 a.m., the majority leaders of both the House and the Senate made cameo appearances and shared their thoughts with the attendees. What was all the fuss about? It turned out that a half-dozen or so of our nation's leading companies, along with the leaders of a number of major utilities, environmental groups, and NGO's, had come to roll out "A Call for Action" in this country with respect to global warming. What this "Gang of 13" was about to unveil may well change the debate in America on climate change.

In the hour or so that followed, this U.S. Climate Action Partnership laid out the principles and recommendations around which they had reached consensus to slow the growth of CO2 emissions, stop the growth of CO2 emissions and then reduce CO2 emissions in the United States. To my delight, their recommendations closely reflected the course of action called for in bipartisan legislation that a group of us in the Senate have been working on for more than four years. At one point in the meeting, Senator Joe Lieberman - a major proponent of an economy-wide approach on global warming - told the rest of us that he was so excited that he felt like dancing on the tables. Had he done so, I just might have joined him.

DuPont CEO Chad Holliday served as the emcee for the meeting and called on the members of the Partnership to share their thoughts with the rest of us. Once they had concluded their remarks, Chad recognized me to speak. Later, I asked him to allow me to speak again at the conclusion of the program, and he was kind enough to do so. I proceeded to share with the group my own efforts to prod the Bush administration into action on global warming over the last several years and told them of a conversation that I had with the President at the White House following dinner there last spring. The President had responded to my brief outline of our bipartisan legislation - which focuses on reducing air emissions only from power plants - by asking me whether our bill called for caps on carbon dioxide emissions. I told him that it did, and he said that he didn't think the utilities would go along with that. I replied that I didn't know what the utility CEO's told him, but a number of them had endorsed our bill, and I urged him to consider doing so, as well.

Looking around the table that Monday morning, I thanked the members of the Partnership for their good work. I went on, however, to call on the business leaders to tell the President and his advisors how they really felt about the need for a plan of action to address global warming and to not be shy about it. "You've got to speak truth to power," I told them. "The President may not be swayed by me or by the other Senators and Representatives sitting around this table, but he will listen to you." And with that, the meeting adjourned, and the members of this promising new partnership headed for a news conference at the National Press Club.

Little did I imagine that barely 48 hours later I would have a chance to place a copy of "A Call for Action" and a handwritten note in the President's hands as we flew aboard Air Force One en route to Andrews Air Force Base from Wilmington, Delaware, and to tell him about the growing consensus in the U.S. that the partnership's principles and recommendations represented. In the note, I wrote that a parade of support is beginning to form to address this challenge. "You need to lead it," I wrote. He listened dutifully as he had earlier in the morning when we were riding around in northern Delaware and Congressman Mike Castle joined in when I raised the subject. Whether the President actually heard us is hard to say. Time will tell.

In any event, there is a growing chorus of voices calling for America to wake up and smell the coffee with respect to global warming. On the Monday just before the President's visit to Delaware, I remained overnight in D.C. after accepting a dinner invitation from the German ambassador and his wife to come to their home for a dinner honoring DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche. Dieter was in town to speak at and attend the opening of the annual Washington, D.C., auto show on the following day. I used the reception that evening as an opportunity to lobby Dieter on behalf of the Newark, Delaware DaimlerChrysler assembly plant which has been rumored to be on the chopping block this year. When the ambassador and Dr. Zetsche spoke at the dinner, both of them spoke at some length on the importance of adopting policies that would reduce the threat we face on this planet from climate change. Around the table, the guests listened intently. Sitting just to my right at the large dinner table was the head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. I hope he was listening, too.

December 27, 2006 - Washington, DC: Yesterday, the United States lost a true leader and a real gentleman.  President Gerald Ford united our country during one of our darkest times and worked toward healing this nation after Watergate and the Vietnam War.  He made the tough decisions – but the right decisions – during some very difficult days.

Although President Ford had stepped down as President six years before I was first elected to the Congress in 1982, I had the honor of being with President and Mrs. Ford on several occasions.  The last time was when Mrs. Ford was being honored with a Commonwealth Award here in the First State in 1998.  She sat with a number of us at the head table.  He sat close by in the audience at another table with – among others – my wife Martha.  He truly beamed as Betty was being honored for her personal courage and leadership that evening and seemed to relish the role of dutiful and supportive spouse.  Martha and I were both struck by how down-to-earth he was and by his sense of humility and humanity. The dedication of the Fords to each other was hard to miss, and I left that night inspired both by Mrs. Ford’s efforts to help people overcome addiction, as well as by a husband and wife’s commitment to each other. 

In life, President Ford was a statesman when we truly needed one.  He never aspired to be President while rising to leadership roles in the U.S. House of Representatives, and he told Martha over dinner that night that the leadership role he really aspired to for many years was Speaker of the House.  However, once he became President, he frequently sought to put country before party, sometimes at his own political peril.  As President, and as House Minority Leader, he governed from the middle.  He was fair, just, and considerate of others, qualities that we would all do well to embrace on our own. We could use more leaders like Gerald Ford in both of our political parties today.  Hopefully, on January 4 when a new Congress convenes, they will begin to emerge.

December 18, 2006 - Wilmington, DE:  On Friday, December 8, 2006, I stayed late into the night to help put the finishing touches on legislation providing for the first major overhaul of the United States Postal Service in more than three decades. 

There is a reason why postal reform isn’t done more often, and the reason is that it is tough to do.  There are so many competing interests - mailers large and small in areas both rural and urban; labor unions representing hundreds of thousands of postal employees; and companies like UPS and FedEx that have grown to be direct competitors of the postal service.   However, my father used to say that the hardest things to do are oftentimes the things that are most worth doing. 

Back in 1970, a freshman senator by the name of Ted Stevens, who is now, ironically, the oldest-serving Republican in the chamber, successfully guided legislation through Congress setting up the modern incarnation of the Postal Service.  Back then, I was a Navy Lt.j.g. on the other side of the world in Southeast Asia.  We didn't have e-mail. We had no cell phones.  Instead, we had mail call.  It was one of the few highlights of our day and every member of our squadron looked forward to receiving letters from home.  

Clearly, the way that we do business and exchange information has changed dramatically since 1970.  New communications technologies – including e-mail, cell phones and fax machines – have evolved and become a part of the daily lives of just about every American.  This has resulted in a decrease in the volume of First Class mail. Growing competition from UPS, FedEx and others have also put pressure on the Postal Service. At the some time, more than 1 million new addresses are added to mail delivery routes each year.  The result: delivery costs have increased at the same time that mail volume and revenues are stagnant or, in some cases, falling.  In order to adapt to these changes, the Postal Service needs to change as well.

In 2001, the Postal Service was projecting its third consecutive year of deficits and postal management was estimating that it would need nearly $4 billion in security enhancements to prevent a repeat of the anthrax attacks that claimed the lives of several innocent people. 

In December of 2002, with the Postal Service in serious financial trouble and reform efforts in Congress stagnating, President Bush announced the creation of the Commission on the United States Postal Service.  This nine-member bi-partisan commission worked together for months to identify the operational, structural and financial challenges facing the Postal Service.  In July of 2003, the commission released its final recommendations and confirmed what many of us had been saying for years – that the U.S. Postal Service was in need of serious reform.

It was around this time that I began working with Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Reps. Tom Davis, R-Virginia, Henry A. Waxman, D-California, and John McHugh, R-New York, to put together a legislative response to the report from the President’s commission.  The product of our efforts - the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act – was based on bills authored by Congressman McHugh that had been floating around in the House for a number of years and on legislation I introduced in the Senate early in the summer of 2003.  

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which the President will sign into law this week, begins by requiring the Postal Service to concentrate on what it does best – processing and delivering mail to all Americans.  The bill also dramatically rethinks the way the Postal Service prices its products by giving it the same ability any other businesses have to change prices of its individual products whenever it needs to do so instead of going through a cumbersome process that sometimes takes months to complete.  But to protect businesses and mailers from sudden and dramatic price hikes, the legislation ensures that overall price increases be kept below an inflation-based ceiling. 

In addition, the bill gives the Postal Service the freedom to introduce new, innovative products or tailor existing products to meet customers’ needs, which should help attract new business and increase revenues. The bill will also shore up the Postal Service’s finances by repealing a provision in current law that makes the Postal Service the only major agency in the federal government responsible for its employees’ military pension benefits, returning this obligation to the U.S. Treasury.  Another provision will permanently correct the Postal Service’s flawed pension formula, a formula that was leading to significant overpayments and contributing to higher rates.  These provisions will free up billions of dollars, giving the Postal Service the ability to begin paying down its debts, as well as the enormous, unfunded health care obligations the Postal Service will face down the road.

The Postal Service operates at the center of a nearly $1 trillion mailing industry that employees as many as 11 million men and women. While postal reform might not be the most glamorous legislation to pass through Congress, it will go a long way towards protecting this significant portion of the U.S. economy and provide a greater measure of certainty to businesses and others among us who utilize the Postal Service extensively.  It will also affect nearly every American who sends something through the mail – whether it’s a postcard or a 20-pound package – and ensure that one of our most basic services is allowed to adapt and change to meet the growing demands of the 21st Century.

Wilmington, DE – December 8, 2006: Twenty-four days before Christmas, on the first Friday of December, I joined members of my staff and their guests at the Buena Vista conference center, located just south of the Town of New Castle, for our annual holiday reception (an event not paid for with taxpayer dollars). Unlike many traditional office gatherings, I also invited former staff members – regardless of whether they were part of my team during my time in the U.S. House of Representatives, as governor, as state treasurer, or in the U.S. Senate.

The Buena Vista is a beautiful estate that was originally built by John Clayton over 150 years ago. As many Delaware history buffs can tell you, Clayton was the only Delawarean ever to serve as U.S. Secretary of State. In 1914, the home was acquired by Coleman DuPont, who then passed it along to his daughter Alice. Seven years later, Alice DuPont married Clayton D. Buck, who would go on to become governor of Delaware. In 1965, the Buck family, in a remarkable act of generosity, sold Buena Vista to the State of Delaware for one dollar, apparently in the hope that the estate would be used in the future as the governor’s mansion in a state that had none at the time. Downstate legislators, alarmed at the prospect of future governors residing in northern Delaware, and fearful that the influence of the state’s two southern counties might well be diminished if that happened, turned around and soon acquired a somewhat smaller home on King’s Highway in Dover. That home, now known as Woodburn, has served as the residence of Delaware’s governors for four decades.

Meanwhile, the Buena Vista, with its nearly 210 acres, has been transformed into a meeting and conference center that’s heavily used throughout the year, all the while retaining much of its original charm and beauty. Having attended scores of meetings, retreats, lunches, dinners and receptions there over the last 30 years at this historic home, I’d have to say that the people of Delaware came out ahead in the deal.

The tradition, history and beauty of Buena Vista provided an ideal backdrop to celebrate the holidays again this year. More than 100 current and former members of one of my several staffs, and their guests, joined us at our reception there earlier this month. Their presence served as a reminder that the “Carper family” is more than just a collection of talented individuals. It is an ever-growing group of dedicated and hard-working people who care deeply about serving the people of Delaware and our nation and about enabling me to be the kind of servant that Delawareans deserve.

Speaking of service, my parents instilled in my sister and me the belief that service to others is both an obligation and a privilege. Since my earliest days as a naval flight officer, I have taken that idea to heart and have always tried to surround myself with people who share that belief, as well. As Governor of Delaware, I sought to build an administration on the core values that have guided me through much of my adult life -- to do what’s right, to treat our constituents and others the way that we want to be treated, to be committed to excellence in all that we do, and, when convinced that we’re right, to refuse to give up.

The shared commitment to those values has served to create an uncommonly strong bond among many of us who have worked closed together, a bond that endures to this day. After spending a couple of hours welcoming the members of my teams past and present to our holiday reception at the Buena Vista, we gathered in the library there to watch a video presentation of scores of photographs – some pretty humorous -- spanning my career in public service. As I watched the presentation, I was taken back to my time in the Navy and to my first days as state treasurer. I thought to myself how blessed I have been to be allowed to serve the people of Delaware even when we were saddled with the worst credit rating of any state in America as we were during my first year as treasurer. Two photographs in the video especially stood out from the rest. The first was of my wife Martha, and our two sons, Chris and Ben, and me during my first inauguration as governor. The second photograph showed the four of us together just a few months ago when we were visiting our oldest son - now all grown up - on the campus of the college where he is a freshman engineering student. The three of them remain the most important people in my life, and I am grateful for their love and support and for their willingness to share me with our special guests at the Buena Vista and with the people of Delaware for all of these years.

As the 109th Congress comes to a close, I look forward to spending time later this month with my family in Delaware. I hope that wherever you are your holidays are filled with the same love and laughter that only good friends and family can provide. Here’s wishing you and your family both joy and peace during this holiday season and many blessings in the new year to come.

November 16, 2006 – Washington, DC: In the modern era of negative political ads, smear campaigns and partisan politics, it is more refreshing than ever to participate in a Delaware custom that helps restore my faith, and that of a lot of Delawareans, in our political process. Like a lot of Delaware traditions, Returns Day is one of those “only in Delaware” experiences that helps to make the First State so dear to my heart.

Every two years, two days after the election, candidates from all over Delaware converge on Georgetown to participate in Returns Day. Originally a Sussex Country tradition, the starting date of this now state-wide celebration is uncertain. 1791 saw the implementation of state law that moved the Sussex county seat from the coastal city of Lewes to a more geographically centered site, later named Georgetown. This law also required that all votes be cast in the new County Seat on Election Day. The voters would “return” two days later to hear the results - hence the name Returns Day.

In 1811, voting districts across the state were established, but the Board of Canvassers would still meet two days later in Georgetown to announce the final results of the local elections.

This tradition laid the groundwork for the Returns Day festival that we celebrate today. The festivities are designed to lighten the mood after the elections and remind people that political campaigns – no matter how negative they might seem - are only a small part of the political process and that the candidates run for office because they put public service and the state of Delaware ahead of their own personal interests.

Two days after the elections, every other year, Returns Day kicks off with an informal brunch at the Del Tech campus just outside of town. Following the breaking of bread and a couple of hours of fellowship, the festivities and pageantry on this important day really get underway with a parade through Georgetown before thousands of people -- young and old -- of all political persuasions. In that parade, some 40 horse-drawn carriages bring the candidates and members of their families through town and drop them off near the courthouse a block or so from the town's Circle. Opponents who opposed each other just a few short days ago ride together, giving them a chance to begin to put some of their differences behind them.

As soon as the parade concludes, Delaware's political leaders gather on the Wilmington Trust Main Stage on The Circle in front of the historic Sussex County Courthouse to hear the town crier deliver the returns from the Courthouse balcony. Following the announcement of the official returns, the singing of a couple of patriotic songs, and a brief speech or two, the Sussex county chairmen of the respective political parties literally bury a hatchet in a large glass box of sand - not in each other - signifying the end of a combative electoral process and a return to civility within Delaware politics. In keeping with tradition, the sand is brought from Lewes, the site of the original county seat.

Afterwards, the winners and losers, along with their families and supporters feast on the oxen sandwiches that are served on the streets of Georgetown, and they enjoy the hospitality of a dozen or more receptions and open houses around town until the sun is setting in the west. Then, they head for home, leaving much of the hard feelings from the various campaigns behind, prepared once more to do what's best for Delaware now that the elections are over.

Each Returns Day, as I've headed for my own home, I've thought about how wonderful it would be to have a Returns Day for America every other year that would allow our nation and its leaders to put the elections behind us and focus again on working together to address the challenges that face our country. We've not yet figured out how to do that, but -- starting two years ago -- I've tried to take the spirit of Returns Day with me to Washington, DC, where I've co-hosted a bipartisan, three-day orientation for new senators and their spouses. Modeled after the National Governors' Association's School for New Governors and Spouses, each of the newly-elected senators and their spouses stay in the same hotel in Washington, eat their meals together and participate for three days in sessions in the U. S. Capitol that are closed to the press and public. There, a bipartisan faculty of current senators and spouses welcomes the new folks to town and tries to help them get off on the right foot and avoid making a lot of the mistakes that the rest of us made as rookies.

This year's orientation for new senators and spouses wrapped up this morning with two sessions. One was entitled "Things I Wish I'd Known Then" and it was led by four of the senators elected just two years ago. The other closing session today was called "Bridging the Partisan Divide." It was led by Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia and Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, two close friends who also are the two senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Their friendship and spirit of bipartisan cooperation are an inspiration to us all and serve as a timely reminder that it's possible to disagree, to be civil about it, to put our disagreements behind us and go on to find common ground to solve most of the problems that we face here at home and around the world.

We didn't serve oxen sandwiches to our new senators and their spouses today before they prepared to return to their homes across America, but I believe that each of them did receive a healthy helping of friendly advice that just might help them and the rest of us in the Senate begin to put our nation back on the right track. God knows that we need to.

October 30, 2006 – Wilmington, DE:

That was then.  This is now.  Chrysler reported losses of $1.5 billion in the third quarter of this year on its North American operations.  While Ford continues to lose ground, a lot of analysts and critics who were lambasting GM for its ineptitude less than a year ago are beginning to herald a turnaround in that company’s operations and fortunes.

So what gives?  Let’s set GM aside for now except to note that there are three shifts working flat out at the company’s Boxwood Road assembly plant near Wilmington, Delaware, building all of the Pontiac Solstices and Saturn Skys in the world.  Customers snap both of them up almost as soon as they roll off the assembly plant floor.  Exports of the Sky to Europe begin this fall. 

Earlier this month, Daimler Chrysler shook things up by announcing it was going to examine all of its assembly and parts plants, along with its upcoming vehicle from top to bottom.  Why?  To find efficiencies that will enable the company to save $1,000 a car under a plan called Project Refocus.  Vice President of Manufacturing Frank Ewasyshyn told me earlier this summer of DaimlerChrysler’s plans to undertake this kind of comprehensive analysis by this fall.  Now, they’re doing it.  He also told me that he believed the Newark plant would continue to play an important role in DaimlerChrysler’s long-term plans for years to come.  A similar view was shared with me in late spring by DaimlerChrysler’s North American CEO Tom LaSorda. 

So should we be worried about our Newark plant?  I believe that we should be concerned.  All states that have DaimlerChrysler plants, along with provinces in Canada and states in Mexico where DaimlerChrysler assembly plants are located, should be concerned.  Having said that, neither Delaware nor its DaimlerChrysler employees should be in a panic right now.  Rather, all of us here in the First State should turn our concern into constructive action that will better ensure that once DaimlerChrysler has completed its cost-cutting moves over the next year or so, the Newark plant will be alive and well and the home of as many as three or four models to be assembled.  It’s important to note that we have been in this situation before.  In 1980, as state treasurer, I negotiated a state loan at a time when the company was about to collapse.  I’ve been working to keep this plant open and to save these jobs for the past 26 years and I have no intention of giving up now.

Speaking of common sense, another obvious thing that the “Big Three” need to do is build vehicles that people want to buy.  In 2002, DaimlerChrysler scrapped plans, adopted a year earlier, to begin offering Durangos with a hybrid option starting in 2004.  If the company had continued with this plan, it is unlikely that they would be reporting close to 100 days of unsold Durangos in dealer inventories across America today. 

But all is not lost at DaimlerChrysler.  Half of the vehicles sold in Europe last year were powered by highly-energy-efficient, clean-burning diesel engines.  By the end of this year, DaimlerChrysler will introduce its latest diesel technology, called “Bluetec,” in one of its larger Mercedes sedans here.  Next year, DaimlerChrysler will likely begin offering the new diesel technology in light trucks and SUVs it will build in North America.  A year later, Bluetec should also be available in some DaimlerChrysler automobiles for sale in America.  That same year, 2008, should see DaimlerChrysler introducing its brand-new hybrid propulsion system in several of its models in America.  That new hybrid will be the first fruit of a partnership that DaimlerChrysler entered into more than a year ago with GM and BMW.  Who knows?  By then, gasoline might be selling again for $3 or $4 dollars per gallon, and DaimlerChrysler plans to reduce its reliance on gas-guzzling light trucks and SUVs will bear fruit.  That would a good thing for the company, its employees and shareholders, for Delaware and for America.

October 12, 2006 – Wilmington, DE: The end of the 109th Congress gives us a good opportunity to reflect at what we were able to accomplish this year and what “might have been.”

Unfortunately, as has been too often the case since I came to the Senate in 2001, “what might have been” trumps what we were actually able to get done. I share the frustration of many of my colleagues and constituents who wish that we would put progress in front of partisanship.

It’s frustrating because I believe that on any number of issues that I’ve worked on – such as energy independence, global warming, rail security, budget reform, etc. – there exists a coalition of the willing waiting to strike when the iron is hot. Unfortunately, slim majorities in the House and the Senate, the focus on the upcoming November elections, and in some cases, plain old stubbornness on behalf of lawmakers and interest groups meant that the iron never even got warmed up.

After the election, Congress will reconvene for the an unfortunately-titled “lame duck” session, and I still hold out hope that we can finish up work on at least two issues that my staff and I have worked very hard to get done this year – legislation designed to modernize the U.S. Postal Service and to create a strong, independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together own or guarantee 40 percent of residential mortgages in this country.

But while Congress’ track record on many “big picture” issues this year was less than stellar, we still managed to get a lot of work done.

The Delaware Delegation – comprised of two Democratic senators (myself being one of them) and a Republican congressman – shares a willingness to work together that is, unfortunately, rarely seen inside the Washington beltway. This spirit of cooperation has resulted in some very positive gains for Delaware. Among those that stand out in my memory are how we joined forces to save the Delaware Air National Guard, fought for funding to replenish Delaware's beaches, managed to persuade the Veterans Administration to build a new outpatient clinic in Kent County, laid the groundwork for the Delaware Health Information Network, advocated to prohibit bonus payments to defense contractors whose weapons systems don’t meet specified performance standards, continued our fight to support cost-effective airlift capabilities in the 21st Century – including the upgrading of C-5 Galaxy aircraft instead of sending them to the “bone yard.”

I was also able – along with Senators Coburn, Obama and McCain - to push through legislation that gives taxpayers the ability to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans. This legislation was signed into law by the president and will shed some much-needed light on federal spending and allow the public to decide for themselves whether taxpayer dollars are being well-managed.

In addition, in the closing hours of the 109th Congress, the Senate approved legislation that directs the National Park Service to study the feasibility of establishing a national park in Delaware. To this day, Delaware remains the only state in the nation without a national park, and I believe it's time that we put Delaware on the map and help spur additional tourism in the state. Our next move will be to obtain the funding for this study in the near future.

Sometimes you can't measure progress in Congress just by how many bills you pass. Progress can also be made simply by beginning to develop a consensus on how to address some of the knotty issues that we face.

For instance, although we didn't enact clean air legislation this year, I'm pleased that we were able to improve and then re-introduce and build additional support for legislation that I've been pushing for the past several years. Earlier this year, we managed to reintroduce it, make it stronger, and add additional Democratic and Republican cosponsors in both the House and Senate, while obtaining additional backing from environmental and health groups, yet holding onto the support of some of our nation’s largest utilities. By doing this, we enhance our chances that we could finally act on this important legislation, designed to reduce mercury pollution and take our first steps on combating global warming, sometime next year.

Another issue I have high hopes for is legislation that would promote the use of electronic personal health records, such as we’ve done in the VA system. Several bills on this issue -- including one I introduced this year with Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio -- are currently floating around Congress, proving to me that more and more senators believe we should be doing more to use the latest technology to cut down on medical errors and improve healthcare for people across this country.

In addition, no matter who's in charge next year, we need to get serious about real budget reform. Despite news reports showing that our budget deficit is shrinking, we still face ongoing budget problems and the retirement of the Baby Boom generation, which will put even more pressure on government spending. We have to do everything we can to restore fiscal discipline in Washington. Just before recess, I introduced, with a group of my bipartisan colleagues, legislation that would reinstitute a budget enforcement rule called “pay as you go,” as well legislation providing a “four-year test drive” providing the President a line-item veto. My hope is we can move on that legislation early next year during our annual debate on the budget.

In closing, I want to say that, at times, partisanship is a necessity. But it should be an exception, not the rule. One of the reasons why Congress’ approval ratings continue to tank is that the people want – and rightfully deserve – for us to get things done. They are tired of all the sniping and want us to work together to make life better for Americans.

Whoever takes control of Congress the election in November should be mindful of that and focus on getting things done and working to enact a bipartisan agenda for the American people.

September 11, 2006 - Wilmington, DE: 

I will never forget the events of September 11, 2001.  My morning started just like most others.  I was on the train en route to Washington that day and was on a conference call with my staff when they reported to me that a tragic accident apparently had occurred – a commercial airliner had flown into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.  Less than 20 minutes later, they called back to say that a second airplane had just flown into the other tower, and we knew at once that this was no accident.  When I arrived at Union Station a short while later, I hurried up to the Hart Building where my office is located.  As I quickly walked up Delaware Avenue, I could hear the sound of fighter aircraft in the sky above us that apparently had been launched in response to the attack.  Off in the distance, I heard an explosion which I later learned was likely the sound of the fuel farm by the Pentagon going up in flames.  Anxious staff members were evacuating the three Senate office buildings, as well as the Capitol itself.   Before heading off for a briefing for senators by the Capitol police, I sat in disbelief in my office and said a prayer for the men and women who were trapped in the towers and for those trying to save them.  Then, along with millions of Americans, I watched in horror as those towers collapsed.  

These terrible images will forever be ingrained in our national psyche.  But just as I remember those heart-wrenching images, I also remember the ones that filled me with pride, such as seeing my fellow Americans putting their arms around strangers to comfort those who were overcome with grief.  I also will long remember watching police officers and firefighters run toward those fiery infernos that most anyone else would run away from – simply because it was their duty, and they were determined to do it and to save as many lives as they could, even at the cost of their own lives.

Most of the nearly 3,000 people killed in these attacks were civilians going about their daily lives.  The buildings that were targeted were not chosen for their strategic value, as their destruction would not prevent or alter America’s military response.  The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were chosen because their destruction would maximize civilian casualties and increase the fear our attackers hoped to spread throughout America.

Little could our attackers have anticipated how America and a majority of the rest of the world would come together after 9/11.  I have never seen our country more united than in the weeks and months after the terrorists attacked.  I remember how much of the world – including many Arab nations - came together to express sympathy and anger at these cowardly attacks.  Some 50,000 Iranians marched in a candle-light vigil held in Tehran that same week in a remarkable display of remorse for the families of the victims.  Iran, whose leadership has openly referred to the United States as the Great Satan, stood in solidarity at that moment with the United States. There was nearly world-wide support for an American effort to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, to put Osama Bin Laden on the run and to establish the first democratically-elected government in that nation’s history. 

Five years later, it's time to look back, to remember and to grieve for those who lost their lives that day and for those who gave their lives on that day to save others.  But it's also time to consider what we've learned, and where we're going -- both in terms of the war on terror and our efforts to better secure our homeland during this turbulent time in which we now live.  

One of my deepest regrets is that the United States has lost support in the world community in the years following 9/11.  Instead of finishing the job we had begun in Afghanistan and focusing on resolving once and for all the age-old dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, this administration -- relying on bogus intelligence -- decided to invade and occupy an Arab country in the heart of the Middle East.  This decision has ended up serving as a wedge between America and many nations, resulting in a foreign policy quagmire that has done little to advance the push for peace in the Middle East. 

Despite all of the evidence towards the contrary, the president continues to try and bolster support for the war in Iraq by continually trying to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and those who attacked us on 9/11.  Instead of working together, this Republican-controlled Congress has too often held the party line.  While we are beginning to see some Republicans break from the president on foreign policy issues, until lately, these types of disagreements have been rare.  The mantra of “Stay the Course” remains the dogma for the Administration and for many of our friends in the Republican Party in Congress.   

 I believe that we need to change course in Iraq and devise policies that are both tough and smart.  For example, we should try again to enlist a ‘coalition of the willing’ composed of other countries in that region of the world and call on them to draw on their relationships in Iraq in order to work closely with Sunnis and Shiites to begin to reduce the violence there and help make Iraq more secure, as well as to participate meaningfully in the rebuilding efforts within that country.  We also must use all of our diplomatic resources to contain North Korea and Iran, and their quest to become nuclear powers.  And of course, we can't let the roadmap to peace in the Middle East continue to become a roadmap to war.  The Bush administration, along with other nations, must do far more to settle the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians so that the former have security as well as peaceful borders and neighbors, and the latter have a state of their own.  Otherwise, we may never see permanent peace in that part of the world. 

We also need to do more to keep Americans safe at home.  While we have made a lot of progress since 9/11, we still have a long way to go. 

Delaware might be a small state, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to be vigilant and take reasonable steps to safeguard our infrastructure from potential terrorist attack. 

While we have made significant strides in America in to combat terrorist attacks against airliners and nuclear facilities, including several just across the Delaware River from Delaware, we need to do a better job securing our nation’s chemical facilities.  Delaware was once known as the ‘chemical capital of America.’  There are still a lot of chemicals that are produced and stored in our state and in our region.  These chemical facilities need to be protected, especially the most vulnerable and most potentially lethal among them. 

We also need to do more to protect and secure our rail and transit systems.  In 2004, an estimated 9.5 billion passenger trips occurred on those systems in the United States.  Last year’s terrorist attacks in London and Madrid have shown that transportation infrastructure is a potential target for terrorist attack.  An attack on certain parts of our rail and commuter systems could have horrific consequences, especially along our Eastern Seaboard. 

The Port of Wilmington is a full-service deepwater port and marine terminal handling more than 400 vessels per year with an annual import/export cargo tonnage of 5 million tons.  Unfortunately, less than 10 percent of all containers passing through Wilmington are checked for dangerous goods.  The same is true of most of our other major American ports.  With hundreds of thousands of shipping containers passing through our ports each year and continuing their journey across America on our nation’s rail system, this neglect could have tragic consequences.  

Five years after 9-11, as we pay homage to those who died, we almost must remember that our struggle continues as we strive to rid the world of terrorism and keep America safe.  It is a battle that we’ll likely be waging for some time.  It is also a battle that we cannot afford to lose. 

September 5, 2006 – Wilmington, DE:  On my family’s recent trip to Italy and England, I was happy to see that at least some of the citizens of those countries share one of my passions in life: recycling.

The many benefits of a successful recycling program are strong examples of how small changes in our behavior can have a big impact on the world around us.  By putting our newspapers and other recyclable materials in the recycling bin instead of in the trash, we can help protect our environment and our economy at the same time. 

August 18, 2006 - Wilmington, DE: 

As you may know, Congress is traditionally in recess for much of the month of August.  My family took advantage of part of that recess to take a family vacation to a place we have been talking about visiting for years – Italy. 

Coming home this week, we were routed through England where we would spend a day and a night in Manchester, near Nottingham and Liverpool.  Little did we know that our return to the states would coincide with the crackdown in airline security triggered by the terrorist plot recently uncovered by British intelligence. 

Prior to boarding our aircraft to come home, we watched as security personnel sifted through our carry-on bags, separating us forever from toothpaste, shampoo, deodorant, contact lens solution, lotion, bottled water and more. We weren’t alone, and while none of us liked it, we realized that there are crazy people in the world today who have perverted their religion to somehow convince themselves that they can gain favor in God’s eyes by taking the lives of a lot of innocent people who mean them no harm. 

We began our trek home from Rome just a few days after the pandemonium had peaked, but the security precautions were still without precedent, at least for me.  Prior to boarding our aircraft in Manchester, my first impression was being startled by so many TSA-like personnel.  They were remarkably polite.  They were also remarkably thorough.  I had to check the small duffel bag that I normally travel with as a carry-on bag, and was given a good-sized transparent bag to carry most of the contents on board our aircraft. Our passports and boarding passes were double-checked as we made our way from the check-in counter through security, through the terminal, through the gate and again just before we boarded the plane. 

A number of adult passengers - including me – were randomly pulled aside while going through security for pat downs that were not perfunctory.  The questions asked of us were not perfunctory either but appeared in some instances designed to delve a good bit deeper into the travelers state of mind and possible intent or motives for traveling.

In midst of all of the hullabaloo, our baggage never made it on our return flight from Rome to England.  Three bags made it to Manchester about eight hours later.  One of them – my wife’s – never made it to England and finally caught up with us upon our return to the states.  She was not pleased. 

The good news is that despite any inconvenience, lost luggage, cancelled flights and frayed tempers, nobody died.  At least not this time.  The Brits get high marks – certainly from me – for nipping this one in the bud. 

Like it or not, it looks like – at least for the foreseeable future – we need to stay alert, more alert than ever, and work closely with other nations including the Brits.  All of us are going to have to remain vigilant and put up with inconveniences that would have been hard to imagine just a few years ago.  And while we may not like it, it is worth the price for, hopefully, cooler heads to prevail, and we can put this genie back in the bottle.

August 7, 2006 - Washington, DC

Late in July, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I’m a member, approved legislation I’ve been working on to use the Internet to learn more about how the federal government spends its money. 

I’ve been a long believer that we need to do more to cut government waste, but the federal government is so vast, it’s incredibly difficult, even for senators, to investigate whether the thousands of federal grants, earmarks and contracts approved each year are going toward a good cause.  Although all federal expenditures are accessible to the public, it takes the computer skills of Bill Gates and the navigation skills of Lewis and Clark to trace federal dollars through the system. 

That’s why I’ve joined with several of my colleagues – including Sens. Tom Corburn, of

– to develop and build support for legislation that would empower the public to become a greater watchdog of our government’s finances.  The bill would basically call for a “Google-like” search engine and database, which the public could use to research how the government is spending your money.

For example, let’s say you wanted to look into the money that’s being spent to modernize our fleet of C-5 Galaxies in

When I was running for State Treasurer in 1976, the first really memorable story written about me was by a reporter named Ralph Moyed, who passed away several ago.   He was a no-nonsense type of journalist who felt an obligation to shine his light on government officials to make sure that they remembered their first obligation was to the people.  He had an exceptional moral compass, and I can tell you from experience, his watchful eye put the fear of God into many

Unfortunately, not every politician or government employee is thinking or worrying about the Ralph Moyeds of the world when they approve a contract or push for a congressional earmark of questionable merit.  You don’t have to look much further than the waste and abuse we’ve documented in federal expenditures during the aftermath of Katrina or the lobbying scandals of Jack Abramoff to be reminded that we need to be doing a better job of policing federal money.

This bill is good first step toward making government spending more transparent and accountable to the people.  My hope is that we can enact it into law before the November elections.  I'm sure Ralph Moyed would approve.

July 7, 2006 - Kent County

On a picture-perfect summer day this past Friday, I joined a number of my fellow Delawareans in the town of Leipsic to celebrate the one-year anniversary of a large-scale effort to reverse the decline in the oyster population of the Delaware Bay.

As I addressed the crowd on the docking station of the research vessel, First State, on the Leipsic River, I asked, “Who here likes oysters?”  Roughly half of the people in the audience raised their hand.  I laughed and said, “I love oysters.  But, you know who doesn’t?  My youngest son.” 

He thinks they’re ugly.  Maybe even a little creepy.  I suppose that a number of other people feel the same way.   “Oysters are beautiful,” I told him.  “Not only do they taste good, they’re good for us.  And besides that,” I continued, “they filter and clean the waters in which they grow, and we have them right here in the Delaware Bay.” 

After several of us had welcomed everyone and made some opening comments, I joined Congressman Castle, Governor Minner, and DNREC Secretary Hughes as we took a 35-minute boat trip into the Delaware Bay to see, first-hand, a “shell-planting” on the Bay.

What is shell-planting?  It’s just like it sounds.  Clean surf clamshells are deposited on oyster beds to create a habitat that floating larvae can attach to, and then oysters begin growing.  Oysters can be left in that area until they reach maturity in three or four years, or they may be transplanted to other beds to revitalize another habitat.

On the way out to the planting site, we had some lunch and I had a real interesting talk with Leonard “Limbo” Voss, who is chairman of the Delaware Shellfish Advisory Council. Limbo has been harvesting oysters in these waters for about 30 years.  He started when he was ten years old, and like his father, uncle, and brother, has made a living from harvesting oysters, but also conchs, blue crabs, eels, and striped bass. We talked about how the oysters and the Bay have changed over time, but we both agreed that people in this area don’t really know where the oysters they are eating come from. 

When people think about oysters, many may not think they come from the Delaware Bay. However, our waters have been producing eastern oysters since the 1800s.  In the 1990s, however, our oyster industry faced serious threats, such as disease, habitat loss, and over-harvesting.  Since 1995, shell-planting has helped get the oyster population back on track, which is great news – not only for oyster-lovers like me – but for our economy and local oyster harvesters as well. 

In addition to being good to eat, oysters actually help keep the bay water clean.  Oysters and their habitats provide homes for other marine organisms, which attract crustaceans and small fish, providing a healthy ecological cycle.   I like to say, “The oyster is a gift that keeps on giving!”   And it’s true.

As I stood with Mike Castle on the bow of the First State, we watched the New Jersey-owned boat, Jeanne Christine, moving slowly through the water, drop what seemed like an endless supply of clamshells into the bay.  The first load came from the starboard side of the large black boat, and that was followed by a large, splashing load from the port side.

This was a repeat of what happened in July 2005, the anniversary we were celebrating, when 280,000 bushels, or approximately 150 acres of shells, were planted in New Jersey and Delaware to begin the restoration.

I am told this shell-planting program could increase oyster production by approximately 200,000 to 400,000 bushels each year, with a possible economic impact of up to $60 million between Delaware and New Jersey.  All told, though, it will likely take three years or more to rebuild the populations, but one of the marine biologists on board told us that the program has been an unqualified success thus far.   

At the behest of the Delaware and New Jersey congressional delegations, Congress originally provided $300,000 for this project in fiscal year 2005, followed by an additional $2 million allocation in 2006 to continue and expand the plantings on a larger scale.   Matching funds have been provided by oystermen in Delaware and New Jersey, the Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, and the Delaware River and Bay Authority.  This is truly teamwork at its finest, and, I firmly believe, it is money well spent. 

As the shells started their descent to the bottom of the bay, our boat turned and headed for the dock.  And, I left with thoughts of oysters… for dinner.

June 28, 2006 - Wilmington, DE:

Delaware might be a small state, but we have a large number of veterans living within our borders.  In fact, nearly 10 percent of Delaware’s population has served in the Armed Forces.  I myself am a veteran of the U.S. Navy, having served as a naval flight officer on both active duty and in the Naval Reserve for some 23 years.  Later, as Governor of Delaware, I was privileged to serve for eight years as commander-in-chief of the Delaware National Guard.  This experience has carved a special place in my heart for the brave men and women across America who serve or have served in our nation’s armed forces.

Over the past 15 years the quality and availability of veterans care in Delaware has undergone a much-needed transformation.  Our VA hospital in Elsmere used to be a post-WWII relic with 16-bed wards and a reputation for providing less than ideal care to Delaware’s veterans.  With the investment of substantial federal dollars, able leadership and the hard work and cooperation between local, state and federal agencies, we have succeeded in transforming this facility.  Today, Delaware’s VA hospital is a flagship in a VA system that is regarded by many as the gold standard in the provision of health care in America. 

Not all that long ago, Delaware was the only state in the nation without a veterans’ cemetery.  Today, we have two magnificent veterans’ cemeteries, one located in Millsboro and the other just south of Newark.  While I wish they never had to be used, it is comforting to know that the brave men and women who pay the ultimate cost while serving their country now can be laid to rest with dignity in a veterans’ cemetery in their home state of Delaware. 

Today, Delaware is still one of only two states without a veterans’ home.  This oversight is finally being corrected this year, when our congressional delegation announced the allocation of nearly $19.5 million for the construction of a new long-term veterans care facility in Milford.  That’s roughly two-thirds of the cost of construction of the facility which I visited last month.  It is going to be beautiful.  The remaining money needed to complete this new 150-bed nursing home has already been allocated by the Delaware State Legislature.   Compared to the cost that many of our veterans have paid while serving their country, this is not too great a price to pay to provide many of them with the care and service they deserve.

Fifteen years ago, Delaware also had the distinction of not having any community-based outpatient centers that provided health care services for veterans.  Today, we have state-of-the art facilities in Millsboro and in Seaford.  Together, they now provide primary health care and mental health care to several thousand Delawareans.

But even with a great full-service health care facility in Elsmere and two outpatient clinics in Sussex County, a piece of the puzzle has been missing.

This past week, an important step was taken when I joined with the rest of the Delaware Delegation to announce that sometime within the next six to twelve months, the Department of Veterans Affairs will open a new community-based outpatient health care clinic in Kent County.  This is great news for the more than 15,000 veterans who reside in the Dover area.  The addition of this facility in Dover will make it even easier for Delaware’s veterans to receive the help and care that many of them need and deserve. 

While Delaware’s other veterans care facilities, located in Wilmington, Millsboro and Seaford, are all stellar facilities, they were not easily reachable for many veterans who live in the central part of our state.  With the addition of this new facility, no veteran who lives in Delaware will be more than 30 miles from either an outpatient clinic or our terrific VA hospital.

As Delaware’s veteran population expands with the addition of men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is even more important that we make quality primary medical care both convenient and accessible.   The new Dover-area out-patient clinic, conveniently located in the middle of our state, will go a long way toward helping even more of Delaware’s veterans receive top-notch health care for decades to come.

June 15, 2006 - Wilmington, DE

This past Monday, I had the pleasure of touring the almost-completed Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel production facility, located on what used to be a 6-acre abandoned railroad yard in Clayton. When fully operational, this facility - the first of its kind in our region - will annually produce approximately 5 million gallons of biodiesel made primarily from soybeans grown right here on the Delmarva Peninsula.

This plant represents one common-sense solution to our nation’s energy crisis. Instead of buying oil from countries that might not have our best interests at heart, we need to be investing in new types of alternative fuel technology. Biodiesel literally turns Delaware’s soybean fields into oil fields. However, unlike most oil fields, there is no unsightly equipment needed to extract the oil – you simply harvest the crops as farmers have been doing for decades.

Biodiesel makes sense as an alternative fuel source for a number of reasons. Besides the obvious environmental benefits, biodiesel represents a market-driven solution to our nation’s energy crisis. It is important to remember that a lot of recently-developed technologies – like the Global Positioning System and the Internet - were originally government-funded projects. Since there was a commercial demand for these products, the commercial market absorbed these new technologies and made them economically viable for private industry to produce.

Biodiesel is also a cleaner-burning alternative to petroleum-based diesel, and it has the added benefit of being made from renewable resources such as soybeans and other natural fats and oils, all of which are produced here in Delaware and around the United States. It works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications and can be used in its pure form, commonly called B100, or blended with petroleum diesel at any level – most commonly 20 percent (B20).

Biodiesel is nontoxic, biodegradable, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Biodiesel offers similar fuel economy, horsepower and torque when compared to traditional petroleum-based diesel with the added benefit of providing superior lubricity, which reduces engine wear and can extend the life of our vehicles.

It also significantly reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, unburned hydrocarbons and sulfates. On a lifecycle basis, biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide by roughly 75 percent when compared to petroleum diesel.

The potential to reduce our reliance on foreign oil while simultaneously helping Delaware’s economy is very promising. I joined with the delegation to help secure funding for this project, including government grants and loans from private institutions. The project was first funded with a $60,000 Rural Business Enterprise Grant from USDA to fund a feasibility study for the project.

Once the feasibility study proved that this facility would work, a $5,000,000 loan was guaranteed by USDA Rural Development's Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan program. A $500,000 federal energy efficient improvement grant was also be used to complete the final construction. This facility is the first ever Delaware project to receive funding through this program.

Monday’s tour of the facility was a nice way to see how this money was being put to good use. I was accompanied by Marty Ross, president of Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel Company. Now, for those of you that don’t know Marty, he is a great guy with a good head on his shoulders. During my visit to the plant last Monday, Marty told me a story from his childhood that helped shape his business philosophy. When Marty was 10 or 11 years old, he was walking around his father’s Sussex County farmyard and he noticed many things that were in disarray. Marty said “Dad, this place is starting to look really run down.” His father replied “Son, there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who notice that something needs to be fixed and talk about it – and those who just fix it.” With that, his father just turned around and walked away.

Marty is the type of guy who sees a problem and fixes it. With him at the helm of this new facility, Delaware’s burgeoning alternative-energy industry is in good hands.

We toured the entire facility, including the power supply room, the electric control room and the actual processing building where the soybeans are turned into biodiesel.

In the electric control room, I spoke with a gentleman who was working on the computers in the control room that will eventually direct the flow of biodiesel through the conversion process. His hard hat said “Gunner” on it and it caught my eye as we were walking by. It turns out that he was a retired Chief Petty Officer named John Robinson. He had served 23 years in the U.S. Navy, and is now one of the lead operators of the facility in Clayton. In fact, the Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel Plant has four full-time employees who have served in the armed forces.

After visiting the control room, we toured the processing building. This building is separate from the rest of the facility, as it is where the actual refining process takes place. Filled with large vats and a maze of piping, this room is the heart of the distilling process. Here, soybean oil is mixed with methanol in the presence of sodium hydroxide to separate the usable biodiesel from the soybean oil.

We then went to the second floor of the facility, walking on a series of catwalks and metal grating to get outside to an observation deck that overlooked the loading facility, handily located near the railroad tracks that run through Clayton. The biodiesel facility will utilize both trucks and railroad cars to deliver the finished biodiesel to distribution centers located around the United States.

Another project I’d like to highlight is the Integrated Corn-Based Bioproducts Refinery. I recently visited DuPont’s Experimental Station just outside of Wilmington, to learn more about this project. It is a joint effort between DuPont and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to utilize the entire corn stalk – not just the corn kernels – in the production of usable fuels that are equal, if not superior, to traditional petroleum-based products. I’ve supported this project for the same reason I supported the Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel refinery – it makes sense to utilize resources already in our procession when meeting our energy needs.

Once again, Delaware is living up to the responsibility of being “The First State” by taking the lead in this emerging industry. The Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel production facility in Clayton and DuPont’s research into utilizing the entire corn stalk when producing biodiesel represent some of the first steps towards supplying an ever-growing demand for environmentally-friendly alternatives to traditional fuels.

May 25, 2006 - Washington, DC:

Since the late 1940's, on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones in Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. The sight of these American flags always reminds me of the sacrifice that so many Americans have made to keep America safe and secure.

Many people view Memorial Day weekend as a time for picnics and trips to the beach, as a way to spend time with their families and their loved ones. Unfortunately, for some families, this will be their first Memorial Day without a loved one. It is important that we all take a moment this weekend and think about the sacrifice that each one of those flags represents.

In my home state of Delaware, there is a small town called Seaford. Most people outside of Delaware have probably never heard of it, but it’s a great little town. One of the best parts of Seaford isn’t visible to the naked eye, you have to go there to really experience it - Seaford residents take a lot of pride in their town and in their country. Because of this proud heritage, a number of people who grew up in Seaford have gone on to serve in the Armed Forces.

Earlier this month, three of Delaware’s young men – two from the small town of Seaford - lost their lives while serving in Iraq.

Marine Corporal Cory L. Palmer, who graduated from Seaford High School in 2002, died from injuries sustained when the Humvee he was riding in was hit by an explosive device near Fallujah.

Army Pfc. Steven Snowberger, who attended William Penn High School in New Castle, was killed by a roadside bomb near Baghdad at the age of 18.

Marine Lance Corporal Rick Z. James, a 2004 graduate of Seaford Christian Academy, was killed by enemy fire while conducting combat operations in Ramadi.

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, more than 2,400 brave men and women have lost their lives while fighting to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. More than 18,000 have been wounded – some of them quite severely. Our own state of Delaware has lost 12 brave native sons during this conflict.

Another young man who I know very well was recently injured while on patrol in Iraq. Sean Barney was a member of my Senate campaign team, and he joined my Senate staff as a senior legislative aide after I was elected to office. Sean was one of the hardest workers I have ever met. He arrived early and stayed late, setting an example for the other members of my staff. Blessed with a wonderful, self-deprecating sense of humor, he was both liked and admired by all of us.

I’ll never forget the day Sean came into my office, spoke of my own military service, and told me that he was thinking of joining our armed forces. It wasn’t long after our nation had been attacked on 9-11. Like many of us, Sean was outraged by the attack on our country and felt that he needed to do more.

I remember encouraging him to rethink his decision. I reminded him that he was already serving his nation in his current position and that he was needed here in the Senate. Sean was in his late 20s. He was in good shape, but it would be harder for him than for the 19 and 20-year-olds he would be serving with. None of these arguments would sway him. He was determined to become a Marine. His mind was made up.

A college graduate, Sean could have headed for officer candidate school at Quantico, but he opted instead to enlist, complete basic training at Parris Island and his specialty training after that, before joining his Marine Reserve unit in New Jersey when it returned from Iraq. Last fall, he got word that he would be called up to active duty. A month or two ago, after completing further training, he headed for Fallujah and the fate that awaited him there.

Two weeks ago today, Sean Barney was shot by an enemy sniper. The bullet struck him in the neck, just missing his Adam's apple. It severed the carotid artery, nicked the jugular vein, and just barely missed his spine. Sean ran about half a block and took cover behind a building or some debris. By a miracle, apparently a Humvee that was not too far away. It was called in by one of Sean's buddies. I think it had a Navy corpsman, or medic, on board, maybe even a doctor. They got to Sean, and Sean was still conscious. The last thing he remembered was hearing the corpsman say: “Let's get the tourniquet out and use it.” Sean remembers thinking, with a wound in the neck, where are they going to put the tourniquet? For those of us that know Sean and his sense of humor, this thought was a good sign that we was going to pull through.

Within 12 minutes of being shot, Sean was in placed in another Humvee and taken to the hospital in Fallujah. There was a doctor there, a fellow by the name of Captain Donovan, who just happened to be starting a 30-day rotation at Camp Fallujah Hospital. Thankfully, he was able to stop the bleeding and put the carotid artery back together again. The fact that Sean is alive today is nothing short of a miracle.

I know a lot of us prayed earnestly for Sean. I thank God that he has been spared and returned to be here with his wife Daisy and his parents. Sean is going to be checking out of Bethesda Naval Hospital later this week. While he has some problems with his shoulder in terms of mobility, Sean is going to get great care and, hopefully, someday will be able to regain his full capacity.

Not all of our loved ones have been so lucky. It has been a tough month in Delaware. We are a little state. When one person suffers, we all suffer.

However, I must say that I am encouraged to talk to the families and see how proud they are of their young men, their sons, their grandsons, their brothers, their cousins, their friends. I have never seen a town – big or small – come together like I witnessed this month in Seaford. The town, and the entire state of Delaware, have supported and prayed for those who have lost their lives and for their families.

To those in Seaford, and to all of the brave men and women who have family serving in our armed forces around the world, our hearts and prayers go out to you, especially on this Memorial Day weekend.

Semper Fi.

May 16, 2006 - Washington, DC:

My reputation in Washington and in Delaware is that, once committed to a cause or issue, I don’t give up. In other words, the word “retreat” is usually not found in my vocabulary.

However, once each year I make an exception. For over 15 years, I’ve convened annual retreats, initially as a Congressman, as Governor of Delaware, and now with all members of my Senate staff in Delaware and D.C. Almost all of these retreats take place in Delaware. Typically, they begin around noon on a Friday and conclude shortly after noon on the following day. Often, our retreats are held on the University of Delaware’s College of Marine Studies campus in Lewes.

We gathered there this past Friday for 24 hours of team-building. We heard inspiring – and sometimes amusing -- presentations from our constituent services staff in each of our three counties and from our small cadre of legislative correspondents in DC who help me respond to hundreds of phone calls, emails, faxes, and written inquires from Delawareans every week.

Revised rules of ethical conduct received an in-depth review as did ways to improve communication among our staffs in Georgetown, Dover and Wilmington and, especially, communications between our Delaware-based Senate staff and their counterparts in our Senate office in Washington.

Just before dinner Friday evening, we also heard from Dr. Bethany Hall-Long, a healthy-living expert and faculty member with the University of Delaware who also happens to represent the 8th District in Delaware’s House of Representatives. Bethany was kind enough to stop by our retreat and lead a discussion on some of the benefits of living healthier lifestyles. I always urge my staff to find a balance between their hard work serving the people of Delaware and their personal lives. By eating a healthy diet and incorporating regular exercise into our daily routines, I’m convinced that we can better serve our constituents and avoid some of the pitfalls associated with living unhealthy lifestyles.

On Saturday morning, I called on everyone present to recommit themselves to the notion that we are servants to the people of Delaware, and I reminded our staff of our four core values:

1) to do what we believe is right;

2) to treat others as we would like to be treated;

3) to use common sense and be committed to excellence in everything that we do; and,

4) to never give up when we know that we are right.

We then explored some of the different ways that each of us could change the way we do some portion of our respective jobs to better, more consistently, reflect those core values. The discussion was spirited, and the ideas that flowed from it were both practical and varied.

I think that most of us who attended would agree that the various discussions, the breakout groups and the team-building exercises were beneficial. However, perhaps the most valuable part of this retreat was simply to enable my Senate staff members in Delaware and D.C. to spend some quality personal time together, to get to know each other a little bit better and find out what makes us tick, as well as to more fully understand the perspectives of their colleagues who may work in another part of our state or in our nation’s capitol.

While I am almost always proud of the job that my Delaware and Washington staffs do in responding to the needs of our constituents and in better enabling me to represent Delaware in the Senate, I also know that there’s room for improvement in just about everything that we do. When I was privileged to serve as Governor of Delaware, the informal motto of our administration became, over time, “If it isn’t perfect, make it better.” That’s the motto that we embrace and seek to embody in our new roles in the Senate every day. Fresh off of our weekend retreat, that was also the spirit that we took back to work with us yesterday morning in each of Delaware’s three counties and in our nation’s Capitol.

May 2, 2006 – Wilmington, DE:

Earlier this week, I participated in a public forum focusing on our country's continued slide into fiscal irresponsibility. The event was actually the eighth in a series being hosted around the country by the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group that's tasked itself with the sometimes unenviable job of informing the public about the need for sound fiscal policy.

In true Delaware fashion, Monday's forum was bipartisan, thanks to the participation of Congressman Castle and myself. In fact, our appearance together made Delaware’s discussion the first of the series to feature participants from both political parties. But as Mike said during his remarks, bipartisanship is more the rule than the exception in the First State. It's that commitment to working together that has helped keep our state’s finances in order.

It wasn’t always that way in Delaware, of course. When Governor du Pont took office in 1977 -- just two months after I was first elected as state treasurer -- Delaware shared with Puerto Rico the dubious distinction of having the worst credit rating in the country. We were closed out of credit markets. We had no cash management system. All of the state's money was in a bank that was on the brink of insolvency. We were the best in the country at over-estimating revenues and under-estimating expenditures. That's how we earned the worst credit rating of all 50 states.

As any family knows, a budget based on spending more than you’re bringing in is no budget at all. It's a recipe for fiscal disaster. Governor du Pont understood this and acted in concert with Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment limiting the state’s expenditures to 98 percent of its revenues. The amendment further provided that the remaining two percent be set aside in a “rainy day fund.” A non-partisan, blue ribbon panel called the Delaware Economic Financial Advisory Council was created to develop conservative projections of both revenues and spending. That bit of fiscal common sense and restraint is still serving us well today, and that “rainy day fund” has not been tapped in the nearly twenty-seven years since its creation.

The larger lesson to be learned from Delaware’s own fiscal turnaround is that strong leadership is an absolute must if a city or state is to maintain fiscally sound policies.

Unfortunately, many people in Washington have forgotten that lesson. History has shown us that budgets don’t get balanced without strong leadership from chief executives, be they governors, mayors, county executives or Presidents. Bill Clinton is the only President in the last thirty years who, working with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, balanced the federal budget. In fact, they did it for four years in a row. Clinton and his team of economic advisors understood that balancing the budget and paying down our publicly held debt were the right things to do—not only for the economy but for future generations, as well.

But the progress we made under President Clinton has completely eroded. Certainly, we've had a lot of spending pressures put on our budget -- September 11th, military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina. At each turn, however, President Bush could have tried to engage Congress on the need to rein in spending or do something to get the budget back under control, like vetoing spending bills. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, he has largely chosen, instead, to ignore the problem, and now we're looking at structural deficits as far as the eye can see.

My mother used to tell me that I was “on the road to ruin” when she wasn’t particularly pleased with my actions. Well, that phrase of my mothers would apply almost perfectly to the current state of the federal government’s budget which is expected to be roughly $400 billion in the red this year and America's trade deficit which reached $750 billion each last year and shows no sign of abating.

So, what’s it going to take to get our fiscal house back in order?

As Dennis Healy, a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer once said, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. That's why just about everyone in Washington -- Republicans, Democrats, Congress, and especially the White House -- needs to be on board.

In 1997, Republicans and Democrats came together, sat down with President Clinton, and helped carve out a plan to get the country back into the black. We need to do the same thing now. Democrats and Republicans and the Bush Administration need to come together, agree to common sense reforms like reinstating a pay-as-you go spending policy, while putting everything on the table as they did nine years ago —spending programs, our tax policies, entitlement programs—and together chart a course back to fiscal sanity.

That's the Delaware way. If we keep working at it, maybe, it will once again become the Washington way, too.

April 20, 2006 – Wilmington, DE:

I feel like spring officially arrived last week. Along with it came a desire to roll down the windows in my car, to fire up our barbeque grill and get home a little early to spend some time outdoors with my family.

While the forecast isn’t all that encouraging, I hope the weatherman is wrong and that this Saturday - which just happens to be Earth Day - turns out to be a beautiful day, too. Rain or shine, it’s a great time to get outside and enjoy all that Delaware has to offer – while at the same reflecting on the state of our environment and what actions we need to take to preserve this planet of ours for generations to come.

This week, during a trip I made downstate, I had a chance to talk with some folks about an environmental issue that I’ve spent a lot of time on during my tenure as a senator – clean air.

For the past several months, I’ve been working with a bipartisan group of senators, environmental groups, utility industry representatives and other interested parties to revamp and update clean air legislation that I first introduced several years ago.

Unfortunately, an all-too-familiar gridlock in our nation’s Capitol has kept us from moving forward on legislation to dramatically reduce much of the pollution that comes out of our nation’s power plants. I hope that when I introduce our “new and improved” legislation in the next several weeks, we’ll finally persuade the rest of the Senate that it’s time to get past the gridlock and enact the first significant revisions to the Clean Air Act in more than 15 years.

It’s not that we haven’t made progress in cleaning up our air. We have. But as I stood on the banks of the Indian River this past Wednesday – with the smokestacks of the Indian River power plant looming a few hundred yards behind me – I was once again mindful of the work that remains to be done.

For instance, Delaware still doesn’t comply with EPA’s smog standards, and New Castle County doesn’t meet the standard for tiny particulate matter, or the soot that’s emitted from giant smokestacks like the ones at Indian River

We pay a very real price for the dirty air we breathe. In Delaware, about 70,000 people – adults and kids – suffer from asthma. In the summer, when pollution is at its worst, it means that thousands of them will either have to skip work or stay indoors because pollution levels keep them from going outside. Instead of being able to play in their local parks, many children will end up visiting a hospital to get help with their breathing.

Just as we have a responsibility to make the air cleaner for people to breathe, we also have a global responsibility to do something about climate change. The cover of the April 3rd edition of Time magazine – a special issue dedicated to global warming -- summed it up best: “Be worried. Be very worried.”

We can’t just keep pretending that global warming doesn’t exist and humans aren’t at least partly to blame. We need to take action now if we’re to avoid having to take even more drastic – and much more expensive – action down the road.

I believe that we don’t have to break the bank to make our air cleaner. New technologies are emerging almost weekly that will enable us to make significant reductions in pollution in a variety of cost-effective ways.

One of the most promising of those technologies is something called “coal gasification.” By the way, the U.S. has more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil. In any event, we can now take coal and turn it into a gas that can be used to fire a power plant and produce electricity. This particular technology largely eliminates the amount of mercury and other pollutants emitted, and it has the potential to significantly reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, escaping into our atmosphere. What’s more, this technology is much more energy-efficient than our current coal-fired power plants, meaning we would have to use less natural resources to get the same amount of power.

I’m pleased to hear that the folks down at Indian River are considering building such a plant to help expand capacity in Sussex County. The legislation I’m working on would encourage more of these plants to be built across the country.

We shouldn’t settle for gridlock or the status quo when we have the technology and the know-how to make major improvements in our air quality and to dodge the global warning bullet at the same time. I hope that when I get back to Washington next week, several of my colleagues and I can persuade others in the Senate that the time to act is now. This is one of those instances when time is not on our side. We need to get started.

April 11, 2006 – New Orleans, LA:

(Part 2 of 2) view photos of trip

For the next two hours on Monday afternoon, we drove through miles of neighborhoods with homes, large and small, where no one lived anymore. You could still see the water lines on the outside of homes which sat for days in flood waters that engulfed entire first floors, leaving thousand of homes uninhabitable today. We surveyed mile after mile of homes missing doors, windows and roofs. Spray painted on the front of many houses were the coded messages left by the teams of first responders who personally inspected virtually every home for survivors and victims when the floods waters began to recede. Everywhere we looked, you would see abandoned cars and debris piled up waiting to be taken somewhere. Anywhere.

But we also saw glimmers of hope amid the devastation. As we drove away from one of the levees that had been breached in the storm, we caught a glimpse of activity around a nearby house in an upper-middle class neighborhood of abandoned homes. Getting out of our vehicle alongside the home, we walked past the backhoe that was tearing out large pieces of a badly-damaged driveway. Standing in the front yard, we met the home’s new owner. Along with his visiting father and a small crew of men, they had just finished gutting the entire first floor of what once had been a lovely two-story home. In the back yard sat the remains of another home from a block away that the storm and flood waters had deposited there.

The new owner, who used to visit Delaware with his family, was a man on a mission. He hoped to move into the home in roughly two weeks. Undaunted by the challenge awaiting him, he told us of how most of the homes on his side of that block would soon undergo reconstruction to allow families old and new to move in, hopefully by year’s end. He still wasn’t sure, though, what to do with the second home that was sitting in his backyard.

As we wished him well and drove away, I was reminded of the spirit of an earlier generation of urban homesteaders in Wilmington’s Trinity Vicinity. In fact, 20 years ago, I married one of them. That spirit turned around Trinity Vicinity for keeps. As we headed for a damaged nearby National Guard base, I was encouraged that a similar spirit a generation later might work small wonders in some parts of the Crescent City, too.

But for many other neighborhoods, there is little hope or none at all. If anything, recovery, should it come at all, is years away. In some of the lower-income areas – like the Lower 9th Ward, an historic African American community with above-average homeownership rates – residents will have great difficulty paying to rebuild their homes. In many other low-lying neighbors, no one will ever live there again unless they live in new homes built on foundations rising in some places as much of a dozen feet above the ground.

Katrina is not the last hurricane that will visit our Gulf Coast. Other subsequent storms may bring even stronger winds and serve to dissipate the investments in strengthening a suspect levee system. Unless the people of New Orleans and other communities along the Gulf cost are smart about it, along with our government, more devastation will inevitably follow.

For the better part of two centuries, New Orleans and its surrounding parishes, or counties, were protected from hurricanes, not just by levees, but by the miles of wetlands that stretched 50 miles south from the city to the Gulf of Mexico. The wetlands’ grasses, vegetation and trees act as a buffer by absorbing the shock of storms like Katrina, draining some of their force before the hurricane reached populated areas like the city and its surrounding communities.

For more than an hour that Monday afternoon, we flew all over much of what had been a vibrant wetlands to the south of New Orleans. Over time, much of it has eroded away. Marsh grasses, whose root systems held the land together during the various onslaughts by Mother Nature, have succumbed over time to salt water infiltration, gradually killing the roots, the grasses and other vegetation. Much of the land is being swept into the Gulf. Every 35 minutes, an area roughly the size of a football field is lost to the sea. If nothing is done to restore these wetlands, the Gulf Coast will continue its relentless march on the Crescent City, and the outcome of this “Battle of New Orleans” is not one we will ever celebrate.

We had about an hour of down time after our flight and, after checking into our hotel, I went for a run on the same riverwalk that I had run on a number of times over the years. The view along the Mississippi as the sun was setting was as spectacular as ever. After my run and a quick shower, we drove into the University District of Uptown New Orleans, not knowing quite what we’d see when we got there. To my surprise, it looked just as it had all those years ago when I first saw it. We passed block after block of stately homes with their immaculate gardens and lawns before stopping at a lovely home just off St. Charles Street to have dinner as guests of a citizens group called “The Women of the Storm.” Along with Senator Landrieu, for the next several hours, we heard from them and from the leaders of business, academia, and the environment who were assembled around Nancy and King Milling’s big dining room table.

They shared with us the plan that was taking shape to reverse the loss of wetlands that we had witnessed just hours ago. How? By diverting some of the enormous amounts of sedimentation that the Mississippi carries every day and dumps into the Gulf of Mexico. “Every 2.7 miles of coastal wetlands reduces storm surges by about 1 foot,” one of them said. “We have no choice but to get started.” I did the math in my head, reflected on the value of our own under-appreciated wetlands in the First State, and concluded that they were on to something. As long as the same folks at the Army Corps of Engineers who’ve been in charge of contracting for debris removal aren’t put in charge of wetlands restoration, I believe that the project should go forward, paid for in large part by revenues from off-shore drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf.

A few minutes after 7am the next morning, the airliner that I was on began its takeoff roll at New Orleans International Airport. The sun was just coming up on a new day in the Crescent City. As we began to climb up to altitude, I looked out my window and saw some of the abandoned neighborhoods that we had driven through the previous afternoon. I saw the work being done to reinforce the levees that had failed. I saw the Superdome which will reopen later this year after $100 million in repairs. I caught a glimpse of the Garden District and the Mississippi’s riverwalk. Off to the south stretched the wetlands whose value was taken for granted for so long.

I wouldn’t take for granted that New Orleans will fully recover from Katrina; however, this week and next, its citizens both there and in communities scattered across America, will vote to elect a mayor to lead their city into the future. If they choose wisely, and the rest of us continue to lend a hand, their city just might pull it off. On September 25, 2006, the New Orleans Saints will return to the Superdome to play their first home game in over a year there. With the Saints back in the game, the right leadership at the helm, a lot of hard work and a break from Mother Nature, the rest of the city just might be back in the game before long, too.

April 11, 2006 – New Orleans, LA:

(Part 1 of 2) view photos of trip

The four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Representative who participated in the hearing sat there and shook our heads in disbelief and disgust over what we heard.  At the hearing’s conclusion, we resolved to hold accountable those within the Administration whose woeful leadership, poor judgment, lack of common sense and overall poor planning had allowed these horror stories to occur.  We also resolved to do our best to ensure that, as the onset of the next hurricane season bears down on us in less than two months, agencies like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers have adopted a series of reforms to eliminate the worst of the egregious examples of waste and abuse that we put a spotlight on that day.  “It’s too bad we can’t legislate common sense,” I said near the hearing’s conclusion.  “Or outlaw stupidity,” I thought.

When the field hearing concluded in the early afternoon, several members of my staff and I left the courthouse to grab a bite of lunch with Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA).  We were joined by her father “Moon” Landrieu (former mayor of New Orleans and HUD Secretary under President Jimmy Carter) and by Pascal Calogero, the chief justice of Louisiana’s Supreme Court (and an old friend of Norm Veasey, former chief justice of Delaware’s Supreme Court).  Over bowls of gumbo, they picked up where the hearing left off, sharing with us the rich perspectives on Katrina and its aftermath of three people who had grown up and lived some 150 years in the City.  When lunch was over, we said goodbye to Moon and the chief justice and went outside to climb into a Louisiana National Guard Suburban that was waiting to take us on a tour of New Orleans that I will long remember. 

April 4, 2006 – Dover, DE: This past Monday morning, I was at home preparing for a busy day ahead in Kent County. Little did I know that my day, and the lives of 17 people on board a C-5B military transport plane, was about to be turned upside down. At 7:15am the phone rang in our kitchen. My Kent County director, Lori James, was calling me with news that a C-5 had crashed less than a mile south of the Dover Air Force Base. 

In an instant, my mind raced back some 30 years ago to the morning when a 13-man Navy P-3 aircraft assigned to my naval air station south of San Francisco crashed and burned just short of the runway. All crewmembers aboard lost their lives. Fearing the worst, I asked Lori to stay on top of the situation in Dover and to keep me in the loop. She assured me that we were being kept up to date by personnel at Dover Air Force Base and that we would know additional details as soon as they became available. Hungry for information, I turned on the radio. Sure enough, the crash at Dover Air Force Base was all over the news.

As the former commander-in-chief of the Delaware National Guard and a retired naval flight officer, I feel a strong connection to the people who serve in our armed forces. After hearing the news accounts of the crash, I jumped into my Chrysler minivan and headed for Dover, surfing the radio channels all the way to our state’s capitol. 

For those who have never had the privilege of riding in a C-5 transport aircraft, let me share a little bit of information with you. The C-5 is the largest military plane ever built. Typically used to haul cargo, it is six stories tall and as long as a football field. In the most simple of terms – it is an enormous aircraft. In fact, later that day, a reporter would ask me how the C-5 compared to the four-engine turbo-prop P-3s that I flew aboard as a naval flight officer during the Vietnam War and the Cold War. I pointed to the tail of the C-5 lying in the field about 200 yards from the rest of the plane and asked, “See the tail? You could just about fit one of our airplanes in the tail of a C-5.”

I arrived at DAFB at mid-morning. There I joined Congressman Mike Castle to hear an overview at the wing commander’s headquarters. We received a preliminary briefing while we waited for a surrey to take us to the area of the crash. Deputy wing commander Col. Chad Manske joined us and accompanied us to the crash site for a close-up look and a fuller briefing. There, we also saw the efforts underway to defuel the aircraft and remove the potentially hazardous flares that the aircraft was carrying in its nose section.

A C-5 coming in for a landing at Dover is a remarkable sight. A C-5 lying broken into three pieces in a field is an unbelievable sight. Partially covered by foam, the plane had come to rest perpendicular, less than a thousand yards from the end of the runway. 

En route to the Middle East, the 1980’s vintage C-5B Galaxy was stocked to capacity with cargo and fuel, weighing in at nearly 700,000 pounds, not including the aircraft itself. When we arrived, some of the cargo was strewn about. Seeing the cargo among the wreckage reminded us of the job the C-5 was built to do.

The C-5 has been a workhorse since it began, joining the U.S. fleet in 1968. It is capable of carrying tanks, tractor-trailers, helicopters or more than 300 troops, if necessary. In addition to military duty, it has contributed to many humanitarian missions, most recently to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

To some skeptics, Monday’s crash may call into question the age and reliability of the C-5 fleet. While difficult to maintain, historically, the plane has been one of the safest in the Air Force. A modernization process is underway on a handful of the giant birds which, if successful, could prolong the plane's usefulness and help to provide the Defense Department with cost-effective airlift well into the 21st century. The Air Force’s experts believe that the wings and fuselages of both the C-5As and C-5Bs have useful lives of another 30-40 years. For the cost of purchasing one single 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-5s into the 21st Century. On top of that, the C-5’s can carry twice as much cargo and fly roughly twice as far as the C-17’s.

By the end of this decade, Dover is scheduled to receive a dozen newer, slightly smaller C-17’s. This highly reliable new aircraft will work in tandem with the Air Force’s older C-5’s and the Air Guard’s vintage C-130’s to increase airlift capacity and help move needed supplies and personnel all over the world. In 2005 alone, Dover moved 124,000 tons of cargo and more than 45,000 people. It was not all done by C-5s, but they have set the standard in hauling and safety capacity. I don’t think that will change.

As I said while looking at the crash Monday morning, it's a miracle that everyone survived. The aircraft’s crew got the plane close enough to the base on their final approach that the fire crews from the base and from the surrounding community were able to reach the wreckage quickly and make sure that it didn’t go up in flames. They did a great job. While I hate to see us lose a C-5, the toll could have been far worse. I remember a day more than 30 years ago when it was.

March 3, 2006 – Washington, DC: Like many Americans, I have some concerns over the Bush administration’s plan to allow Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to oversee the terminal operations of six ports along our nation’s coastline, including the one located in Philadelphia.

My initial reaction was one of skepticism. Granted, the United Arab Emirates is an ally of the United States, and its leaders have taken steps to dissociate themselves from radical Islamic factions and aid our country in the war on terror. However, we can’t forget that the UAE was also one of three countries to recognize the Taliban in Afghanistan. And as Tom Kean, co-chairman of the September 11th Commission pointed out, Al Qaeda used UAE banks to wire funds to the 9-11 hijackers, two of whom were citizens of the United Arab Emirates.

My sincere hope is that the administration is correct and there is nothing to worry about. In a post 9-11 world, however, you simply can’t be too careful. That is why I have joined my colleagues in the U.S. Senate in calling for a more thorough review of this deal. Enough concerns have been raised to justify a hard second look before we make a final decision that could negatively impact the safety and livelihoods of thousands of Americans.

I also met with officials from the Port of Wilmington this past Monday to discuss this proposed deal and port security in general. After listening to their concerns, I remain committed to doing everything I can to make sure that America’s ports are as safe as possible. Since September 11th, we have made great strides in increasing airline security but continue to lag behind in rail and port security. With hundreds of thousands of shipping containers passing through our ports each year and continuing their journey across America on our nation’s rail system, this neglect could have tragic consequences.

The fact is, while there has been some progress made since 9-11 – including at the Port of Wilmington – we haven’t come close to doing all that we should to ensure the safety and security of one of our nation’s more valuable economic resources. There are reports that show a majority of the funds Congress has approved for port security the past several years remain unspent. We also need to spend our money more wisely by making sure that high-risk ports along our coastlines are protected before allocating money for lower-risk inland ports.

We’ve also not done enough to improve cargo inspections. Staffing shortages and the inability to determine which containers to inspect continue to hinder our ability to detect high-risk cargo before it arrives at U.S. ports. We also need to quicken the implementation of security programs designed to screen port workers for ties to terrorists. A test program put in place four years ago at the Port of Wilmington has proven successful, but the Department of Homeland Security recently indicated that it plans to cancel the program, even though a national screening system is more than a year away.

We’ve taken extraordinary steps to improve airline security since 9-11, but port security continues to play second fiddle. The potential ramifications are too dire for that to continue. It’s time we did more to keep our ports safe and secure.

February 21, 2006 – Dover, DE:

When I was a senior in high school, I applied too late to be considered for a nomination to the Air Force Academy. To my knowledge, no one in my family had ever graduated from college. I came from a family of modest means, so we knew that in addition to working several part-time jobs, I would need financial help to go to school, like a lot of other students. A little later that same year, I was sitting in home room one day. Among the announcements that came over the P.A. that morning was this one, “If you are a senior and would like to learn more about winning a Navy scholarship to attend college, please visit your guidance counselor this week.”

Later that same day, I looked up my guidance counselor. She told me about something called Navy R.O.T.C. “I’ve never heard of it,” I said and asked what it meant. She explained to me that the Navy Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program provides scholarship opportunities for graduating high school seniors and pays for college tuition, books, fees, and a modest monthly stipend in return for a commitment to serve on active duty for a number of years upon graduation from college. I told her on the spot that I was interested.

Over the next several months, I took aptitude tests, underwent physical exams and was interviewed several times. And wonder of wonders, I won the Navy scholarship and went off that fall to the Ohio State University where I majored in economics. After graduating four years later, I took an oath of office as a brand new ensign to defend my country and its Constitution. A week later, I packed up and headed to Pensacola, Florida to begin preflight training. Less than a year after that, I was on my way with my squadron heading to Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. Thus began a career as a naval flight officer that would span some 23 years of active and reserve duty, years that I cherish to this day.

As a former congressman and, now, as a U.S. Senator, I’ve had the privilege of nominating young men and women for some time to attend the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, West Point and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. For the past five years, I’ve hosted something that my staff and I affectionately call “Academy Night.” It’s an annual forum to which we invite high school students from all over Delaware to attend in order to learn about educational opportunities that can lead to a commission in one of the branches of our armed forces. Our latest Academy Night was held this past Monday evening in Dover at the Delaware Technical & Community College’s Terry Campus.

This event allows young men and women to learn how to go about earning a nomination to one of our service academies. Joining us for the evening were representative from all five service academies, including the Coast Guard Academy, as well as representatives from all three R.O.T.C. programs and from the Delaware National Guard, the Citadel and, even, the Civil Air Patrol.

Potential applicants are invited to apply to my office for a service academy nomination by October 15 of their senior year. These applications are reviewed by my Service Academy Selection Committee. It consists of seven members; including retired military personnel, high school guidance counselors, and representatives from our business and religious communities. The Committee then recommends a number of potential nominees to me. I make my final selection out of this smaller pool of applicants by mid-December and submit the names of nominees to their prospective service academies which make their final selections by May 1. Just before the nominees of our state’s congressional delegation head off to their respective academies, Senator Biden, Congressman Castle and I jointly host a reception in their honor in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, inviting our nominees, members of their families and other guests.

Among the young people who joined us on Monday night in Dover was a remarkable young woman who is a senior from Sussex Tech High School in southern Delaware, Alexandra Stamatiou. In the past several weeks, Alex has received appointments to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy. A “hat trick,” if you will! That’s quite an accomplishment, especially when you consider the extremely high standards that these institutions require for admissions and the quality of the other Delaware applicants! An alumna of my selection process, Alex was able to share her first-hand knowledge of the selection process with Academy Information Night participants by highlighting her experience in applying for a nomination. In her comments, Alex described the application process as well as the medical requirements and physical tests that a candidate must complete to be considered for an appointment. In addition to academics and athletics, my Service Academy Selection Committee also looks for extracurricular activities, leadership experiences and community service as part of the whole person concept. By the way, Alex has decided to go to West Point.

The training and education that Delaware students receive at West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, the Merchant Marine Academy, and the Coast Guard Academy is second to none. These leadership institutions serve as the forges from which outstanding candidates emerge as the future leaders not just of our military but of our country, too.

Any Delaware high school student interested in learning more about “Academy Night” next year is welcome to contact Lori James in my Dover office at 302-674-0168. In addition to serving as my Kent County coordinator, Lori serves as my direct liaison to the military and to our service academies. She has visited them all over the past five years and is an excellent source of information for any students or parents who have questions about the selection process that we follow in my office.

Both of my teenage sons are Boy Scouts and have been active in their troop for a number of years. Coincidentally, last weekend, I took a number of the Scouts from Troop 67 with me to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York for a two-day visit. Last year, we visited the Naval Academy. Next year, we’ll likely visit West Point. I don’t know whether any of those boys will end up attending one of our service academies. They may, or they may not. I do know, however, that they’re far better informed now about the opportunities that are available to them if they do apply and are accepted. And, based on the feedback we received Monday evening, the same is true for many of the hundred or so young men and women who joined us at Academy Night.

Click here for more information on Academy Nominations

February 13, 2006 - Wilmington, DE:

Two weeks ago, President Bush led off his State of the Union speech by a call for a return to civility.  It’s the kind of thing that people on my side of the aisle listen to with a grain of salt.  But the next day, though, when I spoke in the Senate and reflected on the president’s message, I led off by saying that if he sincerely meant what he had said the previous evening about civility, I’d be willing to reciprocate and expected that many of my Democrat colleagues would, as well. 

A day or two later, an invitation came to my office in the Hart Building from the White House.  It probably was just a coincidence, by my wife Martha and I were being invited to dinner by President and Mrs. Bush, along with three other congressional couples, one Democrat and two Republicans.  After checking our calendars, we accepted.  Martha came down on the train from Delaware last Tuesday evening, and we caught a ride over to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

It was not the first time we’d been invited to the White House for dinner.  Every summer, for as long as most of us can remember, all of the senators and representatives – along with members of their immediate families -- are invited to a big outdoor barbeque on the White House lawn while the sun sinks in the western sky.  While it’s not fancy, it’s usually fun to eat barbequed chicken with 500 or more of your “closest friends,” listen to some live music and maybe chat with the First Lady and her husband for a few seconds if you’re willing to stand in line for half-an-hour for the privilege.  Many are. 

For the eight years I served as Governor of Delaware, Martha and I also were invited – along with all of the other governors and their spouses, the vice-president and cabinet members – by President and Mrs. Clinton to a black tie dinner that coincided with the National Governors’ Association’s annual meeting in Washington, DC.  That one was a bit more formal, but still a lot of fun.  It was also far more intimate.  We sat at fifteen or so circular tables of eight people in the State Dining Room.  After a reception and a couple of opening toasts, politics was set aside, and everyone just kicked back and enjoyed the evening which concluded with music and dancing for the young at heart.  The Clintons usually would invite two couples to overnight, and we were fortunate to be their guests on a couple of occasions when I served as chairman of the Governors’ Association.  After the other governors and spouses had left, the six of us would stay up and talk well into the night.  I remember thinking, don’t these people ever sleep?

Unlike President Bill Clinton, President George Bush appreciates a good night’s sleep.  When we arrived at the White House for last Tuesday’s dinner at 6:45pm sharp, we were greeted by the White House staff, many of whom we remembered from the previous administration.  They explained that the Bushes would join us at 7pm and that there would be two special guests for dinner, too.  Sure enough, at 7pm, the President and Laura walked into the room, accompanied by Jordan’s King Abdullah and one of his younger brothers, the Crown Prince.  The two of them happened to be in town.  The Bushes heard about it, invited them over and simply added a couple of more chairs at the table.  It was great to see the King again after visiting him just two months ago in Amaan.  He’s still quite young, down-to-earth, very bright and possesses a refreshing sense of humor. 

Before dinner, President and Mrs. Bush gave us the cook’s tour of the place, as President and Mrs. Clinton had done a decade or so before.  In the Lincoln bedroom, we saw one of five copies of the Gettysburg address, hand-written by our sixteenth president.  Across the hall, we stood in the Queen’s bedroom where Martha and I had stayed on two occasions.  It looked just as we had left it.  We looked for the signs saying that Tom and Martha had slept there, but they were nowhere in sight.  Down the hall, we went out onto the Truman balcony and stood where “Give ‘em hell, Harry” used to stand, taking in the Washington monument and other sites in the distance on a beautiful starry night.  The Bushes, like the Clintons before them, clearly treasured the opportunity to live there and seemed to relish the opportunity to talk about the history of each room we visited, the significance of the paintings on the walls, and the lives of some of those depicted in those paintings. 

Then it was time for dinner.  As we walked into the dining room in the family’s living quarters, Laura explained that it was the handiwork of Jackie Kennedy.  The twelve of us sat down around a beautiful table.  The President said that they began each meal there with a blessing and asked us to take the hand of the person on either side of us.  In his prayer which lasted roughly a minute, he acknowledged that we were people of different faith who, nonetheless worshiped the same God.  Holding Martha’s hand, he expressed thanks for the many blessings we enjoyed as Americans and prayed for peace and for our troops in harm’s way.   When he concluded, everyone said, “Amen,” and then we dove in.  Well, not really. 

The White House waiters served us a delicious deal, and we began to talk about a wide range of topics: the majesty of Coretta Scott King’s funeral earlier that day in Atlanta, the plane ride back to Washington on Air Force One with the Clintons, King Abdullah’s take on the election of Hamas by Palestinians, Iran’s intentions with respect to nuclear energy, ongoing efforts in Iraq to put together a coalition government, and – even -- working out in the expanded White House fitness center.  The President spoke more than anyone else at the table, but he did not attempt to dominate the conversation.  The tone ranged from serious to light and included a little baseball, too.  He remains a big Texas Rangers fan, and I am – for no good reason – a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan.  I was surprised to hear him tick off the names of some of the up-and-coming Tiger pitchers as spring training approaches.  He was equally surprised that I knew the names of several of the Rangers’ starting pitchers.  (Thank you Google.) 

Just before 9pm, the President folded his napkin on the table before him, signaling that our evening was coming to an close.  As we walked through the White House, I spoke briefly with him about his Clear Skies legislation.  “It’s not going anywhere this year, is it?” he asked.  I told him that it was not, but went on to describe a bipartisan alternative, which includes mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions by utility plants, that I was about to reintroduce with several of my colleagues, including New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg.  The President expressed surprised to hear me say that some utility CEO’s had voiced support for our approach and said he would raise it with Judd the next day while in New Hampshire.  Early the next morning, I gave Judd a call on his cell phone and a heads-up just in case the subject came up. 

All of us said goodnight to our hosts at 9pm sharp and thanked them for a delightful evening.  We walked to another room to retrieve our coats, basking in the bipartisan glow of the moment.  As we put on our coats, I mentioned to my Republican Senate colleague and his wife that we were going to catch a cab and head for the train station to go home to Delaware, half hoping that they might offer us a ride in their car if they were heading back to Capitol Hill.  “We’re going the other way,” he said abruptly, and Martha and I walked out into an unseasonably warm evening in our nation’s Capitol.  “Ah,” I explained.  “The upside of global warming!”  We hailed the first cab that came by.  It stopped, picked us up, and we headed for Union Station and home. 

The next evening, coincidentally, I bumped into Jim Connaughton, head of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, which some pundits describe as an oxymoron.  He and I went head-to-head a number of times last year as the White House was trying unsuccessfully to push Clear Skies through the Senate.  The subject of clean air legislation quickly came up, and he said with a smile, “I understand that you’ve been busy.”  I acknowledged that I had been, and we agreed to fight the good fight another day. 

February 3, 2006 – Wilmington, DE:

I’ve been privileged to attend State of the Union addresses for some time now, going back to 1983 when Ronald Reagan was our president, and I was a brand new freshman congressman from the First State. All were interesting. Some were truly memorable.

This past Tuesday night, like most of you, I watched the address, not from a front row seat in the House chamber, but from a small television set that we have in the kitchen of our home in Wilmington, Delaware. Joining me from time to time in the audience there were my wife Martha and our two teenage sons. Our boys took study breaks to come downstairs, raid the refrigerator, listen to parts of the speech and then head back upstairs to hit the books.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear much in the speech that I liked. Later, I would learn that one analyst – I believe with ABC - estimated that Bill Clinton could easily have given some 48 of the 76 paragraphs that President Bush read from the teleprompters that are largely invisible to a television audience. Conservative pundits like Robert Novak, who has a summer place near Bethany Beach, Delaware, disliked the speech for several of reasons that I found favor in it. Well, you can’t please everybody, although I suppose it is in the DNA of most politicians, including the President and me, to try.

As I listened to parts of the speech Tuesday night, though, it struck me that some of these ideas sounded very familiar. In my 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, I called for an end of our “addiction to foreign oil” and for replacing that addiction with a greater reliance on conservation, renewable forms of energy, clean coal technology, fuel cells, and a new generation of nuclear power plants.

Delaware is a hot bed for much of this already. GE is growing the solar energy business that it acquired from what was once a promising Newark-based start-up called AstroPower. Large, established Delaware companies like DuPont and W.L. Gore, along with smaller ones like IonPower are major players in the fuel cell arena. In fact, the University of Delaware is becoming something of a clean energy R&D center, while Delaware State University is carving out a niche for itself in storage of hydrogen in anticipation of a hydrogen/fuel cell economy.

Another part of the President’s speech that gave me that déjà vu feeling all over again was when he called for the creation of a bipartisan Blue Ribbon commission to help us prepare for the impact that the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers in coming years will have on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Ironically, almost exactly a year ago I began calling for creating a similar commission to my colleagues and a C-SPAN audience as well as to a much smaller audience that included the President’s Chief of Staff Andy Card and his closest advisor, Karl Rove. The two of them pooh-poohed the idea at the time as the President was beginning to crisscross the country on the first of several Social Security barnstorming tours.

I had to smile when the president, one year later, concluded before the nation that maybe he should take a page out of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill’s playbook and reprise the successful approach they followed in 1982-3, when Alan Greenspan chaired an earlier commission that enabled Social Security to avoid bankruptcy in 1983.

Finally, I like what the President had to say with respect of the need to better train math and science teachers as well as math and science students. We need to do both if the U.S. is to continue fostering the new technologies that will enable us to compete successfully in the 21st century with emerging giants such as China and India. That recommendation, along with several other ones made by the President, was borrowed from a report issued last year by the National Academy of Sciences.

It could have been just as easily borrowed from what Delaware has been doing for a decade in a number of our schools like the Charter School of Wilmington and in places like the Delaware Technology Park, a high-tech business incubator near the University of Delaware. Once again, the First State was leading the way.

The ideas I've mentioned here are not Republican or Democratic ideas. They're just good ideas. My hope is that the President will reach out to both parties in Congress to follow up on them so that, together, we can pass common-sense legislation to make our country more energy independent, figure out a path forward on entitlement reform and help our students excel at math and science so that America’s workforce can continue to lead the way in innovation into the 21st century.

January 26, 2006 – Washington, DC:

The following passage was selected from Sen. Tom Carper’s floor speech on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to serve as Justice of the Supreme Court.  The speech was delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on January 26, 2005.  You can view the full text of the speech by clicking here.(.pdf)

The actions of the nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court can have a tremendous and lasting effect on the lives of every American, probably more so than any senator or governor and, perhaps, more than many Presidents. 

In the end, the Supreme Court exists as the last bastion of protection for the rights and freedoms of all Americans.  That’s why I take so seriously my obligation as a senator to provide advice and consent to our Presidents, as required by our Constitution, to determine whether their nominees truly merit a lifetime appointment to serve on our nation’s highest court.  

When I voted for John Roberts' nomination as Chief Justice last fall, I said it was a close call.   After carefully reviewing his testimony, discussing that testimony with Democrat and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, meeting with him and other interested parties, and talking to colleagues who knew and worked with him, I concluded that John Roberts  was a worthy successor to Chief Justice Rehnquist and was not likely to shift the balance of the Court in a significant way.  

After we confirmed Justice Roberts and turned to face yet another impending Supreme Court vacancy, I urged President Bush to send us a nominee similar to the person he or she would replace – Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.  I noted that his next choice could divide this Congress and our country even further, or it could serve to bring us closer together.    

For more than 20 years, Justice O’Connor has been a voice of moderation during often difficult and tumultuous times.  As we all know, her decisions oftentimes determined the direction of the court.   In my view, she was the right Justice at the right time as her opinions more often than not reflected the prevailing attitude of the American people.

Unfortunately – and with some regret – I am unconvinced that Judge Samuel Alito is the right person to replace Justice O’Connor on the Supreme Court.  And unlike a few months ago, when I rose to support the nomination of John Roberts, I will not be supporting Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. 

Having said that, though, I don’t believe we should vote for Supreme Court justices based solely on their qualifications and likeability.  We must also consider their judgment, their legal opinions, their judicial philosophies, and what they said – or didn’t say – during their confirmation hearings in order to determine whether we’re truly comfortable with the direction a particular nominee will take our nation’s highest court.  After all, these are lifetime appointments that will have consequences for decades into our future.  

In the end, I found myself asking one simple question, “Is Samuel Alito the right person for this vacancy, not just for now, but for decades to come?”  For me, the answer to that question is, regrettably, no.

I’m concerned that, if confirmed, Judge Alito, during the decades he’s likely to serve, will take the Court in a new direction that serves to undermine our systems of checks and balances, threatening the rights and freedoms that many of us hold dear. 

Based on his history and his opinions, I fear that Judge Alito may well change the court’s approach and rule in favor of expanded presidential power – not just at the expense of Congress and the courts, but ultimately at the expense of the American people.   We cannot, nor should not, play witness to an unchecked presidency, regardless of political party.  We need the courts – and Congress, too – to ensure that this administration and future administrations abide by the laws of this land and the principles we hold dear.

This is not an easy vote for me.  As a former governor, I believe strongly that this administration or any other has the right to nominate judges of the same mind and philosophy.  And I believe senators shouldn’t automatically reject judges outright because of political affiliation or beliefs. 

However, politicians of both stripes must take a stand and reject nominees that we believe will take the court too far to the extreme right or the extreme left.  

I hope that if Judge Alito is confirmed, and I believe he will be, that he proves my concerns wrong and unfounded.  I hope that he remembers how our Constitution - and our entire democracy - is both an everlasting and ever-changing experiment.   Our Constitution is not something to be strictly interpreted, nor is it something to be recklessly abandoned and I hope that if Judge Alito is eventually confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court, he will balance the scales of justice rather than tip them too far in either direction.

January 13, 2006 - Wilmington, DE:

As we have every year since 1986, the U.S. Senate and the rest of the federal government will close down on the third Monday of January to celebrate the birth and life of a man who truly changed the lives of millions. Martin Luther King Jr. led the fight for racial equality and his ability to find common ground between people with opposing views has always inspired me.

This ability to transcend the ugliness of racial discrimination and promote the equal treatment of all American citizens was in line with his beliefs and with his faith. He knew in his heart that all of God’s children deserved to be treated with respect and dignity and that hatred and discrimination did more than just hurt the individual it was aimed at – it hurt the very essence of what America stands for.

My sister and I grew up in the mid-50’s and early 60’s in Danville, Virginia, located right on the North Carolina border. Danville’s claims to fame included being the home of Dan River Cotton Mills, the world’s biggest tobacco market and the last capitol of the Confederacy. Throughout our youth, we saw first-hand what segregation looked like. Students of color stood about 100 yards from our bus stop every school day waiting for their school bus to pick them up, drive by our school and go another 10 miles to be dropped off at their own school which may have been separate, but it was not equal. Our mother worked downtown on Saturdays at the Five & Dime. My sister and I would catch the bus that came by our house and ride it into town. We always sat up front. People of color always sat in back. When we would go with our mom to a little restaurant for lunch, you couldn’t help but see the sign at the door that said “Whites Only.” There were drinking fountains in Danville. Most of them were for whites. The others were for “Negroes.” At the Rialto Theatre on a Saturday afternoon, a kid could watch three movies for a quarter. If you were white, you sat down front. If you were not, you sat in the balcony. Always.

As we celebrate again this month the life of a great civil rights pioneer, I still remember what it was like growing up in Danville, but I’ll never know what it was like growing up black there. Now, my family and I live in Delaware, of course. As a Delawarean, I believe it’s important to remember the important role that our state has played in the civil rights movement. As Vice-Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, Judge Collins J. Seitz became the first judge in the nation to order the desegregation of a public university. In the spring of 1952, he became the first judge in the nation to order the integration of public elementary and high schools. These landmark cases helped forge the way for further civil rights reform and helped cement Delaware’s reputation as the First State.

Delaware was also the home of many other civil rights firsts. Peter “Father” Spencer founded the first independent African American church in the United States. William Julius “Judy” Johnson played in the Negro Baseball leagues during the 1920’s and went on to become the first African American assistant head coach for a major league baseball team in 1954. Johnson Field at Frawley Stadium, located in Wilmington, is named for him. Louis Redding became the first African American attorney to be admitted by the Delaware State Bar Association. He went on to play a prominent role in the legal battles to desegregate Delaware’s public school system.

After Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968, many people expressed their outrage at this horrible event by turning their anger against the world around them. The Wilmington riots of 1968 were a direct result of the poverty and hopelessness that many African Americans felt when faced with an unfair justice system and a shortage of economic opportunities.

As we saw during Hurricane Katrina, the effects of poverty and the feeling of hopelessness that often accompanies it still exist in America today. We must do everything we can to make sure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams and to live in a safe and peaceful society. By taking these steps, the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. continues to thrive and flourish. His determination to use non-violent means to change the world is an example to us all and we owe it to his legacy to continue his quest for justice and economic equality for all Americans.

The words of Martin Luther King that I personally find most inspiring, though, can be found in a 1968 sermon called “The Drum Major Instinct.” It was a message that focused on service to others. Dr. King said that day, “Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’ to serve. You don’t have to know the Second Theory of Thermal Dynamics in Physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love, and you can be that servant.”

To that I can only add, “Amen.” Thank you, Dr. King, for your selfless and courageous service. Although your life was tragically ended almost 38 years ago, you still serve as an inspiration to us all almost four decades later. Black and white. Young and old. Rich and poor.

January 9, 2006 - Wilmington, DE:

(Part 2 of 2)

Flying home Sunday evening with my sons, I told them that I saw a big difference between the 2006 show in Detroit and the one I attended in 2004. We still saw yesterday a number of new muscle cars, trucks and SUV’s with big engines and big appetites for fuel. Having said that though, there is a far greater focus this year on fuel economy, more environmentally-friendly vehicles, and flexible fuel capability which allows a behemoth like the Ford Super Chief pick-up truck to run on either gasoline, 85% ethanol or hydrogen. Ford also unveiled a dynamic concept roadster called the Reflex, which is equipped with gull-wing doors and the first diesel-hybrid engine that I’ve seen in a passenger vehicle, a concept that makes a lot of sense as we continue to cut diesel emissions. Even large vehicles on display that have yet to be outfitted with hybrid power plants or highly-efficient new diesel engines have seen their weight reduced or their Hemi-like engines modified to run on half of their available cylinders during much of their operation, resulting in significant fuel savings.

Along with the Ford Reflex, another encouraging event involving next-generation, low-emission diesel engines was made by Daimler/Chrysler. Code-worded “Blue Tech,” this highly-efficient diesel power plant will be made available on Mercedes’ vehicles beginning in 2008. In addition to having dramatically lower emissions than internal combustion engines, Blue Tech will also meet both the EPA’s and all 50 states’ clean air requirements - thus becoming the first 50-state diesel engine in the 21st century. Daimler/Chrysler expects this new technology to quickly find its way into a number of its other vehicles later in this decade.

Another difference between this year and the 2004 auto show relates to the lower profile that fuel cell-powered vehicles took this year, with one notable exception – Honda. Featured in the Honda “show room” was a beautiful deep maroon 4-door concept sedan that is powered by fuel cells. Close by, the full-size underpinning - or chassis - of the vehicle was on display, complete with power train. A few yards further away was a box about the size of the air conditioning unit alongside our home in Delaware. The box is called a Honda Home Energy System. Once installed in a home, it will use hydrogen to provide fuel for ones vehicles. Electricity produced but not needed at that location can then be sold back to the region’s electric grid for use by other grid customers. Those folks from Honda, many of whose vehicles are made in the U.S. today, are clever. Not only did their new Civic and Ridgeline walk away with ‘Car of the Year’ and ‘Truck of the Year’ awards this past Sunday, but the company appears poised to help lead the industry into a fuel cell economy over the course of the next decade.

If they do, American automotive manufacturers may find themselves having to play catch up. However, what we saw this weekend in Detroit suggests that while the Motor City is still behind in a number of respects, there is a renewed commitment to innovation, quality, efficiency and more environmentally-friendly vehicles, suggesting that the “Big 3” aren’t about to throw in the towel any time soon. They certainly put on a good show in any event. The next year or two will show us that they can also put on the road cars, trucks, vans, SUV’s and crossover vehicles that people here and around the world in the words of GM’s Bob Lutz, “just gotta have.”

January 8, 2006 - Detroit, MI:

(Part 1 of 2)

As the lights went down in Cobo Arena, DaimlerChrysler’s John Bozzella leaned over to my 15 and 17-year-old sons and me and said, “If we were in Hollywood, this would be the Oscars.” We weren’t in Hollywood, though. We were in Detroit. And, it wasn’t the Oscars. It was the North American International Auto Show.

Most people don’t think of Delaware as a place where a lot of cars, trucks or vans are made; however, when the First State’s GM and DaimlerChrysler assembly plants are operating at something approaching full capacity, more motor vehicles per capita are made in Delaware that in any state in America. The plants provide several thousand of the best manufacturing jobs in Delaware. Each of the plants has been on the chopping block several times, and I’ve worked closely with both management and union leaders at both plants to do whatever needs to be done - including visiting Detroit a couple of times each year - to keep them open and pumping out ever-improving vehicles.

In addition to unveiling the new Imperial and Challenger concept vehicles, DaimlerChrysler also took the wraps off of another new vehicle - the Chrysler Aspen - which it will begin assembling at its Newark, Del., assembly plant later this summer along with the venerable Dodge Durango. A year from this fall, hybrid Durangos will also start rolling off the assembly line at Newark, the first fruit of a GM-DaimlerChrysler-BMW partnership to create the next generation of hybrid-powered vehicles. They can’t come soon enough!

Even with the welcomed introduction of the Aspen, I reminded North American CEO Tom LaSorda that there’s still plenty of unused capacity at the Newark plant, a point with which he readily agreed. He even went a bit further in acknowledging that “our” plant will likely be on the short list of plants considered when the company needs to find a place to start building other new vehicles that will be added to the company’s lineup in the months ahead. DaimlerChrysler is moving toward a manufacturing concept that they call 3 + 1. It’s a common sense approach to flexible manufacturing that allows companies to build three different kinds of vehicles simultaneously at one plant. The plant can adjust the volume of each of the three models as the marketplace requires, while simultaneously working on a pilot project for future production.

Two years ago, here at the auto show, GM unveiled a new roadster - the Pontiac Solstice - and announced that it would be built at their Boxwood Road assembly plant, just a couple of miles outside of Newark, Del. Six months ago, the first Solstice rolled off the assembly line. It has drawn great reviews ever since, and has become one very hot car. By the time this summer rolls around, a second new roadster, the Saturn SKY, unveiled at last year’s auto show, will begin rolling off the assembly line at the Boxwood Road assembly plant. In anticipation of that launch, and facing strong demand for the Solstice, GM added a third shift this month at its Delaware facility, a move that sharply contrasts with GM’s recent decision to close its assembly plants in nearby Baltimore and Linden, New Jersey.

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a big story about the Solstice late last year under the headline: “The Car That Saved Wilmington.” It’s probably more accurate to say that the Kappa platform, on which the car is built, may be the savior. The SKY will be built on that platform as well. On some of the SKY roadsters, the nameplates will be replaced with Opel nameplates before being shipped to Europe. I reminded any number of GM officials on Sunday, from CEO Rick Waggoner to Jill Lajdziak (whose responsibilities include Boxwood Road), that there is a new world-class auto terminal at the port of Wilmington just six miles from their assembly plant. “We want your export business,” I told them. Their initial response suggested we had a good chance at getting it, too.

As we walked into the enormous GM “show room” in Cobo arena, Jill took my sons and I into one of the coolest demonstrations we witnessed – The SKY Box. Inside the large dark room we had entered, a barely-visible Saturn SKY was located on a pedestal several feet off the ground. When the door closed, a two-minute light and music show began which was quite unlike any I’ve ever seen - sequentially displaying on the roadster’s surface many of the components lying underneath. That technological display drew a few “ohhhs” and “ahhhs” from my teenage sons. My reaction was less restrained.

Before saying goodbye to the GM brass, I thanked them for their confidence in the Boxwood plant and its workforce, and I reminded them that there is plenty of unused capacity there. Legendary “car man” Bob Lutz – godfather of the Pontiac Solstice, the Dodge Viper and many other great vehicles over the years – shared with me that the company will be considering whether additional models, or derivatives, should be built on the Kappa platform. That’s encouraging news, because if GM decides to build them, there is a good chance that work will be done at Boxwood Road as well.

January 3, 2006 - Wilmington, DE:

Five years ago today, at high noon, I stepped down as Governor of Delaware, stood up in the U.S. Senate, and took an oath to succeed Senator Bill Roth. The day before, I had walked through Legislative Hall, through Woodburn – the Governor’s House – and through the Governor’s office to say so long to many of the dedicated people I’d been privileged to work with during the previous eight years. While I’m sure that one or two of them were glad to see me head for the door, it was still hard to say goodbye. Working together, we had accomplished a lot over the course of those years. We balanced budgets, cut taxes, overhauled public education, reformed welfare, earned Delaware its first AAA credit ratings, cemented Delaware’s reputation as a great place to start and grow a business, preserved farm land and open space, and more.

Among the questions I’ve been most asked since that day five years ago is, “Which job do you like most – governor or senator?” Invariably, I’ve replied, “I like them both, but they’re very different kinds of jobs.” Come to think of it, I feel much the same way about Dover and Washington, D.C. I like them both, but they’re very different cities. By that, I’m not talking about the geographical boundaries or populations of each town. Nor am I talking about the kind of issues we face in a state capitol versus those we face in our nation’s capitol. It won’t come as a surprise to most people, but it really is tough to get things done in Washington, even when we agree on 90 percent of what needs to be done to address a particular problem or challenge. It isn’t because there aren’t any good people in D.C. There are plenty of them, just like in Delaware. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans and some are more independent-minded souls.

Among other things, though, what’s missing most days in Washington is a commitment to working across the aisle on a consistent basis, the idea of sharing credit for accomplishments, and the sense of optimism that if we want something badly enough and will work hard enough, we can accomplish just about anything, even in a state as small as Delaware or a country as large as America.

When I get off the train in D.C. each morning and walk up Delaware Avenue to the Capitol, I try to bring with me some of the same ingredients that have enabled Delaware to succeed over the years – bipartisanship, a willingness to share credit, a refusal to give up.

Now the conventional wisdom around Washington these days is that not much will get done this year. After all, the emerging scandals are proving to be a real and growing distraction. Our country is badly divided over Iraq. Mid-term elections are ten months away, and both sides are looking for advantage wherever they can find it. Neither the President nor the Congress enjoys the trust and confidence of the electorate, and neither is in a position to exert strong, effective leadership at this juncture.

All of that may be true, but it’s also true that there’s still plenty of work to do, and the American people expect us to find a way somehow to get a lot of it done. Maybe that sounds a bit Pollyannaish, or as one of my friends likes to say, “That’s the triumph of man’s hope over experience, Tom.” Perhaps he’s right. But I believe it was Henry Ford who liked to say, “If you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.” I think we can. We need to defy the odds and make progress on many fronts in 2006.

I’ve learned a lot over the past five years. One of the things I’ve come to believe is that a growing and important part of my job in the Senate is to get people of good will in both parties to work together to solve problems. Fortunately, there are others with whom I serve in the Senate who feel that’s an important part of their job, too. More than ever, those of us who share this conviction need to put our experience to work, along with our willingness to reach across the aisle, our belief in sharing credit and our spirit of optimism. If we do, we can defy both the odds and the skeptics to triumph over experience this year. At least that’s my hope as this special day, the fifth anniversary of my service in the United States Senate, comes to a close.

December 22, 2005 - Wilmington, DE:

This will be my final posting of 2005. Before I sign off for the year, I’d like to take a moment and reflect on some of the blessings that we enjoy as Americans and on what is truly important during this time of year. After we finished up our legislative work in the Senate during the wee hours of this morning, I shared a ride back to Delaware with my colleague in the Senate, Senator Joe Biden. The last train out of Washington heading north had left long ago, but we were anxious to get home, so we climbed into a car and started the two-hour drive back to Wilmington on an almost deserted I-95. It’s a ride that we usually take together about once each year, and it gives us a chance to kick back a bit and reflect on what’s important in our work and in our lives. Like Joe, I look forward to spending Christmas in Delaware with my family, as they are the most important part of our lives. I know that it probably sounds corny, but my wife and children keep me grounded and help to remind me of why I ran for office in the first place – to make our country and the world a better place for them and for future generations.

During this time of year, I cannot help but think of all the people who are unable to be with their loved ones during this holiday season. Included among them are the brave men and women of our armed forces who are serving around the world to protect us here at home. They are in my heart and in my prayers, and I hope that they are in yours, as well. Their sacrifice cannot be overstated. Both they and their families deserve our thanks and our support. Let’s continue to provide them with both.

The victims of Hurricane Katrina are also in my thoughts and prayers. During last night’s debate, Louisiana Senators Mary Landrieu and David Vitter reminded us that the destruction we witnessed across the Gulf Coast in late August continues to disrupt countless lives there. As we help them pick up the pieces and put their lives back together, I am reminded of, and inspired by, stories of remarkable courage demonstrated by many in the face of, and in the wake of, that storm. Similarly, I am inspired by the manner in which the world community came together to show their support of storm victims here and in places like Pakistan by donating their time and treasure to the rebuilding efforts and to helping storm and earthquake victims who were, in some cases, half a world away. Progress is being made to help the victims of these tragedies, but the going is slow, and we still have a long way to go before those regions will be whole again. We can’t give up, though, and I’m encouraged that we won’t.

Finally, as tempers flared in the Senate late last night, and we wrestled with issues like drilling in ANWR, extending the Patriot Act, and adopting a defense bill and a budget plan, I was reminded of some of the words of Winston Churchill. Among the more famous of his sayings are these. First, with tongue firmly in cheek, he once observed, “There are two things that people should not see made: sausages and laws.’’ Churchill also once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government devised by wit of man, but for all the rest.” He was probably right on both counts. But Churchill also said, in rallying the British people during the lowest point of WWII, “We shall never, never, never give up.” They didn’t either, and the rest is history. While we were not able to achieve all of our legislative goals of this past year, none of us have given up. I believe that we can still take comfort in the fact that we live in a country where it’s okay to have differences of opinion. It’s also important to remember that when we work hard and in a spirit of bipartisanship, we are able to make progress on many fronts, as we did from time to time during 2005. I am hopeful that when we return to Congress in the new year, we will return with that spirit restored in all of us, and armed with that spirit, go on to make America safer and stronger for us all.

As always, I wish you and your family both joy and peace during this holiday season and many blessings in the new year to come.

December 16, 2005 – Washington, DC:

I'm encouraged by the turnout in Iraq’s parliamentary elections. Previous elections were marred by poor voter turnout in some parts of the country, especially among Iraq's minority Sunni population, but Thursday's turnout shows that more and more Iraqis are choosing to participate in the electoral process and are willing to give this new democracy a fighting chance. 

I want to acknowledge and honor again the brave men and women of our armed forces who have done such a magnificent job in securing the polling sites and helping to create an environment where the Iraqi people feel secure enough to participate in the democratic process. The courage and honor that our troops continue to display is second to none.

The real test now for the Iraqis - and for Americans, too - comes after the votes are counted in a week or two. A coalition government must be formed. A prime minister and president, along with a host of cabinet ministers, must be selected. An operational government must be stood up. In addition, the constitution must be rewritten, all while an armed insurgency is underway.

For the United States, I believe that the election, and the likely emergence of a coalition government in Iraq, give us a great opportunity - not so much so stay the course, but to alter it. I said as much to the President today when a number of my Senate colleagues and I met with him, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and - joining us by satellite video from Baghdad - Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George Casey, our military commander. 

This altered course would allow us to begin a moderate but significant redeployment of U.S. troops beginning early next year. Taking this step will demonstrate to the Iraqi people - many of whom see us as occupiers, not liberators - that we have no plans to be in their country on a permanent basis or to monopolize their abundant oil supply. Taking this step will also undermine the latent support that insurgent forces enjoy from some Iraqis.

As we figure out what troop levels we'll need in Iraq in order to help support Iraqi security forces and secure critical infrastructure, we need to enlist a new coalition of the willing. While we need to do all we can to help Iraq succeed, doing so is not the sole responsibility of the United States. The world community - including Europe and other democratic nations, as well as Iraq's friends and neighbors in the Middle East - needs to step up to the plate. They all have a dog in this fight and, therefore, we should all share the burden of helping Iraq move toward self-reliance. Democratic countries should help the Iraqi leadership set up and run government ministries and write sound policies, while Arab countries could help by trying to subdue ethnic rivalries in Iraq, forgiving some of the Iraqi debt they hold, and making investments in critical infrastructure and promising business opportunities to help get Iraq’s economy moving again.

Iraq – December 2, 2005 – 11:45pm :

Camp Victory, Baghdad Iraq – Delaware Service Members .

Our Air Force C-130 took off from Kuwait air base at 7:30am, climbed to altitude and headed for Iraq. Off of our right wing you could see Iran in the distance. The C-130 cargo aircraft is a durable workhorse of both the Air Force and Air Guard units around the country, including the Delaware Air National Guard. This particular model is 42 years old, making it older than any of the seven crewmembers aboard.

Our flight engineer on this flight was 12-year veteran Sonya Hawkins, a staff sergeant from Kentucky. Her unit is home-based near Fayetteville, N.C. where her seven-year-old son lives with family friends while his mom is away for a four-month deployment. Sonya talks with him by phone several times a week and communicates with him by email a couple of times each day. Her husband works for the FBI out of an office near D.C. and gets to be with their son several weekends each month. Sonya holds a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering that she earned while on active duty. Lt. Rod Jones is the crew's navigator. He's from Ohio. His wife and their three daughters live near Fayetteville, like Sonya. He talks with them by phone several times each week and by email almost daily. The favorite part of his job, he says, is carrying planeloads of servicemen and women out of Iraq as they head for home. "They really whoop it up in the back of the plane," he says. The young flight members are an impressive team. They demonstrate a lot of enthusiasm for their work and for flying together. Their professionalism belies their age.

Our descent into Baghdad was unlike any descent that you'll ever make in a civilian airliner. We donned our flak jackets and helmets as we approached the airport at altitude and then began a steep descent almost directly over Baghdad International. Lt. Jones and the aircrafts' load master stood ready to discharge flares immediately from the aircraft if heat-seeking missiles were fired at us during the descent. The flares trick the missiles into pursuing them instead of the aircraft, but flares are of no help against anti-aircraft artillery, small arms fire, or AK-47 fire. The descent and landing proved to be exhilarating but, fortunately, uneventful. "We cheated death again," I said to the crew as I shook their hands and thanked them for the ride and for their service to our country.

We exited the aircraft still wearing our flak jackets and helmets, climbed into our waiting vehicles and drove directly to a nearby palace that Saddam Hussein had built for his mother. Just inside the entrance, I was greeted by twenty or so members of the Delaware National Guard who had been brought together to say hello to their old commander-in-chief and (former governor). They were from all over Delaware, including Seaford, Bridgeville, Milton, Milford, Claymont, and Newark. It was great to see them. I spoke with each one and shook every hand. We took a lot of individual photos and then a group shot before an aide to General George Casey, our American military commander in Iraq, hustled me off to start our scheduled meeting with the general.

Thus began a series of intense discussions that lasted throughout the day and into the evening in the Baghdad area with the leaders of America's military forces, as well as with our U.S. Ambassador and his senior staff, Iraq's Prime Minister, other Iraqi civilian leaders and General Babakir, Chief of Staff of the Iraqi armed forces. Virtually all of them stayed "on message," but the message was not the one I expected. Almost to a person, they predicted that turnout in Iraq's upcoming December 15th parliamentary elections would be strong and that no group or party would emerge with the majority of the 275 seats up for grabs. Each of them acknowledged that putting together a coalition government after the elections might be tough, but it would have to be done. Both U.S. and Iraqi military and civilian leaders with whom we met also called for beginning significant American troop redeployments from Iraq next year and for continuing those redeployments through 2007 as the combat readiness of Iraqi troops improves.

I agree with them. There are plenty of people in Iraq who view our troops as occupiers, not liberators. They believe we are intent on remaining in Iraq indefinitely in large numbers to ensure U.S. access to Iraqi oil. We need to start making clear that this is not the case and begin doing so as early as next month. Otherwise, I fear that our troops, like the 10 Marines killed today in a horrific attack near Fallujah, will continue to remain targets of opportunity unnecessarily for months or even years to come.

Early on Saturday morning, I'll climb on another airplane in Amman, Jordan and begin to wind my way back home to Delaware. God willing, I'll be home with my family by Saturday night. Along the way, I plan to read through copious notes that I've taken over the past five days, as we've sojourned through five countries in this part of the world. I want to reflect on what we've heard and learned. This coming Monday, I'll share with Delawareans the conclusions I've reached and will then recommend a path forward, based on those conclusions, to my Senate colleagues and to the Bush Administration later this month when the Senate reconvenes. Once I've done so, I would welcome your comments and thoughts in return.

Saudi Arabia & Kuwait – December 1, 2005 – 9:45pm :

We rolled out of our hotel around 7:30am and piled into the vehicles waiting outside. Led by a Saudi police car with lights flashing and sirens wailing, we charged out onto the road and into Riyadh's rush hour traffic in a country where terrorist attacks still occur. The sea of cars, trucks, and vans parted in front of us allowing our six-vehicle convoy to pass through at speeds approaching 80 mph. For a moment I thought, "I wonder if this is how Moses felt leading the children of Israel through the Red Sea with the Egyptians in hot pursuit?" When a car failed to get out of our way quickly, our driver would honk his horn and jam on his brakes or swerve to avoid a collision. One near miss began to follow another. I tugged on my shoulder harness and seat belt to make sure they were secure and motioned to my colleague to do the same. Then, without warning, our driver slammed on the brakes to avoid running into a car that pulled out in front of us. The vehicle behind us tried to stop but couldn't quite pull it off and plowed into us. Rather than stopping to survey the damage, we just resumed speed and continued on. Our Saudi driver looked at the two of us through the rear view mirror. "You okay," he asked? "My neck! My neck!," I moaned, but when we hopped out of our car a few minutes later, I gave him a big thumbs up and said, "Thanks for a ride I'll not soon forget." And I won't.

If I was sleepy when we left the hotel, I was wide awake by the time we walked into our breakfast meeting with the Saudi-American Chamber of Commerce. Twenty-five businessmen and spouses were awaiting us, including representatives of companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Price-Waterhouse, AstraZeneca, and Exxon Mobil. I asked for a show of hands of all who were incorporated in Delaware. Almost every hand went up. When we asked them later to share their concerns with us, they focused on these three:

• The importance of improving U.S.-Saudi relations;
• The need to expedite the processing of visas which now take many months to process, creating enormous backlogs;
• The loss of military sales to Saudis by U.S. defense contractors to other countries who have no inhibitions about providing the Saudis with the very latest weapons technology.

Following breakfast, we headed for the U.S. Embassy, a large fortress-like structure. There, some of our delegation received intelligence updates before joining the U.S. Ambassador and his senior team for an in-depth briefing on a wide range of subjects. Among them were the concerns raised at the Chamber breakfast as well as the possibility of Iran sparking a nuclear arms race with the Saudis if Iran proceeds with its nuclear program. It was a sobering conversation.

When it ended, we went to a working lunch with Embassy staff and several very impressive Saudis from the oil ministry. One of them is a member of the royal family, and a Prince to boot, as well as the Saudi's deputy oil minister. He explained how the oil industry has changed dramatically over the past two decades and is now run largely by Saudis, not expatriates. Vertically integrated operations cover everything from exploratory activities, drilling, oil and gas recovery and refining operations to producing products for export and to provide feed stocks to a growing petro-chemical industry there that enables the Saudis to eat our industry's lunch with natural gas prices barely one-quarter of our own.

After a one-hour flight following lunch, we touched down in Kuwait City and headed for an abbreviated country team briefing by U.S. personnel. Kuwaitis remembers how the U.S. led a broad coalition of countries in the early 1990's to drive Saddam Hussein's brutal army out of Kuwait. They continue to show their gratitude to this day in extraordinary ways. For example, on the heels of Hurricane Katrina, Kuwaitis provided over $500 million of relief assistance to victims, almost as much as the rest of the world combined. In addition, the Kuwaitis have supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from the outset. The country provided for virtually all of the fuel needs of coalition forces in 2003-4 at no charge and deeply discounts fuel costs today. Moreover, Kuwait is hosting within its border over 20,000 members of coalition forces from across the globe – FOR FREE! Kuwait also allows the great majority of material, equipment, weapons and personnel for the war effort to come through its airports and seaports en route to Iraq. Roughly 1,000 trucks cross the border into Iraq each day from Kuwait.

Kuwait isn't about to go broke, though, despite all of its generosity. They've still got enough oil money left over to provide for its 1 million citizens' free health care, free education, heavily subsidized utilities, deeply discounted homes to buy, and generous retirement benefits, including the ability of women to retire after working for just 15 years. Roughly 90 percent of Kuwaitis work in the public sector or in their oil industry. American taxpayers who sometimes wonder if we get a day's work for a day's pay from all of our public servants might take some comfort in the words of the Kuwaiti Prime Minister who said of his public sector workforce last summer that Kuwait would be better served if 90 percent of them would just stay home every day and collect their paychecks! And, no they don't have telecommuting in Kuwait yet.

The day ended on as upbeat note, though, as I went for a long run at dusk through Kuwait City with one of the terrific U.S. Marines who is accompanying our delegation on this mission. He wasn't along for protection either, because today we were in a country where citizens wave at Americans and greet them, not take pot shots at or attempt to kidnap them.

Jordan & Saudi Arabia – November 30, 2005 – 11:30 pm:

We grabbed a little breakfast at our hotel in Amman, Jordan, first thing this morning, headed for the airport, climbed on our military aircraft and took off for Riyadh, the capitol of Saudi Arabia. Two hours later, we were on the ground there shaking hands with the U.S. Ambassador at the bottom of our plane's ladder. A "control officer" from the American embassy, who was assigned to work with our delegation walked us to an awaiting vehicle. The officer introduced himself in part by saying that his wife grew up in Delaware and in nearby Pennsville, New Jersey. His sister-in-law Lynn Davison still lives in Delaware. "Small world," I said. As the American-made vehicle we climbed into roared out of the airport and onto a four-lane highway, we immediately passed a shiny blue Dodge Durango made in Newark, Delaware. I started to feel at home even though our visit to Saudi Arabia was the first by a Congressional delegation in two years.

Saudi Arabia sits on roughly a quarter of the world's known oil reserves. With oil prices still hovering around $55 a barrel, Saudi Arabia is awash in cash. Every direction we looked suggested that the Saudis weren't reluctant to spend it either. Late-model cars from all over the world filled the highways. Breathtaking architectural structures reached from what used to be the desert floor up to the sky. And, where once there was only sand, trees, shrubs, flowers and grass now grow. In a kingdom where the population was overwhelmingly nomadic, barely 75 years ago, today almost 95 percent of the people live in urban centers like Riyadh.

Our afternoon in Riyadh was spent meeting with what could have been called by the late King Fahd "My Three Sons." One is King Abdullah, another is Crown Prince Sultan who also serves as Defense Minister, and the third is Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. All are in their late 70s or early 80s. Two of them, the Crown Prince and the King, looked like they could have been sent right from central casting. On the other hand, their Foreign Minister brother, looked and sounded like he could've graduated from Princeton. And in fact, he did a number of years ago. Together, the three of them and their family have provided and will likely continue to provide leadership for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for years to come. While we met separately with them in opulent palaces, and I doubt that they had rehearsed their comments before hand, they certainly were remarkably on message. Each offered comments that were consistent with the others. On the need for the U.S. and Saudis to set aside their differences since 9/11and begin to cooperate together again, King Abdullah said, "In Iraq, what is done is done. We share many common concerns. We need to begin working together again."

All three declared that an Iraq which disintegrates is intolerable and unimaginable. They acknowledged that their country has an obligation to lead other nations in the region to help stabilize the new government emerging in Iraq while containing the growth of Iranian influence in the region.

King Abdullah told us of an unprecedented, surprise visit two days earlier by the personal emissary of Iran's Supreme Leader. And while the King did not divulge the full content of their conversation he did say to us, that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia share the same enemy with respect to Iraq. And he added, "I think you know who that is." As the meeting concluded and we walked away, I couldn't help but wonder if he was talking about Iran or simply about terrorism in general. Several hours later, I've concluded that he was alluding to Iran, and I am reminded of the old adage – "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

We wrapped up our day at the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and his wife. Their home is stunning! As they gave us the cook's tour, I suggested to them their residence gives new meaning to the term public housing, and they agreed. We were joined for an outdoor reception and dinner around the pool by several dozen prominent Saudi leaders from business, government, and academia. Over dinner at my table, two women – one a dean of a local university in her 50s and the second a successful young businesswoman half her age – spoke with us about a growing tolerance in their country toward women and the opportunities afforded them. Both women told us that they believed next year's round of municipal elections would witness a first – female candidates. Not only are attitudes towards women evolving here they said, slowly but surely democracy is beginning to take root, as well. And, its introduction will benefit both Saudi females and males.

Israel & Jordan  - November 29, 2005 – 11:45 pm:

The second day of our trip, we woke up to a sunny 70 degrees in the original land of milk and honey.

Before the morning would end, our delegation would meet with the Foreign Affairs Advisor to the dynamic new leader of the Israeli Labor Party and be briefed by a senior Israeli intelligence officer before heading for Ramallah in a bullet proof SUV.  There, we would meet with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei before sitting down with the leadership of the Palestinian-American Chamber of Commerce to talk about what all Chambers of Commerce are interested in – jobs. 

Qurei was a chief negotiator of the Oslo Accords and worked closely with the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s.  Despite the title he holds today, Qurei has little power in the current Palestinian government.  Meeting with us, he reflected back on those early negotiations and recalled these words of Rabin, "We will fight terror as if there was no peace process; We will pursue peace as if there was no terror."  A decade after Rabin’s assassination those words still ring true in the Middle East that struggles to reach a lasting peace.  

Leaving Prime Minister Qurei, we headed across the street to a meeting with Palestinian business leaders, who had two main requests.  First that the U.S. stay involved in peace negotiations, and second, that the U.S. continue to support the creation of jobs for Palestinians, whose unemployment rate exceeds 40 percent.

From Ramallah, it was on to meet the King of Jordan.

Our flight from Tel Aviv to Amman, Jordan, took less than 30 minutes and carried us over some of the driest land on earth.  Arid or not, though, Jordan is playing a key role on many fronts these days – in the war against terrorism, in supporting the peace process in Israel, and in building a more stable Iraq.  Jordan also turns out to be “training central” for all kinds of activities, too:

• 25,000 Iraqi police recruits trained to date and another 10,000 in the pipeline;
• 600 Iraqi counter-terrorism commandos trained; and,
• 1,200 Iraqi border guards and customs officials trained, as well.

That’s not all either.  Jordanians even train guard dog handlers, air traffic controllers, and airplane mechanics.  And, in a new twist on “training the trainer,” Jordanians have also trained 800 Americans to go home and work with American units preparing to deploy to Iraq.  Why?  To sensitize the U.S. troops to Iraqi customs and culture.  There’s one thing, though, that Jordan doesn’t train. That’s Iraqi military officers.  They were expected to.  The U.S. even invested $50 million to build a training center outside of Amman for just that purpose, but the government of Iraq put the put the kibosh on it.  Today the center sits empty and unused. 

Jordan is led by King Abdullah, son of the late King Hussein.  We met with him for over an hour this afternoon at his residence.  Nice digs.  This King is one impressive monarch.  Educated in England and in the U.S., he speaks with just a touch of a British accent and is knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects.  Once the commander of Jordan’s Special Forces, King Abdullah isn’t afraid to do what he thinks is right either, even if it doesn’t always comport with public opinion in his country.  He’s married to a beautiful woman, Queen Rania, who recently gave birth to their fourth child. 

King Abdullah’s got a sense of humor, too.  I kidded him as we were leaving and asked him if his children had ever seen the Disney film “The Lion King.”  He laughed and said that they had.  I reminded him of one of the songs from the film, “It’s Great To Be King,” and asked him if it really is all that great to be king. “Being king in this part of the world is a lot of work,” he said.  “If the country you were king of was wedged between Norway and Sweden, I bet it would be a lot easier.”  He smiled when he said it, but he wasn’t kidding.  Jordan is bordered by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq.  As we drove away from the palace, I thought about how fortunate our country is that he’s holding down the job in Jordan.  Let’s hope he holds on to it for a long time.

Jerusalem - November 28, 2005 - Midnight:

After several weeks of preparation, the hour of our congressional delegation's departure for the Middle East had come. It was 6pm on Sunday evening. Minutes later, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), U.S. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and I were airborne, heading for Munich, Germany aboard a United airliner on the first leg of our fact-finding mission. Eight hours – and two briefing books later – we touched down in Munich. There, we quickly transferred over to a U.S. military aircraft assigned to us and took off for the last four hours of our journey today. When we landed the second time, we were in Israel, the first stop of a mission that would also take us to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq before heading home next weekend.

Two hours after landing at Tel Aviv, we were being briefed in Jerusalem by U.S. embassy senior staff and by the U.S. Consul General Jake Walles who, incidentally, grew up two blocks from my family's home in Wilmington, Delaware. As soon as the briefing was over, we jumped into a Suburban with our security detail and headed across town to the Prime Minister's office for an hour-long meeting with Ariel Sharon. I had been at the nearby Knesset just eight months earlier when Sharon took on his own Likud party to push for, and win, approval of a controversial plan to pull Israeli settlers and forces unilaterally out of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. I had returned to the U.S. in late March more convinced than ever that one of the best ways to battle global terrorism is for the U.S. to put as much energy into brokering a negotiated settlement in the Middle East that provides the Palestinians with a homeland of their own and the Israelis with peace and secure borders. I phoned Secretary of State Rice in early April and then met with her in DC earlier this month to encourage her to do all that she could to jumpstart both the peace process and the Palestinian economy. How? By negotiating an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that allows greater freedom of movement of Palestinians and their goods in and out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. To her credit, Rice did just that two weeks ago in Jerusalem in a major breakthrough signed by both Sharon and Palestinian President Abbas.

Likud Party hardliners, already angered by Sharon's unilateral disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank were further inflamed by this latest concession agreed to by their party's cofounder. Sharon, rather than trying to calm down his angry Likud colleagues announced this past weekend that he was abandoning the party he helped to create over three decades ago. Instead, Prime Minister Sharon today founded a brand new centrist party simply called "Forward," through which he will seek to build a grand coalition to govern Israel as it seeks to move toward a permanent peace settlement.

If that wasn't enough excitement for one day, back at our hotel later tonight, we met with Dr. Salam Fayyad, finance minister for the Palestinian Authority who will be retiring from this post later this week. He shared with us that earlier today when Palestinians throughout Gaza and the West Bank tried to vote in the Palestinian primary, voting was disrupted in many places by Palestinian gunmen firing weapons, effectively putting those elections on hold.

It's never dull in Israel or in the Middle East, and today was no exception. The characters are extraordinary and bigger than life, too. Here's Ariel Sharon, I thought as our meeting with him began earlier today. Now, 78 years old, Sharon once again stands poised to lead his country. At the age of 14, he was a company commander during the 1930's in Israel's war of independence. At the age of 26, he led all of Israel's commandos. In the years since, he became Israel's top general and led his country to victories in several Israeli-Arab wars before co-founding the Likud Party and going on to become his country's prime minister. He is widely expected to be successful in establishing a new centrist party and in brokering a final settlement with the Palestinians. He just might succeed too, working with Palestinian leaders like President Abbas and Dr. Salam Fayyad.

At the end of our meeting with Sharon, I stayed behind for a minute to ask him one final question. That question was, "To what do you attribute the remarkable success and staying power in this political cauldron called Israel?" He thought for a moment, smiled, and simply said, "I don't give up." And I thought as we left, neither should we.

WEBSITE – November 21, 2005

Welcome to my new website. We’ve given the site a new look and added features that we hope will make it more useful and easier for you to navigate.

Some things have moved around or work differently, so we hope you’ll spend a few minutes exploring the new layout. As with most changes, there could be some bumps along the way. That’s why we want to hear from you - what works, what doesn’t - as we continue to improve the site. email me >>

The most noticeable change is the overall look and layout of the website. We’ve made the toolbar easier to navigate and taken more screen space for news on the homepage, which will allow us to give you continual updates as major developments take place.

Other improved features include:

Carper’s Corner. My new weblog provides me with a forum to express my personal thoughts about developments within the U.S. Senate and back home in Delaware.

Resource Center. This area of the homepage will allow me to highlight timely issues and provide you with helpful information on these issues.

Better navigation. At the top of every page you’ll find a toolbar that will allow you to visit each section of the website. Each section of the toolbar has a drop-down menu of its subsections, so you can go directly to the feature or area you want.