Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Common Sense Automobile Affordability Act Of 2004''. My colleagues from Maryland introduced a similar bill in the House. I believe in energy conservation. I also believe in job conservation. We can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars without sticking a knife through the hearts of our Nation's auto workers. That is what I am going to keep standing up for in the U.S. Senate.

When I consider any energy proposal, I apply four criteria. First, the proposal must achieve real savings in oil consumption. Secondly, the proposal also must preserve U.S. jobs. Next, the proposal must be realizable and achievable. And, lastly, it must create incentives to help companies achieve these goals.

I agree with the goals of energy efficient vehicle tax breaks--fuel efficiency and energy conservation. I believe we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. imports about twenty million barrels of oil a day, roughly 40 percent of that goes to fuel cars and light trucks. Half of our oil is imported and a quarter of our oil is imported from the Persian Gulf. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would make us more flexible in the war against terror.

That's why I support the provisions of the energy bill that provide incentives for energy efficiency and fuel conservation. But, we need to be more fuel efficient in a way that doesn't cost American jobs.

Our current tax breaks for energy efficient vehicles provides more help for foreign car manufacturers than U.S. car manufacturers. Small cars receive more tax breaks, and small cars are often made by foreign auto companies.

Our current tax breaks penalize U.S. automakers, because current tax incentives are not geared toward the SUV's or light trucks that American consumers want and American companies make.

Our domestic automakers have been weakened by the current recession. And, we can't rely on foreign manufacturers to provide American jobs. The United Auto Workers (UAW) has seen its membership drop significantly from 1980 through 2000 from 1.4 million members in 1980 down to 670,000 today. That means that our auto workers are being left behind.

I have seen it in Baltimore. Over 1,000 workers were recently laid off at the GM plant, and the plant went through another shutdown after slow sales. This is not just happening in Maryland. GM shut down fourteen of its twenty-nine North American assembly plans for at least a week last year.

American workers are being laid off because, while automobile imports are rising, and our domestic auto share is falling, only 64 percent of cars bought in America are built in America. That's down from 73.9 percent in 1994.

We need common sense tax breaks that provide Americans with good jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean up the environment.

That's why I'm introducing legislation that would repeal the sunsets on existing clean vehicle tax breaks and replace the existing clean fuels tax breaks after 2006 with a comprehensive set of new tax credits of up to $4,000. These tax breaks could be used to buy energy efficient vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, diesel ``lean burn'' vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles. There are also additional bonuses for increased fuel conservation and fuel efficiency. My bill includes incentives for all the major clean fuel technologies. There are larger credits for trucks and transit buses that are often American made.

I also support the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Act introduced by my colleague from North Dakota. This bill would provide research money for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle tax research and development programs.

We can have both energy conservation and job conservation. That's what I'm fighting for. It will take innovative solutions, improved technology, and the setting of realistic, achievable goals. That's what my legislation encourages. With the right incentives to increase demand for cutting edge technologies, to increase U.S. manufacturing capacity of fuel efficient vehicles, and to provide good paying jobs for Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these goals and this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Common Sense Automobile Affordability Act Of 2004''. My colleagues from Maryland introduced a similar bill in the House. I believe in energy conservation. I also believe in job conservation. We can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars without sticking a knife through the hearts of our Nation's auto workers. That is what I am going to keep standing up for in the U.S. Senate.

When I consider any energy proposal, I apply four criteria. First, the proposal must achieve real savings in oil consumption. Secondly, the proposal also must preserve U.S. jobs. Next, the proposal must be realizable and achievable. And, lastly, it must create incentives to help companies achieve these goals.

I agree with the goals of energy efficient vehicle tax breaks--fuel efficiency and energy conservation. I believe we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. imports about twenty million barrels of oil a day, roughly 40 percent of that goes to fuel cars and light trucks. Half of our oil is imported and a quarter of our oil is imported from the Persian Gulf. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would make us more flexible in the war against terror.

That's why I support the provisions of the energy bill that provide incentives for energy efficiency and fuel conservation. But, we need to be more fuel efficient in a way that doesn't cost American jobs.

Our current tax breaks for energy efficient vehicles provides more help for foreign car manufacturers than U.S. car manufacturers. Small cars receive more tax breaks, and small cars are often made by foreign auto companies.

Our current tax breaks penalize U.S. automakers, because current tax incentives are not geared toward the SUV's or light trucks that American consumers want and American companies make.

Our domestic automakers have been weakened by the current recession. And, we can't rely on foreign manufacturers to provide American jobs. The United Auto Workers (UAW) has seen its membership drop significantly from 1980 through 2000 from 1.4 million members in 1980 down to 670,000 today. That means that our auto workers are being left behind.

I have seen it in Baltimore. Over 1,000 workers were recently laid off at the GM plant, and the plant went through another shutdown after slow sales. This is not just happening in Maryland. GM shut down fourteen of its twenty-nine North American assembly plans for at least a week last year.

American workers are being laid off because, while automobile imports are rising, and our domestic auto share is falling, only 64 percent of cars bought in America are built in America. That's down from 73.9 percent in 1994.

We need common sense tax breaks that provide Americans with good jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean up the environment.

That's why I'm introducing legislation that would repeal the sunsets on existing clean vehicle tax breaks and replace the existing clean fuels tax breaks after 2006 with a comprehensive set of new tax credits of up to $4,000. These tax breaks could be used to buy energy efficient vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, diesel ``lean burn'' vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles. There are also additional bonuses for increased fuel conservation and fuel efficiency. My bill includes incentives for all the major clean fuel technologies. There are larger credits for trucks and transit buses that are often American made.

I also support the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Act introduced by my colleague from North Dakota. This bill would provide research money for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle tax research and development programs.

We can have both energy conservation and job conservation. That's what I'm fighting for. It will take innovative solutions, improved technology, and the setting of realistic, achievable goals. That's what my legislation encourages. With the right incentives to increase demand for cutting edge technologies, to increase U.S. manufacturing capacity of fuel efficient vehicles, and to provide good paying jobs for Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these goals and this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act of 2004. This bill would protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their Medicare costs. It does this by preventing HMOs from taking money out of the pockets of seniors.

Health care costs are skyrocketing, and seniors are paying a greater share out of their pockets each year. Medicare premiums are on the rise. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof. Seniors are facing higher co-pays and deductibles for doctor visits, and hospital and skilled nursing home visits. While seniors are paying more and more, the administration has just announced the largest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare.

Just last year this administration supported a Medicare benefit that provides seniors only a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit. This new benefit will force over 2 million seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, while doing nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

Now this administration announces a 17.4 percent increase in Part B premiums. That's an extra $11.60 out of a seniors pocket each month. Seniors are falling further and further behind, while their Medicare premiums are getting larger, and their Social Security barely keeps up with inflation. Our seniors are struggling to buy the basics like food, clothing and other simple necessities. And that's not okay.

I ran the numbers and here's what I found. Medicare Part B insurance premiums are rising faster and faster every year. In 2003, they rose 8.7 percent. This year, Medicare Part B premiums rose by 13.5 percent. Next year these premiums will rise by 17.4 percent, which is the biggest increase in Medicare history.

In contrast, Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA's) rose by a mere 1.4 percent in 2003; and 2.1 percent in 2004; and are projected to rise only about 3 percent for 2005. So, there's less and less of a senior's Social Security check to make ends meet.

Medicare provides health insurance coverage to 41 million seniors and disabled. Roughly 570,000 Marylanders rely on Medicare. These benefits need to be stable and secure. That's what I'm fighting for.

I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. This bill would eliminate the 17.4 percent increase in premiums, which saves seniors $11.60/month. This bill would also lower premiums paid by seniors below today's rate of $66.00/per month by using the savings from stopping subsidies to HMO's. My bill is fully paid for by stopping the overpayments to HMOs. I do not believe that HMO's should not get higher reimbursements to serve seniors than traditional Medicare. My bill would also eliminate the $10 billion HMO slush fund for insurance companies to participate in the new Medicare drug plan. This would save a senior at least $115 next year to a senior on a fixed income. This is a small fortune.

This bill is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but it is a stopgap measure. It will give seniors a little breathing room.

I am working hard on several bills to fix the Prescription Drug Benefit that was passed last year, including legislation that protects seniors Social Security COLA's; legislation that provides a real drug benefit for seniors; and, legislation that allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I am fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies, and use those savings to improve Medicare.

Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. It is time to stop putting money in the pockets of HMOs and use that money to provide quality care for seniors. This bill is a good first step down that road, but a you can see, it is not the only step. Seniors cannot afford 17 percent increases in their Medicare premiums.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act of 2004. This bill would protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their Medicare costs. It does this by preventing HMOs from taking money out of the pockets of seniors.

Health care costs are skyrocketing, and seniors are paying a greater share out of their pockets each year. Medicare premiums are on the rise. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof. Seniors are facing higher co-pays and deductibles for doctor visits, and hospital and skilled nursing home visits. While seniors are paying more and more, the administration has just announced the largest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare.

Just last year this administration supported a Medicare benefit that provides seniors only a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit. This new benefit will force over 2 million seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, while doing nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

Now this administration announces a 17.4 percent increase in Part B premiums. That's an extra $11.60 out of a seniors pocket each month. Seniors are falling further and further behind, while their Medicare premiums are getting larger, and their Social Security barely keeps up with inflation. Our seniors are struggling to buy the basics like food, clothing and other simple necessities. And that's not okay.

I ran the numbers and here's what I found. Medicare Part B insurance premiums are rising faster and faster every year. In 2003, they rose 8.7 percent. This year, Medicare Part B premiums rose by 13.5 percent. Next year these premiums will rise by 17.4 percent, which is the biggest increase in Medicare history.

In contrast, Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA's) rose by a mere 1.4 percent in 2003; and 2.1 percent in 2004; and are projected to rise only about 3 percent for 2005. So, there's less and less of a senior's Social Security check to make ends meet.

Medicare provides health insurance coverage to 41 million seniors and disabled. Roughly 570,000 Marylanders rely on Medicare. These benefits need to be stable and secure. That's what I'm fighting for.

I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. This bill would eliminate the 17.4 percent increase in premiums, which saves seniors $11.60/month. This bill would also lower premiums paid by seniors below today's rate of $66.00/per month by using the savings from stopping subsidies to HMO's. My bill is fully paid for by stopping the overpayments to HMOs. I do not believe that HMO's should not get higher reimbursements to serve seniors than traditional Medicare. My bill would also eliminate the $10 billion HMO slush fund for insurance companies to participate in the new Medicare drug plan. This would save a senior at least $115 next year to a senior on a fixed income. This is a small fortune.

This bill is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but it is a stopgap measure. It will give seniors a little breathing room.

I am working hard on several bills to fix the Prescription Drug Benefit that was passed last year, including legislation that protects seniors Social Security COLA's; legislation that provides a real drug benefit for seniors; and, legislation that allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I am fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies, and use those savings to improve Medicare.

Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. It is time to stop putting money in the pockets of HMOs and use that money to provide quality care for seniors. This bill is a good first step down that road, but a you can see, it is not the only step. Seniors cannot afford 17 percent increases in their Medicare premiums.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.

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

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity as the Senate resumes this afternoon's debate to rise in very strong support of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

I am proud to join with Senator Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman as a cosponsor of this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I want to support my two colleagues, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for working so hard and to go at it in a way that is not only bipartisan but nonpartisan following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

I am excited about this bill because I think it reforms our intelligence to be able to make sure that we prevent any more 9/11s affecting the United States; that we reform the intelligence so that we never go to war again on dubious information; that we make the highest and best use of the talent in our intelligence agencies, and that they have the framework to be able to protect the Nation, as well as be able to speak truth to power.

Mr. President, I am no stranger to reform. I am on the Intelligence Committee. I came on the committee before 9/11 to be an advocate for reform, particularly in the area of signals intelligence. As I worked on the committee and served on the joint inquiry about what occurred on 9/11, I became deeply committed to other issues related to reform: to have a national intelligence director, to create an inspector general, to mandate alternative or red team analysis, to always make sure that we policymakers have the best information, and that our troops and our homeland security officials get the best intelligence they need to be able to protect the Nation.

Following the 9/11 Commission report, but also with the wonderful work of Senators Collins and Lieberman, we now have intelligence legislation that will give us a single empowered leader for our intelligence community, a strong inspector general, and a definite alternative analysis to make sure that all views are heard.

This reform is broad, deep, and also authentic. I think that is what the Nation wants of us.

Mr. President, 3,000 people died on September 11. They died at the World Trade Center, they died at the Pentagon, and they died on a field in Pennsylvania. At least 60 Marylanders died. We remember that they came from all walks of life. We must remember those we lost that day. The way we honor their memory is to take actions to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. That is what the families have asked us to do. That is what the Nation has asked us to do. I am so pleased that we will act on this legislation before we recess.

We need to do this, and we need to do this now. In joining the Intelligence Committee, and also after those terrible acts, like many others, I asked what could we have done to prevent the September 11 attacks on our country? Also, why did we think that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? What kind of information does the President need before he sends troops into harm's way? What kinds of information do we need--we, the Members of Congress--to be able to provide the right response to a President's request? We reviewed a lot of this information, and now we know we have the kind of reform in this legislation that will help us.

The 9/11 Commission built on the 9/11 joint inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. We did that in a classified way. Then, the 9/11 Commission was organized, and I am happy to say I voted for it. The Commission could bring into the sunshine what many of us knew privately because it was classified. We knew about missed opportunities, insufficient or unreliable information, the failure to share information, the shortcomings of watch lists.

The legislation that we have before us will move the priorities forward for intelligence reform. First of all, it gives the intelligence community one leader with authority, responsibility, and financial control. In Washington, if you cannot control people or you cannot control budgets, you cannot control the agency.

Second, it provides for diversity of opinion in the analysis. It requires independent analysis. It also provides a framework for red teaming or a devil's advocate so that, again, the policymakers get the best information.

It also strengthens information sharing. It provides the support to speak truth to power. And it also provides a unity of effort in the global war on terrorism. All of this is done with a delicate balance of protecting privacy and civil liberties.

I salute my colleagues. While they were doing their homework this summer with the 9/11 report, I was doing mine--built on the experience that I had both as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the joint inquiry to investigate what went wrong on 9/11. I continued my homework over the summer. I read the riveting report of the 9/11 Commission. I attended hearings in the Intelligence Committee and Governmental Affairs. I consulted with officials of the FBI and others in homeland security in my State. I met with the Director of the National Security Agency. Having done that, I now conclude that this is the best legislation.

We are at a turning point. This is a new century. It poses new threats to the Nation. Therefore, it requires a new framework to serve the Nation. That is what I believe this legislation will do. So I say to my colleagues that one of the best actions we can take now, in order to serve the Nation, is stand up for our troops, protect the homeland, and pass the Collins-Lieberman legislation, which I truly believe brings about the reform of the national intelligence community.

I also salute the work of Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, who were working on how we need to reform ourselves in Congress to be able to provide the best oversight of the intelligence community so we can have the best intelligence, yet the highest value for our dollar, and at the same time protect the Nation, finding the balance to protect our civil liberties. I believe the task force report saying the Senate needs to reform itself internally will come after this legislation. I think we have done a great job working on a bipartisan basis.

I remember that fateful evening of 9/11 and that day when we gathered on the Capitol steps. America had lived through a lot. We didn't know what was yet to come. But joining with our

House colleagues, we in the Senate, with our leadership, joined hands and sang ``God Bless America.'' We were not a Democratic Party. We were not a Republican Party. We were the red, white, and blue party, and that is what we need to be here today. We need to join hands, pass the reforms necessary to protect the Nation, and to truly ask God to bless the United States of America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the future for first time students looking for an affordable college education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise, more and more students are turning to community colleges for the education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs.

Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices between raising tuition and turning students away. This important legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the roof. My bill authorizes $100 million for a competitive grant program to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges could apply for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding-- like distance learning.

Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by working all day and going to school at night. After World War II, the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to local junior colleges.

Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges. In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at the University of Maryland is up by as much as 21 percent. That's causing many students to take a second look at community colleges because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training workers for 21st century jobs from nurses to computer techies, and even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses.

Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4- year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the internet. In my own state of Maryland, they are starting to turn students away because there isn't enough room. As many as 2000 students were shut out of Montgomery College last year because they couldn't get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost. Last fall, Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students.

It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges. For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in higher education. We need to make sure we have always institutions available to everyone who wants a college degree or just a couple of courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the future for first time students looking for an affordable college education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise, more and more students are turning to community colleges for the education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs.

Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices between raising tuition and turning students away. This important legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the roof. My bill authorizes $100 million for a competitive grant program to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges could apply for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding-- like distance learning.

Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by working all day and going to school at night. After World War II, the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to local junior colleges.

Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges. In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at the University of Maryland is up by as much as 21 percent. That's causing many students to take a second look at community colleges because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training workers for 21st century jobs from nurses to computer techies, and even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses.

Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4- year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the internet. In my own state of Maryland, they are starting to turn students away because there isn't enough room. As many as 2000 students were shut out of Montgomery College last year because they couldn't get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost. Last fall, Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students.

It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges. For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in higher education. We need to make sure we have always institutions available to everyone who wants a college degree or just a couple of courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004.

Working families deserve tax relief because the middle class is being squeezed from all directions. Our middle-class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my State of Maryland are worried. They are worried about their jobs. They are terrified of losing their healthcare, as health care costs keep ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job to make ends meet. They are racing from carpools to work and back again. And they want to know what we in the Senate are doing to help them.

That is why I support a family friendly tax code. A tax code that helps families send their children to college. A tax code that helps families to care for their loved ones and helps small businesses provide health care for their employees. That is what I am going to keep standing up for in the U.S. Senate.

The criteria I use for evaluating tax cuts is simple. Tax cuts should be targeted, temporary, and do not add to the deficit.

This bill meets some of my criteria. It is targeted to the middle- class and that is why I will vote for it. It is temporary. This bill gives the middle-class immediate help, but only extends the middle- class tax cuts through 2010. I hope that when we come back to these tax cuts, we find a way to pay for them.

This bill would provide much needed tax relief to working American families caught in the middle-class squeeze. There are three provisions to this bill that will most help alleviate the stress and strain on the middle class.

This bill would extend the $1,000 per child tax credit for 5 years. If the child tax credit is not extended, families will only receive a credit of $700 per child in 2005, and the credit would not reach $1,000 again until 2010.

Next, this bill would extend the marriage penalty relief passed in 2003 by making the standard deduction for married couples double the amount for individuals. That just makes sense. This bill also expands the 10 percent and 15 percent tax brackets, so that married couples can make more money and not be penalized with higher taxes. Unless the marriage penalty relief is extended, married couples could see their tax bill rise by as much as $1,165 in 2005. When so many Americans are feeling stretched and stressed, I think that is wrong.

Lastly, this bill would extend the expanded 10 percent bracket which provides tax relief to millions of taxpayers. The 10 percent tax bracket was increased temporarily to give people a short term economic stimulus, but, if the middle class tax cuts are not extended, taxes for many will increase taxes by $50 per year for singles, and $100 for couples.

But this bill also has major problems.

This bill fails our military families by raising taxes in 2006 on active duty

military, reservists, and National Guardsmen who have been deployed in combat. This bill provides tax cuts for middle class families for the next 5 years and I support that. But this bill only provides 2 years of tax relief for our lowest paid combat military personnel. Just as the War on Terror is ongoing, so must our support be for our troops. This bill only fixes this problem for two years. I support fixing this problem permanently. That is why I will work with my colleagues on a bill to fix this problem.

This bill also fails one of my criteria for tax cuts. This bill would add nearly $150 billion to the deficit. We can have strong economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment, but we must do so in a fiscally responsible way. I hope that next time we consider tax provisions to help our working families we get it right and find a way to pay for them.

I will vote for this bill, but I do so with warning lights. I am concerned about the effect deficits will have on our ability to meet the promises of Social Security and Medicare. I am concerned about its impact on military families.

The job of Congress is not only to provide tax relief for working families, but also to make sure that we pay for those tax cuts. Through fiscal responsibility, Congress can take care of working families today and in the future when they retire.

Madam President, I rise today to salute the Polish Heritage Association of Maryland on the occasion of their thirtieth anniversary.

In 1974, a hearty band of Polish-Americans in Maryland decided to make a difference by founding the Polish Heritage Association of Maryland. Founders, like Stan Ciesielski, came together to make outstanding contributions to America, future generations and Poland. The Polish Heritage Association shows that in America, it is possible to be both Polish and American; by promoting the rich legacy of our past and enriching our community for the future.

The Polish Heritage Association does this through scholarships for young people: over $160,000 supporting more than 150 of Maryland's best and brightest students of Polish ancestry. The Polish Heritage Association has also been tireless in their humanitarian support for Poland. As the Polish people suffered under martial law, they created and organized Maryland Action for Poland, raising thousands of dollars and sending thousands of food packages to Poland. In 1995, the Polish Heritage Association raised over $300,000 to send medical supplies to Lodz, where Communist mismanagement had led to severe supply shortages.

The Polish Heritage Association has forwarded Polish life with cultural and educational programs, such as lectures, concerts and exhibits. The Polish Heritage Association has shown that by organizing and cooperating with each other, we can make a real difference.

I am proud to be the first Polish-American woman in Senate. Growing up in East Baltimore, I learned about

our proud history. Poland's history is marked by strong, achieving women, from Queen Jadwiga, ushering in Poland's ``golden age,'' to Marie Sklodowski Curie, the first woman to win a Nobel Prize. I learned about Polish heroes like Copernicus, Chopin and General Pulaski and General Kosciuszko. I also learned that the history of Poland has been a sometimes melancholy one. Every king, Kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But while Poland was sometimes occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation was never occupied.

In 1980, an obscure electrician, working in the Gdansk shipyard jumped over a wall proclaiming the Solidarity movement. He took the Polish people and the whole world with him to bring down the Iron Curtain.

I grew up with the values that our Polish community holds so dear. Values like patriotism, social justice, respect for others, hard work and loyalty. These are the values I carry with me on the floor of the Senate.

I am proud of my record of standing up for Poland: from solidarity to the Senate floor. I fought to enlarge NATO and I am so proud that Poland is now a full, contributing member, playing an important role in every NATO action. Poland has stood with our American troops in Iraq, fighting alongside from day one.

We know that Poland faces many challenges: its economy, growing international commitments and the pains from moving to a free market democracy. But I will continue to stand up for Poland, and so will the Polish Heritage Association.

Just this week, I introduced legislation to extend the United States Visa Waiver Program to Poland. I joined with Lech Walesa to stand up for Polish citizens who want to travel to the U.S. for business or tourism so they can stay for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. I am fighting to remove barriers so the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today can visit our country, to keep the doors of friendship open. Immigrants built this country; we can't close the door behind us.

I am proud to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the Polish Heritage Association of Maryland, and salute this organization on the floor of the United States Senate. So many things to celebrate: a thriving Polish Community in Baltimore and 30 years of contributions to family, country, and heritage.

Mr. President, I am here today to right a wrong in America's visa program. I am here to introduce a bill to extend the visa waiver program to Poland.

The cold war is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong.

Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Two Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 gulf war. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Warsaw hosted an international conference on combating terrorism less than 2 months after the September 11 attacks. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan. And Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the war in Iraq. They are still there, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties.

So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the visa waiver program, but Poland is not?

This morning, we met with a hero of the cold war, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. We should once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity, and extend the visa waiver program to Poland.

President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush in January. The President said this is a matter for Congress. It is about time for us to act.

The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the visa waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the United States for business or tourism for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it, will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Should not we remove a barrier so the

Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today can visit our country?

We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that the alliance will be more secure because of this Santorum-Mikulski legislation.

I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill, so that we can pass it and get it signed into law before we adjourn.

Mr. President, I am here today to right a wrong in America's visa program. I am here to introduce a bill to extend the visa waiver program to Poland.

The cold war is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong.

Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Two Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 gulf war. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Warsaw hosted an international conference on combating terrorism less than 2 months after the September 11 attacks. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan. And Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the war in Iraq. They are still there, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties.

So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the visa waiver program, but Poland is not?

This morning, we met with a hero of the cold war, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. We should once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity, and extend the visa waiver program to Poland.

President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush in January. The President said this is a matter for Congress. It is about time for us to act.

The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the visa waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the United States for business or tourism for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it, will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Should not we remove a barrier so the

Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today can visit our country?

We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that the alliance will be more secure because of this Santorum-Mikulski legislation.

I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill, so that we can pass it and get it signed into law before we adjourn.

I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his words. I also thank him for the process he provided for us to evaluate the suitability of Porter Goss to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He gave us a lot of time to be able to interview Mr. Goss directly. His staff has been quite collegial and quite cooperative, and we want to thank him for providing us with that type of environment in which to make a wise and prudent decision.

Indeed, deciding on this nomination is vitally important. The Director of the CIA needs to be up to the job.

These are very dangerous times, and it is vitally important that we make the right choice. Now more than ever, the security of our Nation depends on timely, reliable intelligence to detect, disrupt, and deter terrorist attacks on the United States of America and to also make sure attacks don't happen to treasured allies, and to help policymakers, from the President and his Cabinet to Members of Congress, to make the right decisions about what we need to do related to diplomacy and the deployment of our troops.

The next Director of the CIA will have to do all of this and even more. The next Director will also have to push through the much needed reform at the CIA and to cooperate in the reforming of other intelligence agencies. We want to make sure there are no more 9/11's and no more wars based on dated and dubious evidence.

The constitutional duty of the Senate is to review the nominations of the President. I take that very seriously. When a nominee comes, regardless for what position or from whatever party is in power, for an important position like this, I ask four questions: Is that person competent? Do they bring integrity to the job? Are they committed to the core mission of the agency? And will they function in an independent way?

As I said at our hearings, I know Porter Goss, and I have worked with him over the years. I have no doubt that Congressman Goss is competent based on his years of service, both as an agent at the CIA as well as in the House of Representatives chairing the House Intelligence Committee. From my knowledge, he has been a man of integrity. And yes, he is committed to the mission of the CIA and the importance of intelligence to help protect the United States of America. The great big caution yellow light I have is the one about independence--the willingness to speak truth to power, committed to reform, to be nonpartisan, and also never to sugarcoat, dilute, or twist the information going to the President of the United States and top policymakers.

During the last year, I have become very concerned about Mr. Goss's partisan activities. He has unfairly attacked Democrats. He has been strident in other statements in terms of the political campaign for the Presidency.

My questions are, Who is this Porter Goss? Is he the one I served with in the House who was a moderate conservative, straightforward, and also someone who said we have to think out of the box so we don't end up in a box? Or is he a rather an aggressively partisan person? My question about Porter Goss is, Would he be an independent voice in the administration as well as a strong advocate for real and deep reform? Would he present the President with the best information based on facts and sound analysis without regard to ideology or conventional wisdom? Would he tell the President what he should hear, not what the President would like to hear? That is what speaking truth to power means.

Speaking truth to power is not easy. It is very difficult. Yet for the Director of the CIA it is important that he speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without sugarcoating, no matter how difficult. The President must receive the best judgment and information. That is what I am looking at.

Now, having had those questions when Mr. Goss was before the committee, in my usual way I asked very direct questions. I raised those issues. I even raised the issue the previous Senator, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg raised. What about this investigation, the blue dress, and the DNA? Well, I put it to him. And his answer back was, yes, he would be nonpartisan. That he understood the role of the Director of the CIA is different from being a Congressman. That it is not a political job, it is a job that is both policy and operational.

He said he would speak truth to power to both the President and to the Congress. And if anyone knows the importance of congressional oversight, it is Porter Goss. He agreed to work with the Congress to reform our intelligence agencies.

As you can see, at the hearing, in response to both my questioning and questioning by the chairman and other members, particularly on this independence issue, he said he would raise these issues.

So when I have to think about, is this the Porter Goss who is moderate, straightforward, willing to work across the aisle, or is this the aggressively partisan and even intemperate person, I take him at his word. However, in the words of Ronald Reagan, who said ``trust but verify,'' that is the way I feel about the Porter Goss nomination. I accept him at his word, which he not only gave to me but he gave to the entire committee in a public format, that he would be nonpartisan, committed to the truth, a leader for independence and reform, and would always speak truth to power. So I accept him at his word, but I also believe we must engage in vigorous congressional oversight to make sure Porter Goss does the job he is to do, and to make sure he does what he has committed to do.

So when my name is called, I will vote for Porter Goss. But I want to make it very clear that in voting for Porter Goss to be the Director of the CIA, I am not voting for him to be the future NID. As you know, we are not clear on what is the framework for reform we will adopt. There are ideas coming forth that I know we will be debating and voting on next week and in the weeks ahead. So we want to be sure whatever framework we create, and if we do create the National Intelligence Director, a position I have supported for many months, that person's nomination come to us separately. In voting for Porter Goss, I am voting for him to be the head of CIA, but I am not using this vote for him to be the NID by proxy.

Again, let me conclude by thanking the chairman and the vice chairman for their hard work on this committee. It is a committee with great responsibility. We take it seriously. But at the end of the day, my analysis concludes that I will vote for Porter Goss. I will trust, but I will use congressional oversight to verify.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate? Is it my amendment increasing firefighters funds?

As I understand it, I have 1 minute and then there will be a subsequent comment by the chairman of the subcommittee; is that correct?

My amendment which is pending adds $150 million to the Fire Grant Program, bringing it to the authorized level of $900 million. This Fire Grant Program is peer-reviewed and merit based with no pork in it. It provides grants to local fire departments. The President requested $500 million, the chairman added another $200 million, then Senator Frist added another $50 million on Friday, but I want to bring it up to the full $900 million. Why? This Fire Grant Program is the only program that really helps our firefighters have the equipment they need to protect themselves, as well as modern equipment.

Last year, the Fire Grant Program received $2.5 billion for its requests--20,000 worthy applications. I know we can't fund it at $2.5 billion, but we can fund it at the authorized level. Therefore, I urge adoption of my amendment. Let us protect the first responders so they can protect us.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the National Volunteers Fire Council and the Congressional Fire Services Institute be printed in the Record.

I move to waive the point of order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I am going to speak about the compelling needs that our local fire departments have.

All of us, over the weekend, went to events commemorating September 11, 2001. We all spoke about how much we admired those men and women who stood up to defend the Nation, including those very brave first responders at the World Trade Center who dashed up over 75 floors in burning buildings to try to rescue people. They put themselves on the line, and many of them, as we know, perished on that horrible day.

Here in the Washington, DC area, as we know, the Pentagon was hit. We in Maryland had 60 Marylanders die that day. We had some die at the World Trade Center, but the majority were at the Pentagon. Some died on the airplanes. We had people die on those airlines, including a flight attendant who gave her life and was one of the people who tried to deal with the situation. We had others who died on those planes, such as a family who was leaving on a sabbatical--a husband and wife who were academics, with their two children. Again, we had people die at the Pentagon, such as one young man from Baltimore who was a financial analyst over at the Pentagon. Of those from Maryland who died at the Pentagon, 24 came from one county, Prince George's County. They were primarily African-Americans who worked in this financial services area of the Pentagon. Imagine, 24 people, such as Odessa Morris who had just celebrated her 25th anniversary; or Max Bielke, who had been in the military and when he retired, he went back to work as a civilian employee because he loved it. He was the last man to leave Vietnam. He stamped all the papers at our embassy there. He was the last soldier out of Vietnam. So we mourn that day.

At the same time, we were proud of the Maryland response. I was particularly proud of the Chevy Chase rescue team. This is a volunteer fire department in Montgomery County that dashed across the Potomac under the doctrine of mutual aid to provide firefighting assistance on that horrible day, joining with our local fire departments from Northern Virginia and Rescue One from Chevy Chase, and stayed on the scene in order to be able to quell the fires that continued to burn. They were part of a FEMA search and rescue unit and they provided help. They were the ones who brought in the dogs to look for survivors. They were there night and day for several days and weeks.

I was very proud of the Chevy Chase fire fighters and of all our fire departments in Maryland who went up to the World Trade Center to dig in the wreckage to see if they could find any survivors. We know the story about what happened at the World Trade Center. Again, the Chevy Chase Fire Department is a volunteer fire department. They serve their community and country on their own time and their own dime. It cost the Chevy Chase Fire Department over $300,000 to be able to be on the job. They did it willingly, unstintingly. Yet at the same time, we know those local fire departments cannot continue to function when we go on Orange Alert, and they continue on their own time and on their own dime.

One of the great things we created was the Fire Grant Program. The Fire Grant Program was an invention before 9/11 of Senator Kit Bond and me as part of a FEMA reform package, along with Congressmen Hoyer and Weldon in the House. We did it in a bipartisan effort to make sure our fire departments--particularly our volunteer fire departments--had the right equipment they needed to protect the protector, and also the updated technology to be able to protect us.

When we created that program as part of FEMA, well before September 11, 2001, it was authorized at $300 million. At the same time, what we know is that when we did that--after 9/11, the need was so compelling, working, again, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, we authorized a fire grant program at $900 million. What else do we know? We know there is compelling need. We know the fire administration, just in 2003, received almost 20,000 applications totaling $2.5 billion in funding requests for local fire departments.

Imagine that. The fire administration received requests for $2.5 billion.

Yet because of funding at around the $700 million level, they could only fund 8,900 of those 20,000 requests. So we know the need is in the billions. We know we are authorized at the $900 million level.

What my amendment will do, when I have the opportunity to offer it, is raise funding for fire grants to the authorized level of $900 million. Why do we want to do that? We are facing new threats every day. Just over a month ago, when the administration raised the terror alert to Orange for the communities of Washington, New York, and New Jersey, we knew what the needs really were.

The bill we are considering today actually has funding at $700 million. I know on Friday an amendment offered by the Republican leader, the majority leader, Senator Frist, actually increased it by $50 million. I will be offering an amendment at an appropriate time to raise it $150 million so that we can bring it up to the authorized level of $900 million.

What would this additional $150 million mean? It would mean protective gear for 150,000 firefighters. It means local fire departments could buy 500 new fire trucks. It means they could buy 300 new rescue vehicles. But this is not about protective gear and fire trucks; it is about the tools our firefighters need.

First of all, they need the equipment to protect themselves, such as breathing equipment and fire retardation gear. We need to protect the protectors so they can protect us. Then, at the same time, they need other technology. What we also know is that this program gives us double value. If our first responders have the right equipment, they are ready to respond against not only a terrorist attack, but anything else that may happen to a community.

During those hurricanes that have been whipping Florida, we have had our first responders there, and they have the right equipment, as well as the radio equipment, to respond.

It also means the kind of equipment that we need not only when the Chevy Chase Fire and Rescue Department dashes across the Potomac but what they need if something happens on the beltway.

We in Baltimore had a terrible tanker explosion on I-95. Because our firefighters were prepared, they could deal with the hazmat situation. I could give a number of examples.

This is not just Barbara Mikulski speaking. The Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by our former colleague, Senator Rudman--and we know the independence he has--issued an independent report last year. We also know he was the author of many balanced budget amendments. So we know he approaches it with Yankee common sense and the frugality for which he is very well known. So we have Senator Rudman, an independent personality, one who has always been frugal from a budget standpoint, and yet he is recommending more money.

What did the report show? That the United States remains ill prepared for a catastrophic attack; that fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift; breathing apparatus for just one-third of our firefighters; and that only 10 percent of fire departments have the equipment to respond to a building collapse. That is the Rudman report.

Then Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Fire Protection Association also did a study called ``A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service.'' They found that 57,000 firefighters lacked the protective clothing they needed to protect themselves to protect us.

In Maryland alone, it would take $52 million to replace protective gear for all of our firefighters. This is what we are talking about.

We do not want to just throw money at problems. We believe the fire grant is a model program because we refuse to earmark the grants. They are subject to peer review, so they are given on the basis of priority and merit. We know what our shortcomings are, and these various reports document them.

We talked about how last year there were 20,000 applicants and $2.5 billion worth of requests. That speaks for itself. We have double value for this spending, not only for response to terrorist attacks but against all hazards, whether it is hurricanes, tornadoes, or the wildfires that hit the West. We need to be able to protect the local fire departments.

Mr. President, you know how expensive this equipment can be. You cannot do this on bingos and fish fries. They need the U.S. Government to stand behind them to do that.

There are over a million firefighters in the United States, of which there are 750,000 volunteers. Isn't that terrific? They really do save lives; they save homes; they save communities. We need to save them and to help them. They do not know what they are going to face when they enter a house to save a child trapped on the second floor. They may put out the flames in a factory that contains toxic chemicals. They are the first on the scene at any disaster. Firefighters are our protectors. Many are volunteers who work three shifts: one on a regular job, one with their families, and then another shift at the fire department. As I said, they cannot also then be expected to raise the money through charity, tip jars, and bingo. Of course they can do that because we always want local community support, but the equipment and gear they need is very expensive. A new fire engine costs $300,000. A new rescue vehicle costs $500,000. Self-contained breathing apparatus costs $6,000.

Mr. President, you know how expensive it is. The Fire Grant Program is working. In my own community, the Forestville fire department, located in Prince George's County, was awarded funds for a new hydrant tanker. Why is that so important? The last one contained just a couple of hundred gallons, where this one is over 2,500. This is right next door to Andrews Air Force Base. Any attack on the United States would mean they would have to respond under doctrine of mutual aid.

It is the same with the Kensington volunteer fire department in Montgomery County. We replaced a pumper truck that is dated to 1979. I could go all around the State of Maryland.

The amendment speaks for itself. Senator Cochran still is not here. I am sure the Senator is tied up. We have worked together on many occasions.

First, I really have enjoyed working with him on appropriations, on national security issues. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, it has been a delight to work with him.

My amendment is very straightforward. What it does is raise the Fire Grant program to its fully authorized level of $900 million.

As I have stated, the amendment speaks for itself. It increases the money to $900 million, the authorized level. We believe the amendment is warranted because, as I have said, the Fire Administration received requests totaling $2.5 billion, and since we cannot fund it at $2.5 billion, I believe we need to take this important step and fund it at the $900 million level.

The amendment speaks for itself. I now turn to the Democratic whip and ask him how should we proceed? I would like to offer my amendment. I would like to get a vote on my amendment. Should I ask for the yeas and nays now?

Mr. President, I say to the Presiding Officer, to Senator Cochran, and to the whip, I would like to work with them in a way that would create the orderly disposition of my amendment.

I will withhold any rights to seek the yeas and nays. Is that an appropriate request?

I yield the floor.