Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Dorgan, for bringing this to the floor. As has been said by everyone, I think, we have been talking about this issue for a long time. It is such a crucial issue for many States and many cities, that we must get it right.

I think the bill of Senator Allen, the underlying bill, and now the bill of Senator McCain are attempting to do something that is right. They are attempting to assure that interstate commerce is not obstructed by taxes on Internet access.

I am afraid, however, that the language is not clear enough as it deals with franchise taxes and right-of-way fees that have been in place in cities in many States in our country for a long time. That is why I have introduced an amendment that will clarify the definition of what is excepted from this Internet access tax ban. It says:

. . . any payment made for the use of a public right-of-way

or made in lieu of a fee for use of the public right-of-way,

however it may be denominated, including but not limited to

an access line fee, a franchise fee, license fee or gross

receipts or gross revenue fee.

I think we have found out since we started debating this issue years ago that cities determine their franchise fees, their right-of-way fees, in many different ways. I think it is very important that we not make a mistake here that would cause years of litigation, after which a city might win, it might lose, but it would certainly disrupt what it has been doing. The franchise fee is basically a local tax, not on Internet access, not meant to be on Internet access.

My position is that we should not tax Internet access. I do believe it is a taxation of interstate commerce. However, I think that once you get off the basic access, just as we have telephone lines' access, use of right-of-way, that we must create a level playing field so a line that is used for telephone and an Internet computer line will be able to be taxed in the same way.

In my State of Texas, prior to 1999 cities were compensated by telecommunications providers for the use of their rights-of-way pursuant to individual franchise agreements negotiated between the telecommunications company and the cities.

In the late 1990s, Texas cities and the providers began negotiating and drafting major compromises that would lead to more uniformity, more regulatory certainty. So the Texas law has established a uniform method of compensating cities for use of public rights-of-way. It is called a per access line fee. It is implemented to compensate cities for use of public rights-of-way.

The access lines are reported by the individual telecommunications providers to the Texas Public Utility Commission. The PUC then applies the individual city rate per access line to the total number of lines that a particular city may have within their corporate limits. It is a fair and equitable system that is used in Texas. An average city gets about 3.5 percent of its general revenue from telecommunications right- of-way compensation fees.

Passing Federal legislation that would call into question the validity of this Texas system could have disastrous effects on the ability of Texas cities to provide essential services such as police and fire, water, waste water, and parks, just to name a few. The right- of-way fees represent as much as $39 million annually to the city of Dallas; $9 million for Fort Worth; and $15 million for the city of San Antonio.

Cities in California, Nevada, Florida, Kentucky, and other States would also be adversely affected by the bill as it is written. So I am trying to clarify why franchise fees should be included. I am hoping we are all trying to go in the same direction here. I just want to make sure that we don't make a mistake.

There will be people who say it is really covered. It is covered in the underlying law. It is covered in the amendment that is offered by Senator McCain and the one underlying by Senator Allen. People will say that. However, it is not clear and the city attorneys and these Texas cities and other States have looked at the language and they are very concerned they are going to be in litigation over this issue. If we know today that it is not clear, after the lawyers have looked at it, why not be sure? Why not be sure?

Everyone I have talked to believes that right-of-way and franchise fees should not be disturbed. It is part of the level playing field we are trying to create. My amendment will make it very clear what is accepted by definition. This should not have any impact on Internet access as both of the underlying bills would try to protect that from taxation. But it does protect cities, particularly since we have certain laws in some States that do have a component of a gross receipts fee within the access line issue, and I hope we will not step on a State with its local issues, trying to stay consistent with what has been done and accepted through all these years by passing this law without being very clear.

Mine is a clarification amendment.

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, I appreciate the question.

This is, of course, not to put a new tax in place. This is to try to acknowledge that different cities and different States have different definitions of franchise tax. It happens that in Texas there is a gross-receipts component in the franchise right-of-way access tax. It is a standardized law now for the cities of Texas, for cable companies and telecommunications companies.

We have a different definition which I am trying to protect. Certainly these cities have already made their contracts with their cable companies. This is not meant to change contracts; it is meant to allow the contracts which are in existence and use a well recognized and different definition of franchise or right-of-way tax.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this resolution has recently gone to the committee. It needs to go through the process. I certainly empathize with many of the things the Senator from Oregon has propounded. However, I must respectfully object.

Will the Senator yield for an answer to his question?

Mr. President, with all due respect, I do sympathize with much of what the Senator from Oregon has said, and I am frustrated as well. But I think it is important that the Senator recognize we do have a process; that this is 2004; it is not 2000; and it is not 2002.

Furthermore, I say to the Senator from Oregon that we have many ways

to increase the supply of oil in our country. Passing the Energy bill that has already passed the Senate, that went to conference and was held up by the Democratic side by two votes would give us the supply that we need to lower the cost of fuel in our country. We have at our disposal the capability to lower prices.

Mr. President, I think it is incumbent upon all of us not to just look at the cartel that is OPEC, but to look at our own resources and to control our own resources. We have the capability to do that and we are not because of the obstructionism on the Democratic side.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes of the majority time be equally divided, 10 minutes each, between myself, Senator Coleman, and Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, I ask that we be notified when our 10 minutes is up.

Mr. President, this Friday, April 9, will mark the 1- year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq from the dictator Saddam Hussein and his corrupt regime. It was April 9, 2003, that Iraqis cheered when Saddam Hussein's statue fell in Baghdad.

When we began Operation Iraqi Freedom and as our troops were marching on Baghdad, we started the Senate every single day for at least 30 minutes talking about our troops, what they were doing, the successes they had, and the heartrending problems they faced. We let them know that not 1 day, not 1 hour, not 1 minute passed that we were not thinking of what they were doing for our country.

It is still the case today. Although Saddam Hussein's regime fell 1 year ago today, we are still fighting with the spirit and the heart that is personified by our troops on the ground in Iraq today.

At that time, we all talked about--and it was written in the newspapers and talked about on television--that it did not seem like that infamous Republican Guard had been there. We did not meet them on the way to Baghdad. We did not meet them in Baghdad, at least it did not seem like it. It seemed almost too easy.

This is one person's opinion, but this person believes that when history is written about this war, it will say that we are meeting the Republican Guard right now, that they faded into the woodwork and they strengthened their numbers and they are coming back. They have decided to make their last stand because we have a deadline of

June 30 when we want the Iraqi people to take control of their governance, and we want the people to have a say. We set that deadline.

All of those who do not want freedom and democracy in Iraq, whether they be people who want control inside Iraq or whether they are people from outside Iraq who want to control the Middle East and make sure there is not a working democracy, all of those forces are now coming together against our coalition forces.

This is a very important time in our war on terrorism, and our hearts are with our troops on the ground. Our hearts are with their families right now.

Our hearts are with those brave civilians who have volunteered to go in to help stabilize the country of Iraq and to get an economy going there. We know they paid the price from the horrendous pictures we saw last week. Those volunteers who were trying to serve were not only murdered in cold blood, but their bodies were defiled. We will never forget those pictures, and we will never forget the pictures we have been seeing day after day out of Iraq.

We are here today to say how much we appreciate what they are doing. We are also here to say that every one of those who have died, they have not died in vain because we are not going to walk away from this battle. America will not cut and run and render those great losses meaningless. We will not do it because we have a President who is willing to stand firm in the face of adversity. Our President is supported by troops who are every bit as committed and dedicated as he is to the cause.

This is a very important time. I think it is so important that we should look at what is happening and make sure we are not doing anything which would hurt our cause while our troops are in harm's way.

I have to say I am troubled when I hear leaders say this is another Vietnam. We have troops on the ground in harm's way. Is it really productive for us to be labeling Iraq after 1 year as another Vietnam? Is it helpful to heap criticism on our President? Is it even helpful to be dissecting what happened in the run-up on the war on terrorism that began on September 11, 2001? Is it helpful to be saying who is at fault for bad information? Was it the Clinton administration or the Bush administration? Or was it before that? Is that what we ought to be talking about right now? I don't think so.

I think what we ought to be talking about right now is how we can come together as a country and make sure everyone in America understands the importance of this cause; that we support our Commander in Chief, and that we support our troops on the ground.

I have been to Iraq. Mr. President, you have been to Iraq. Our Commander in Chief has been to Iraq. We know a little bit about what it is like. We don't know everything because we are not there when the bombs go off. We are not there when the missiles are launched. But we have been there, and we know our troops are the best. They are committed. They are doing exactly what needs to be done to stabilize this country.

It is not going to be easy. But the one thing we must all do is be committed to the proposition we can't fail, and dividing our country in half over who was responsible for faulty intelligence is one way we could fail.

What we need to be doing is uniting our country. This is America's challenge. This is our coalition's challenge, that we will stay the course. We will make sure a constitution is in place in Iraq so the people who have been oppressed for so many years, so the girls in Afghanistan who have been abused and uneducated will have the chance for lives all of us dream for our children to have, so the people in Iraq who were raped, tortured, and mutilated by Saddam Hussein and his regime will no longer have to fear that kind of treatment because they will be in control of their own destiny. We will be there with the security to help them see this through.

What we need right now is a united country, not a country sniping at our President, whether it is on the Senate floor or out in the field.

My time is up. But I think it is not productive for us to be divisive at this point. We need to be united in support of our Commander in Chief and our troops on the ground.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Breaux, addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our Nation's public coastal resources. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our Nation's marine recreational anglers. I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, but I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters.

I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to defending and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. Recreational anglers are among America's most proactive conservationists and their contributions need to be recognized.

The Act would establish guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources are preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the public who enjoy recreational fishing will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Secondly, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that measurable scientific criteria is used to determine the cause and impact of damage to fishery resources.

Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection.

I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fish Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Breaux, addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our Nation's public coastal resources. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our Nation's marine recreational anglers. I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, but I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters.

I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to defending and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. Recreational anglers are among America's most proactive conservationists and their contributions need to be recognized.

The Act would establish guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources are preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the public who enjoy recreational fishing will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Secondly, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that measurable scientific criteria is used to determine the cause and impact of damage to fishery resources.

Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection.

I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fish Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for allowing me to offer this amendment. It deals with sales tax equity for States.

Mr. President, we have a huge inequity in the Tax Code today. There are seven States that have a sales tax but no income tax. The States that don't have an income tax generally have a higher sales tax. That is the case with my State of Texas and six other States.

Fifty-five million taxpayers who have only sales taxes for their State and a local major tax revenue base do not get to deduct from their Federal income taxes what they pay in local and State sales taxes. On the other hand, income tax State taxpayers do get that deduction. So if you have a high sales tax and that is the basis of your revenue for your State and local government, you are paying taxes on your taxes. This is not equitable. Fifty-five million taxpayers have this inequity.

My amendment would treat everyone the same. It would give you the opportunity to either deduct sales taxes or income taxes on your Federal income tax return. This discrepancy has a huge impact on my State of Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, if taxpayers could deduct their sales taxes, more than $700 million would be kept in Texans' pocketbooks. This could lead to 16,000 new jobs and add $900 million in economic activity.

Many States are facing financial crises. Our State certainly is, and many other States are. What we want is not an advantage. What we want is equity.

I realize this bill is very important to end punitive tariffs the European Union has begun to impose on U.S. products. I do not want to impede this bill. It is so important for American manufacturers not to have this punitive tariff on our products going into European commerce. I am willing to work with the managers of the bill. I am willing to withdraw the amendment. But I am serving notice that we have had this inequity since 1986. Since 1986, seven States have had this discrimination. When there was a reform of taxation in 1986, they took away the deduction for sales taxes, and no one stood up and said there is an inequity in that there are seven States that have no income taxes and we are leaving the income tax deduction, but we are discriminating against States such as Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Nevada.

We need to correct this inequity. I ask that the chairman withdraw the amendment at this time. I certainly support the underlying bill, but I am serving notice this inequity must be corrected soon.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Community Savings and Investment Act of 2004. This will create jobs, expand economic activity, and help to revitalize distressed urban and rural communities. It will accomplish this by providing tax relief for community-focused banks and helping to generate financial opportunities in low-income areas.

As we address the challenges many of our communities face and search for ways to help those looking to improve their standard of living, we must properly leverage the tax laws to encourage economic development. Most people and communities do not want handouts. They want the chance to find solutions and make it on their own. However, to do this they need financial resources.

The lifeblood of any economic development is capital. Too often it is difficult for people, especially those in distressed areas, to access financial resources and other banking services. Providing community banking will lead to much-needed investments in communities, allowing people to purchase homes, start new businesses, and revitalize their neighborhoods.

The Community Savings and Investment Act will improve access to banking services by lowering taxes for community banks. It also provides incentives for banks to serve distressed communities by excluding any resulting income from taxation. By lowering the costs for banks to operate in communities, we can unleash powerful new forces for economic development.

This initiative will make a significant difference in the lives of thousands of families and communities across this Nation. As we seek ways to further strengthen our economy, I urge the Senate to pass this common-sense approach.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to recognize the importance and need for increased weather modification research. Weather modification is the general term that refers to any human attempt to alter the weather. While we may not be able to stop Mother Nature entirely, we can sometimes alter her course, changing the weather in small, yet significant ways. These efforts have been used in the U.S. for more than 50 years to reduce crop and property damage, optimize useable precipitation during growing seasons and lessen the impact of periodic, often severe droughts.

The weather modification projects in Texas and other States in the U.S. are much more than well considered responses to drought. They are trying to use the latest technological developments in the science to chemically squeeze more precipitation out of clouds. Moisture that is needed to replenish fresh-water supplies in aquifers and reservoirs. Political subdivisions like water conservation districts and county commissions have embraced the technology of rain enhancement as one element of a long-term, water-management strategy. This is critical to ensure growing populations have enough water to meet future needs.

This bill will develop a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy through federal and state research and development programs. It will also establish a Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board within the Department of Commerce to promote and expand the practical knowledge of weather modification. Further, it recognizes the significance of state and federal collaboration in this endeavor.

I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important research and I would urge my colleagues to support the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for allowing me to do something I have traditionally done every year I have been in the Senate, actually taking a tradition that Senator John Tower started. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business to read the letter from William Barret Travis from the Alamo at the time they were under siege.

Madam President, at the Alamo, in San Antonio, 184 Texas rebels, led by William Barret Travis, made their stand against Santa Ana's vastly superior Mexican army. On the second day of the siege, February 24, 1836, Travis called for reinforcements with this heroic message.

Just to put this in context, the war for independence from Mexico was being fought through the last several months and would eventually end because of the valiant stand at the Alamo, at the battle of San Jacinto. These 184 men were looking at what they thought were 6,000 Mexican soldiers marching on them. They were asking for reinforcements.

They did not get those reinforcements, but they, nevertheless, fought to the last death. They held them for so long that it gave Sam Houston time to then get his troops lined up and to form the line on which they would take their stand; and that was near Houston, TX. It was the battle of San Jacinto.

But this letter was dated February 24, 1836:

Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a

thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana--I have

sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours

and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender

at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the

sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with

a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the

wall--I shall never surrender or retreat.

Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism

and of everything dear to the American character, to come to

our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving

reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or

four thousand in four or five days. If this call is

neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as

possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due

to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death--

William Barret Travis, Lt. Col., Commander.

So, Madam President, this is something that is celebrated in Texas on March 2 of every year. That is the date of the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico.

My great-great-grandfather signed that declaration of independence, along with the first two Senators who eventually served Texas when, 10 years after it won its independence and had become a nation, then joined the United States as a State. And the first two Senators were Sam Houston and Thomas Jefferson Rusk. I hold the Rusk seat. He was the secretary of war and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence alongside my great-great-grandfather. They were both delegates from my mother's hometown of Nacogdoches, TX.

So, Madam President, I thank you. And I certainly thank the Senator from Idaho for allowing me to keep this tradition.

Mr. President, I rise to offer amendment No. 2388 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of amendment No. 2388 without the second degree. It is a very important time for us to start treating our States more equitably and this bill-- I am sorry to say--is a step backward.

TEA-21 embraced as its simple goal the elimination of redistribution of highway funds based on political considerations. For example, under the 1998 bill, Texas' rate of return rose from 77 percent to 90 percent in the formula programs. This means that for every dollar a Texas gasoline purchaser sent to Washington, we got 90 cents back on the dollar. So we contributed 10 percent of our revenue to other States. All of the donor States in TEA-21 were raised to the 90.5 percent level. There has never been a time when we have treated donor States differently from one another until this year.

The bill before us creates a new superdonor status. Growing States and big States, such as California, Texas, Florida, and some smaller States, such as Colorado and Arizona that are also rapidly growing, are locked into superdonor status, still sending nearly 10 percent of our highway funds that we need even more because we are fast growing.

My State is facing budget deficits and is trying to make those up so we can spend the money we need to fix our highways. Our States are rapidly growing, and yet we are continuing to be asked to send 10 percent of our highway funds to other States. We are the States that need the most new infrastructure, because we are experiencing the greatest population growth.

My amendment would correct a small part of this glaring inequity. It would take $9 billion from the nebulous IPAM account and redirect it to the States that need it the most. Basically what you would do is take the IPAM account, which contains projects chosen on the basis of favoritism, and put that into the formula so that everyone is on a more level playing field.

It is not a level playing field. Neither my State nor any other donor State will come out of donor status under this amendment. But it will provide gradual relief for these States to begin to work up to that 95 cent rate of return over the course of the bill.

Under my amendment, all States would receive a minimum of 91 cents on the dollar in fiscal year 2005, and that minimum would rise 1 percent each year until 2009. My amendment would guarantee more money for every State. It would not reduce any State's formula percentage. It would not reduce any State's formula income by a penny. It simply distributes unallocated funds already in the bill, not increasing the bill, not lowering any State's income level. But instead distributing that money by projects, it will create a much fairer formula-based system.

For 50 years, the Federal aid highway program and the States have maintained one of the world's finest highway networks. Highways are the first choice to transport most of the goods

that drive our economy. The majority of that system was designed in the 1950s to help a rapidly growing Nation to connect to new population centers, especially in the West.

Today there are other critical needs to be addressed. We are not in the 1950s. We are in another century, and we have new problems. One of those is the trade that has been created by NAFTA. That is not a problem, except that it has increased the highway needs in the States that have the corridors from Mexico to Canada. NAFTA has provided huge national benefits. The resulting traffic is crippling to our Nation's infrastructure. Early on smaller States and Western States needed extra help from larger and more established States such as Texas. Today the reverse is true.

The funding inequity is increasing at a time when States are growing more equal in their abilities to contribute and our levels of existing infrastructure among the States are much more similar.

In the name of fairness, why don't we go to a strict formula system that will increase everyone's part of the pie on a more equitable basis than when 100 Senators from 50 States go in a room and start trying to divide the funding themselves, knowing that some States are going to be left out, and some States are not going to be fairly treated? Why not make it fair from the beginning?

My home State of Texas has borne the greatest burden over the life of the Federal aid highway program. Since 1956, Texas has contributed over $5 billion more to the program than we have received back in funds to build and repair our own highways. Each and every year Texas has sent more highway funding to Washington than it has received to cover projects in our State.

Texas has more than 300,000 highway miles, the most of any State in our Nation. Our highways make up almost 8 percent of the total national mileage and 7 percent of interstates. As a result, the over 20 million people of Texas necessarily buy more gasoline and contribute more to the highway trust fund financed by the gasoline tax.

In the past 12 years, Texas and other donor States have made good progress. In 1998, Texas received only a 77-cent return on every dollar sent to Washington, a loss of $1.7 billion. Current law guarantees us 90.5 cents on the dollar, but this is still $2.6 billion less than the contribution we make. This is a significant loss to a State that needs the infrastructure improvement to take on the added traffic caused by

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

Madam President, I hope very much our colleagues will also listen to the arguments against the second-degree amendment and for this amendment. I know the committee tried very hard to balance what they considered to be every State's wishes and needs, but they have made a major precedent-setting change in the business of the Senate by creating a new stepchild category for superdonor States.

They picked States that have other huge problems such as high growth and falling median incomes. Targeting these high-growth, large States that have huge infrastructure problems and other problems that go with being on the border with another country is a major step in the wrong direction.

I hope the chairman will reconsider. That is not likely right now, but we have been trying to work with the chairman to see if there could be some accommodation that would acknowledge the huge infrastructure needs of these superdonor States created in this bill. I hope the Senate does not do this in the end. In our amendment every State comes out better. It will create a more level playing field. The existing bill is not a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination.

We are trying to gradually raise the percentage that every State will be able to get when we are sending more to Washington than we receive in return. Our amendment simply assures that every State will get at least 91 cents back from what it sends to Washington next year; the year after that, 92 cents; the year after that, 93 cents; and the year after that, 94 cents, until all the donor States reach 95. It would be a gradual increase to 95. If we went to 95 immediately, it would deliver even more to Texas. We are not trying to do that. We are trying to enact a modest increase aimed at a more equitable donor status.

We will never get $1 back for what we send to Washington in this bill or in this environment. My hope, of course, is that at some point we will, that at some point other States will step up to the plate and say: We can bear our fair share and we do not need other States to pay our costs. That is not the case today.

This amendment is a measured approach. Every State gets more under this amendment. Alabama will receive $125 million more under this amendment than they would under the committee bill before the Senate; Alaska, $13 million; Arizona, $216 million; Arkansas, $84 million; California, $1.30 billion; Colorado, $178 million; Connecticut, $66 million; Delaware, $16 million; the District of Columbia, $7 million.

All of these are increases in what these States will receive under my amendment over 6 years: Florida, $481 million; Georgia, $288 million; Hawaii, $15 million; Idaho, $35 million; Illinois,

$460 million more; Indiana, $291 million more; Iowa, $120 million more; Kansas, $68 million more; Kentucky, $142 million more; Louisiana, $12 million more; Maine, $40 million more; Maryland, $164 million more. Massachusetts, $119 million more; Michigan, $337 million more; Minnesota, $217 million more; Mississippi, $96 million more; Missouri, $188 million more; Montana, $28 million more; Nebraska, $48 million more; Nevada, $64 million more; New Hampshire, $29 million more; and New Jersey, $265 million more.

Every State comes out better. It is more equitable and it takes out a lot of the politics. Senators who end up voting against my amendment think they will do better by divvying up a $9 billion pot into specific projects in their States, but all 100 Senators cannot come out winners that way. I would rather see us respond in a statesmanlike way, divide all of the money by formula, and give every State a more equitable portion. Every State will be helped and that is how our country should operate, with greater equity and a more level playing field.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I seek the yeas and nays on my amendment, and I seek the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment, as well.

Let me make a parliamentary inquiry. I was trying to get the yeas and nays on the underlying amendment, but I need the parliamentary way to get there, which I think both Senator Reid and Senator Inhofe are trying to help do.

Madam President, I seek consent to ask for the yeas and nays.

No.

Yes.

Madam President, I would just like to take a couple minutes to respond to the chairman's remarks, and then I will be ready to vote.

Madam President, we are not adding money to the bill. We are taking money in the bill that is unallocated--promised but not yet granted to specific projects in specific States--and redistributing that on a fairer basis than that of political rewards in project money. We are trying to take the politics out and establish fairness for the States made superdonors, or stepchildren, in the Senate's highway bill.

I hope people will look beyond their pet projects and see that everyone benefits and the money used is already in the bill. The amendment does not add even a penny. Yet it creates a fairer planing field for every State already.

So I hope the Senate will rise above project fighting and distribute this funding on a formula basis in order to treat every State more fairly.

Madam President, when I came to the Senate, one thing that impressed me the most is that although I was a member of the minority party at the time, no State ever was ever penalized for size or growth. Every State was given funding that matched its needs.

This bill is setting a new precedent that has never been the policy of the Senate to use big States as providers for other States. Everyone can see this play is not fair.

I hope Senators will support this amendment. We are not adding a dime to the bill. We are redistributing the money that is in the bill in a fairer way. No one loses from the formula that is in the bill, and everyone gains much-needed funding.

I hope the bill does not go to the President without a formula amendment. It would set a terrible precedent to institute a new superdonor category of States with more highway mileage and therefore always paying more money to the highway trust fund than they will ever get back.

Madam President, it is fine for the Senator to move to table.

There was a misrepresentation that just occurred.

Madam President, misrepresentations have just been made. If the Senator feels he needs to cut off the ability to answer that, the Senator is perfectly free to do so.

If there are no further arguments that misrepresent the facts, I need 1 minute.

I thank the Senator from Nevada.

This bill came out of the committee with $9 billion in money that was unallocated. Now we are being told there is only $2 billion. It is a fair question to ask, where did the other $7 billion go?

The fact is, the money has not been allocated until we vote on this bill. We would have the ability to create a level playing field with the exact same money that is in the bill. It has not been voted on by the Senate. Where is the $7 billion?

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

Last year, I worked with my colleagues and President Bush to pass a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. We are now seeing the fruits of our efforts. The tax relief has left more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, freeing the engines of the economy. Private sector growth is strong, the stock market is up, and jobs are being created.

One of the most important provisions of the legislation provided immediate marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of almost $600 on their 2003 tax bills.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as people begin to feel the benefits from the relief, a tax increase looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by limitations imposed by Congress, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for 2 years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans.

Without relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes.

Even as the economy strengthens, many families face difficult choices in making ends meet. We must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, but without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

I have sought to make full marriage penalty relief permanent. However, given the current budget constraints and the politics of an election year, this will be difficult. I therefore am offering this bill to extend last year's victory for married couples for 1 year, through 2005.

As Valentine's Day approaches, we should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event.

I call on the Senate to build on the 2003 tax cuts and say ``I do'' to extending marriage penalty relief today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

Last year, I worked with my colleagues and President Bush to pass a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. We are now seeing the fruits of our efforts. The tax relief has left more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, freeing the engines of the economy. Private sector growth is strong, the stock market is up, and jobs are being created.

One of the most important provisions of the legislation provided immediate marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of almost $600 on their 2003 tax bills.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as people begin to feel the benefits from the relief, a tax increase looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by limitations imposed by Congress, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for 2 years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans.

Without relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes.

Even as the economy strengthens, many families face difficult choices in making ends meet. We must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, but without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

I have sought to make full marriage penalty relief permanent. However, given the current budget constraints and the politics of an election year, this will be difficult. I therefore am offering this bill to extend last year's victory for married couples for 1 year, through 2005.

As Valentine's Day approaches, we should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event.

I call on the Senate to build on the 2003 tax cuts and say ``I do'' to extending marriage penalty relief today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, has the Democratic side used all their time in morning business?

How generous. I thank the assistant Democratic leader very much.

Madam President, how much time do we have? Was it 30 minutes on the other side, or did they have some other time?

Thirty minutes and twenty seconds, Madam President.

Madam President, I will ask the distinguished Senator from Colorado to allocate our time. There will be another speaker coming, but I would like to yield to the Senator from Colorado this 30 minutes 20 seconds.