Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is a privilege today to pay tribute to the memory of the late Strom Thurmond. Often outspoken, sometimes controversial, but always passionate, Strom was an unparallel servant of the people. He always put his Nation first, whether in combat on the beaches of Normandy or here in the halls of the Senate.

He made a career of giving back to his country. But he was also a wonderful human being.

Strom often reminded me that Colonel William Barret Travis, who was in command at the Alamo, was from his home county in South Carolina. While Strom himself missed the Alamo by a few years, he demonstrated that he too embodies the spirit of the Alamo and the sense of duty and commitment to his country that we Texans associate with Colonel Travis.

Strom's journey into the history books began back in the 1920s when he graduated from his beloved Clemson.

He went on to become a teacher and athletic coach, county superintendent of education, town and county attorney, eleventh circuit judge, South Carolina governor, soldier, president of the Reserve Officers Association and finally, a U.S. Senator--a position he held for a remarkable 48 years. For many, that would be five lifetimes of careers. But not Strom. It was just enough to keep him busy for the century he was on this Earth.

Strom lived every day of his life to the fullest.

I'm still amazed that he volunteered to return to active duty military service, though he was way past the age of being drafted. At the age of 41 he flew onto the beaches of Normandy in a glider--staring death in the face, and smiling.

He served in the Pacific and European theaters, earning 18 decorations, medals and awards including the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star for Valor. He rose to the rank of Major General in the U.S. Army Reserves.

In the Senate Strom focused particular attention on taking care of our men and women in the military.

I served with Strom while he chaired the Armed Services committee and saw the reflection of his time in the service in everything he did. He worked for one purpose--to ensure our country's national defense remained strong. From military health care to quality of life for service members and their families, he knew that to recruit and retain our Nation's finest, we had to treat them well.

The Capitol has not been the same since Strom left last year. The wit and wisdom he collected over a century of living made him one of the most entertaining and enlightening figures in modern politics. There will always be an empty place in the heart of the Senate created by his absence.

The eulogies that came from both sides of the aisle at his memorial service last week were testament to the evolution Strom undertook during his time in the Senate. A career once marked by division ended in unity and with dignity.

He will be greatly missed by his family, friends, colleagues and his country. He began his career in public service as a coach--eight decades later he was a coach and teacher to us all to the very end.

Madam President, I am very pleased to join with my ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein of California, in bringing forward for the Senate's consideration the fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriations bill. This is a bipartisan bill which received the unanimous approval of the Committee on Appropriations.

I want to take a moment to say Senator Feinstein is in the Judiciary markup. She is the best ranking member a chairman could ever have. We have a great relationship. We work together well. We see things the same way. And our priorities are the same. So this is very much our bill together, and it would not have been nearly as easy without her wonderful cooperation.

This is a bill that does focus on quality of life for our troops because both Senator Feinstein and I believe it is very important at a time like this, when we are asking so much from our troops, that we do right by them. This bill provides $9.196 billion for military construction, military family housing, and base realignment and closure costs.

This bill is $79 million above the President's budget request, but $1.5 billion below the amount appropriated last year. The budget constraints under which we all are laboring this year did force us to make difficult choices about our spending priorities, but I believe we have crafted a bill that attends both to the President's most pressing requirements and the concerns of Senators.

The bill provides $4.6 billion for military construction, $3.95 billion for military family housing, and $370 million for base realignment and closure.

Our military forces have been severely strained by the extraordinary burdens they have been asked to shoulder in the last several years. They have undertaken nearly 2 years of continuous combat operations in harsh conditions, endured long deployments and reserve activations. They have had to deal with severe disruptions to family life resulting from lengthy separations.

We have asked much of our service personnel and their families; and, for that reason, we have paid special attention in this bill to military construction projects that promote our troops' quality of life.

For example, the bill provides $1.1 billion for 40 new, modern barracks projects; $166 million for the design and construction of new hospital and medical facilities; and $16 million for child development centers to serve our military families.

The intense demands of the past few years have extended well beyond our Active-Duty forces, and no component has borne a heavier burden in that time than our Guard and Reserve Forces who have met the call to duty with a high degree of professionalism.

Unfortunately, military construction for the Guard and Reserve continues to be severely underfunded. The administration's fiscal year budget request for Reserve components was $370 million, a little more than half of what was appropriated last year. This is just inadequate for the task we are asking these components to perform. As a result, this bill increases funding for the Guard and Reserve by 87 percent to $691 million.

This bill differs from the administration's request in only one significant way, and that is in the area of military construction overseas. The budget request included over $1 billion for military construction at U.S. installations outside the United States, much of it destined for facilities constructed for the cold war. For several years, Congress has expressed its concern that our overseas basing structure has not been updated to reflect the realities of the post- cold-war world. Our Nation is dealing with new threats, new strategies, new force structure, new deployment concepts, and new geopolitical realities. Yet a basing structure designed for the cold war endures.

We have questioned the wisdom of continuing to expend taxpayer dollars on overseas facilities that may not be appropriate to the Nation's future military needs. The Defense Department continues to study this issue and has under way an overseas basing and presence study that will lead to, among

other things, recommendations for a major overhaul of the U.S. overseas basing structure. That study is not yet complete. But in testimony before the Military Construction Subcommittee in April, two of the combatant commanders, General James Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, commander of U.S. European Command, and General Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, presented their visions for military basing in their respective areas of responsibility. General Jones described a concept for Europe that features fewer large bases, several smaller, more austere bases in forward locations, and greater use of rotational forces in and out of these facilities rather than permanent stationing of large forces with the attendant support infrastructure.

General LaPorte described a vision for Korea in which U.S. forces are consolidated at a greatly reduced number of facilities located further south on the Korean peninsula than at present.

We have been impressed by the combatant commanders' boldness and creativity in reassessing basing needs, and we believe their respective visions hold great promise for a more efficient and effective basing structure that will enhance the ability of the United States to meet new threats.

When fully developed, this vision will provide a sound basis on which Congress and the administration will be able to determine the future of our overseas basing structure. However, at this point the vision has not yet been developed into a comprehensive plan on which decisions to pursue new construction initiatives can prudently be based.

The overseas basing and presence study involves far more than military facilities. According to public statements of Defense Department officials, it will result in a dramatic change in the disposition of U.S. forces abroad, including where they are based, how they operate, how they move to and from their theaters of operation, and even the number of forces deployed in specific theaters.

In various press accounts, administration officials have acknowledged considering new bases in Australia; Navy ships ported in Vietnam; increased U.S. presence in Malaysia and Singapore; bases in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, as well as Senegal, Ghana, Mali, and Kenya; bases on territory of the former Soviet Union; a rotational model for deploying forces overseas; significant reductions to force levels in Germany; a major relocation and possible reformation of forces in the Republic of Korea. Summarizing the extent of the changes under consideration, the Under Secretary of Defense for policy, Douglas Feith, stated:

Everything is going to move everywhere.

If the sweeping changes under consideration are to be implemented, they will require extensive diplomatic efforts both in the nations in which the United States seeks a new presence and in those where it will reduce or reshape its presence. Because a comprehensive plan is not yet developed, we are unwilling to recommend undertaking extensive new military construction projects that would begin the implementation of a plan without a thorough and deliberate review by Congress. We have been particularly concerned about proposed projects in Europe and Korea.

For example, the budget request includes a number of projects in areas in Germany that, according to public statements of the Army and other Department of Defense officials, are likely to see significant force level reductions.

In a June 23 letter updating the status of planning Europe, General Jones said:

We have made considerable progress in determining the

installations required to support theater goals and the force

structure needed to implement our strategy. It is an arduous

process but a necessary one. While I realize fully the

importance of our progress on these matters, the timeliness,

and the effect these decisions will ultimately have on our

fiscal year 2004 military construction projects, I must tell

you candidly that we have not reached the end point of this

process. The changes we are proposing represent the most

significant undertaking to realign forces and basis in

theater in the past 50 years. The decisions made in the

coming weeks will have broad and far-reaching implications;

therefore, it is imperative that we get it right.

General Jones is absolutely right. I appreciate his candor. His statements underscore our concern that we are not yet ready to begin implementing the restructuring of our overseas bases in Europe. We have similar concerns about proceeding too fast in Korea.

In the budget amendment received May 1, the administration proposed moving some $213 million in military construction projects to a single base, Camp Humphreys. However, nearly half of that construction is to occur on land that the United States does not yet control. Although the Korean National Defense Minister has pledged to try to buy the land for our use, he is far from clear that this can occur for these projects to be fully executed in fiscal year 2004. According to a July 7 article in the Korea Times, there is fierce local opposition to the expansion of U.S. presence at Camp Humphreys.

The budget amendment also asked to move a $40 million barracks project from an airfield to Camp Humphreys, but then that was reversed.

There are other examples, but I think this is making it clear that we don't really have a fully thought out and reviewed plan from which we can base the needs in Korea. Evaluated against a backdrop of uncertainty about fundamental aspects of a revised overseas basing structure which the department has not yet proposed, the Defense Department's overseas basing and presence plan is not yet sufficiently mature to enable the Senate to commit to extensive new construction. The failure to fund these projects at this time does not indicate dissatisfaction with the general direction in which the Department is headed. We support the direction. But we do believe that Congress should know the extent of the restructuring and the price tag before we determine our Nation's priorities. It would be premature to begin new construction at this time in these areas. We look forward to receiving and evaluating the Department's full recommendations once they become available and taking the time to consider these changes.

Reflecting our continuing concern about this issue, our bill includes a provision establishing an independent commission to thoroughly study the structure of our overseas military facilities and advise Congress on its conclusions. This commission, proposed by Senator Feinstein and myself, would provide Congress with an independent view of the Nation's overseas basing requirements to help inform our decisions about the restructuring of our facilities.

The report accompanying this bill also directs the Defense Department to submit several reports that will aid Congress in its oversight role, including a report on the feasibility of privatization and the use of commercial building practices in barracks construction, a study of the impact of privatized housing on local school districts, and a report on the Department's activities related to perchlorate, a chemical used in solid rocket propellant that has been found in drinking water supplies in 29 States. Senator Feinstein has more to say on perchlorate, but I want to say, this is a concern of mine as well.

While a national standard for perchlorate levels has not yet been established, it is important that the Department of Defense be prepared to deal with this containment at defense installations once a standard is agreed upon.

All of the projects added to the bill have been carefully vetted by the military services. All are top priority for installation commanders, and all are included in the services' future years defense plan.

Madam President, the bill before the Senate is a bipartisan product that was approved by the Appropriations Committee on a vote of 29 to 0. I am pleased to offer it for the Senate's consideration.

Madam President, I thank the kinder and gentler Senator from Arizona. I am very pleased that he looked at our bill and found that we did meet the criteria because that is exactly what we intended to do.

The kennel is for dogs at an Air Force base. The dogs are security dogs, and they do need a place to stay.

At Elmendorf Air Force Base. I think the Senator knows that is in Alaska. Dogs in Alaska need a place to stay, too. Maybe it is cold up there and they need shelter. I think it is certainly legitimate.

With that, we did work hard to make the priorities that we thought were right for our military personnel. No one deserves better treatment right now than the military personnel of our country. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his continuing interest in assuring that our military personnel have a quality of life. That has been his hallmark here.

I thank, once again, the chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye, the ranking member, Senator Byrd, Senator Feinstein, my ranking member, and our respective staffs. I am very proud of the work we did on the bill, and I do hope our military personnel do see better health care facilities, better barracks, better living quarters, and from this legislation I think they will.

Madam President, to clarify the record, and before the Senator from Arizona turns into the ``Incredible Hulk,'' there was no managers' amendment.

Madam President, before we move off this bill, I so appreciate the chairman's remarks. We could not have done it without our excellent staff work. On the majority staff, Dennis Ward has done an incredible job of research. He is the most thorough person we could have on the committee. I appreciate him very much.

Also, Christina Evans and B.G. Wright on Senator Feinstein's staff, without their working relationship being so good, we could not have done so well. I wanted to add that to the record before we moved away from the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 minutes on the nomination of Susan Braden before the vote.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination and confirmation of someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, Susan Braden, to be a Judge for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. I cannot think of a better person for this court. She is currently counsel at Baker & McKenzie. She earned her bachelor degree in 1970 and her law degree in 1973 from Case Western Reserve University. She has worked as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice. She has served as a senior attorney at the Federal Trade Commission. For the past 18 years, she has had a distinguished career in the private sector, specializing in Federal litigation, antitrust, international trade practices, and intellectual property.

Her work on international trade gave her the opportunity to accompany a delegation led by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer on an official visit to several European courts in 1998.

She is very qualified, and I wish to say on a personal note that she and her husband, Tom Sussman, have been friends of mine for a long time. I went to law school with Tom Sussman. I have a great deal of respect for both Tom and Susan, and I urge my colleagues to support this qualified nominee. She will be a wonderful public servant.

Madam President, I urge approval of the three nominees.

Mr. President, I would just like to say that we have help for our teaching hospitals in the managers' amendment. It is not much. But I am working with all of the managers, the ranking member as well as the chairman, to try to increase funding for teaching hospitals.

I want to point out our teaching hospitals must have the support that is in this bill at a higher percentage if we are going to keep the young physicians trained and if our country will keep the greatest health care system in the world.

I thank the managers for helping me put that in the managers' amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1004, which is at the desk, be called up.

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

Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senators Kennedy, Talent, Biden, Kerry, Murray, Reed, Specter, Bond, Clinton, Feinstein, and Durbin to offer an amendment for America's teaching hospitals.

The teaching hospitals in our country perform a vital role in training the doctors and nurses who conduct medical research and provide care to the needy. But the foundation of this essential public service is beginning to crack under the strain of Medicare reductions and a range of other financial pressures.

As my colleagues are aware, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 made cuts to indirect medical education, called IME, which is an add-on for Medicare reimbursements to teaching hospitals. The add-on was reduced from 7.7 percent in 1997 to 6.5 percent in 1999. Further reductions were scheduled beginning in 2000, but those cuts were delayed until last October, and now the reimbursement rate has been dropped from 6.5 percent to 5.5 percent. That 1 percentage point means our Nation's teaching hospitals will lose almost $800 million this year, $4.2 billion over the next 5 years.

My amendment restores the reimbursement rate to 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2009. By putting this off until fiscal year 2009, of course, we are avoiding any Budget Act point of order.

There are 1,100 teaching hospitals in our country where Americans receive world-class care. Every State has at least one, so every Senator will have affected constituents. Teaching hospitals train nearly 100,000 doctors every year, and chances are, Mr. President, your physician and mine were trained at teaching hospitals.

In 1983, the Federal Government recognized that teaching hospitals cost more than their nonteaching counterparts because they incur costs to train our health care providers of the future. They provide clinical research in new procedures, technology, and treatments. Perhaps most importantly, they ensure a steady stream of high-quality physicians who are equipped to meet the health care challenges of the 21st century. They are also a major provider of indigent care in the United States. But education and training costs extra money.

The Government added the IME payment to encourage teaching hospitals to invest in our future, but, unfortunately, we have chipped away from 11.6 percent in 1983 to today's rate of 5.5 percent, which is a factor based on a hospital's resident-to-bed ratio included in Medicare reimbursement. We cannot continue to decimate funding at these hospitals that educate our medical students and expect quality medical care in the 21st century.

Teaching hospitals in Texas have lost $26.8 million in reimbursements in 2003 alone. Our State is not the hardest hit. New York lost $141 million; Pennsylvania, $78 million; and Michigan, $50 million.

One example in my State exemplifies what is happening in every teaching hospital in our country. Methodist Hospital in Houston trains more than 200 residents a year and works closely with Baylor College of Medicine to effectively train physicians in radiology, cardiology, and neurology with the newest technology. Methodist purchased an MRI machine for $4.5 million. That MRI will not only provide preventive medicine to help diagnose illnesses sooner, it also teaches the next generation of health care professionals what they cannot learn in the classroom.

This week, as we debate Medicare reform, it is imperative to reaffirm our commitment to America's teaching hospitals as these hospitals are in financial distress. If we do not restore funding, not only will they suffer, so will our health care system, particularly patient care.

I ask for the support for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays. I will ask for unanimous consent to stack the next two votes, but I also ask unanimous consent the vote on my amendment be in the next series of votes.

I was going to offer that unanimous consent.

I was going to ask unanimous consent for the Pryor amendment and the Boxer amendment and then ask my amendment be in the next series of votes.

No, I have not.

I ask unanimous consent following the vote this afternoon in relation to the Dodd amendment No. 969, the Senate vote consecutively in relation to the following amendments: Pryor amendment 981, Boxer amendment 1001; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided between each of the votes with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote.

And I ask the Democratic leader work with me to be in the next series of votes.

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

Mr. President, I have heard the Senator from Michigan describe her amendment. I have to say I would be concerned about a Government-run prescription drug benefit because of what it would do to our free enterprise system and our capability to have competition which I think is very important. I think the underlying bill provides the competitiveness that will be so important for a balanced system, and it is also one that will give seniors the best prices and the best choices.

I would like to make a statement in general about the bill we have before us. I have to say that we have been talking about reform of Medicare for years--maybe for the 10 years I have been here. But today we are now talking about a real bill and maybe a real chance to reform this very important program.

I think it is clear that any time there is reform we must include a prescription drug component. We must have a choice which is similar to that in the private sector, and we must admit that Medicare has not kept pace with the rapid changes in our health care system.

As our research community pushes the envelope and develops lifesaving medicines and procedures, our Nation's health care system must take that innovation into account or it will not be the greatest health care system in the world.

Pharmaceuticals have revolutionized medical care. Increasingly, ailments are treated with medication as opposed to invasive surgeries. It is imperative that those who rely on Medicare have access to affordable prescription drugs.

When Medicare won't pay for medicine to treat diabetes but will pay for the amputation of a limb caused by complications of diabetes, I think we can admit that we have a problem.

A prescription drug benefit alone is not the answer. True reform must provide our Nation's seniors the freedom to choose physicians and benefits based on their individual needs. If a beneficiary is satisfied with existing coverage, the beneficiary should have the option to stay put. But if she chooses to enroll in a private insurance PPO or HMO, she should be allowed that choice. This choice is incorporated in the underlying bill.

Also, I have an amendment, cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Specter, and Talent, to restore cuts in Medicare reimbursement to teaching hospitals. Texas hospitals are facing the loss of $26 million in 2003 due to Medicare reimbursement cuts. Nationwide, teaching hospitals will lose $794 million this year and $4.2 billion over the next 5 years. Every State will be similarly affected.

Teaching hospitals are experiencing a terrible financial crisis. My amendment restores the fiscal year 2002 level of reimbursement for indirect medical education--they are called IME payments--to teaching hospitals. This allowance has been cut incrementally since the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 from 7.7 percent to 5.5 percent in fiscal year 2003.

Teaching hospitals have higher costs due to their critical role in educating tomorrow's physicians. They run more tests, they have newer technology, and they require more staff because they are training our future health professionals. The additional payment is vital to continuing this training. A disproportionate percentage of the most seriously ill and injured patients recover and convalesce in teaching hospitals. These hospitals have 78 percent of all trauma centers and 92 percent of all burn beds.

Although only 21 percent of all hospitals are teaching hospitals, they deliver over two-thirds of charity care. They conduct groundbreaking research. The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston--as one example in my State--will lose $1.9 million in these payments this year if the amendment is not adopted. UTMB leads research on anthrax, smallpox, and plague. We cannot afford to have teaching hospitals cut back on research that benefits every individual.

In the budget we passed earlier this year, $400 billion was set aside for Medicare reform. It is our responsibility to use that $400 billion wisely and to bring this incredible program into the 21st century so that America's seniors will have the medical coverage they need and deserve.

I think the bill before us needs work. We all agree that it is not a perfect bill and we want to make it better. We want to make sure it does two basic things: that it increases the quality of health care for our seniors, and, secondly, that it does so at a reasonable price for our future generations. We do not want another huge commitment that is going to turn into an entitlement that is unbearable in the future. But when Medicare will cover the cost of a hospital stay for 5 days for the amputation of a limb but it will not allow you to pay for the medicine that will keep you from having to amputate that limb, something is wrong in the system, and we must fix it. This time we can do it.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I also thank the Senator from South Carolina for making sure that we have an FAA reauthorization bill on the floor in a timely manner.

There has been so much impact on the aviation industry over the last 2 years that I think we have had to refocus our efforts from capacity issues which we were trying to address before 9/11 to now security issues. Certainly, the parts of the bill that deal with capacity are still here. I think it is warranted that we look ahead. The aviation industry is going to come back, and we need to make sure we have the expedited environmental procedures for building new runways and help communities be able to meet the needs of increased demand when that occurs. If we can do that before a crisis, it will help us allow airports to grow in an environmentally positive way. In a way, that can be handled by the community effectively.

I think this bill is a good bill. I have worked on it as the former chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and now as a member of the Aviation Subcommittee. I think it is very important that we look at the major issues of security.

I commend the committee for keeping the Security Trust Fund, which I think is so important. People pay a ticket tax for security. I want to make sure this ticket tax goes for security purposes. That is what this bill does. If we start having a shoestring for the Transportation Security Agency, they are going to start cutting corners, and we are not going to have an airtight system that a number of us want to ensure. We have a safer aviation system today than we had on 9/10 in 2001. We want to make sure it stays that way. We should not let our guard down. The kind of enemies there are today are looking for vulnerabilities, and we are not going to allow them to have that.

I think that is why this reauthorization discusses and handles the security issues, the capacity issues, and the issues of air traffic control and safety all in a way that I think is quite positive.

I appreciate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member working to get this bill out. It came out of our Commerce Committee, and I look forward to supporting it.

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

Mr. President, I stand today in support of S. 1182, introduced by Senator McConnell that I am cosponsoring. This bill answers the rising concern that democracy cannot begin to take its first promising steps in Burma. The news in the last few days clearly indicates that democracy in Burma is in serious trouble again.

On Friday, May 30, in its latest crackdown against the National League of Democracy, Burma's military regime detained Aung San Suu Kyi, a popular prodemocracy activist,

and other leaders of her political party. There are reports that her car had been hit by gunfire, and conflicting reports whether she had been hurt.

The clash came in a town 400 miles north of the capital city of Rangoon. She was transported to Rangoon where she remains under house arrest. It took nearly 2 weeks of constant international pressure on Burma's military regime for a United Nation's envoy to visit her yesterday. The envoy reported she is in good spirits and had not been hurt in the clash that resulted in her detention, but Burmese officials still refuse to give a timetable for her release.

When Aung San Suu Kyi was detained, the Burmese Government closed the offices of the National League of Democracy and arrested some of its provincial leaders. They also closed all university and college campuses. The Burmese military government is acting with renegade abandon.

The detention of Aung San Suu Kyi follows a clear pattern by the ruling military over the past decade to prevent her and her political party from assuming power, despite the democratic election they won by a landslide in 1990. Barely a year ago, the Burmese Government released her from 19 months of house arrest, but only after intense international pressure.

Aung San Suu Kyi captured the world's attention as a leader in the prodemocracy movement in her country after her Government refused to let her party take office. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her nonviolent efforts to promote democracy. Today, the military rule in Burma has shackled Aung Sun Suu Kyi again, but the world has not lost notice.

It is time to isolate this oppressive regime and demand the release of those it is holding for doing nothing more than seeking democracy for their nation.

Senator McConnell's bill will sanction the ruling Burmese military junta, strengthen Burma's democratic forces, and support and recognize the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people. It is time to increase the pressure on those who seek to snuff out the flame of democracy in a nation whose people clearly support it.

Mr. President, I am certainly going to support this bill and this vehicle. But I did hold it up for a few hours because I am concerned that we are not able to put marriage penalty relief in a permanent position on this bill. However, I have an agreement with the majority leader that he will bring it up this year. Working with the distinguished chairman of the committee, and hopefully with the ranking member, we must fix the marriage penalty.

What we have today is a situation in which we relieve the marriage penalty for 2 years, then for 4 years it comes back, then 2 years later it goes away, and then it comes back for good. This is outrageous. Our married couples do not need a rubber band; they need a Band-Aid. They need to be able to know that when they get married, it is not going to cost them $1,200 a year.

Two Navy lieutenants will lose more than $1,500 a year if the marriage penalty goes away in 2 years; two Army warrant officers will lose $852 a year. This is not right. I have the commitment from leadership that we will take up a bill this year that fixes this inequity, and I hope there will be a bipartisan effort. We cannot let people be unsure about their marriage penalty relief.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and ask him if he will work with me to ensure that we take this up this year so we can get on and fix the child tax credit. Next on the agenda I hope will be marriage penalty relief.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate it very much. We will have marriage penalty relief permanent this year. And we will have child tax credit relief permanent, I hope, in the very near future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti- family aspects of the tax code--the marriage penalty. Relieving American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities as a U.S. Senator.

Last week President Bush signed into law a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. The bill provides immediate marriage penalty relief by enlarging the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly to twice that as for single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of $589 this year alone.

Enacting marriage penalty relief is a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. The Jobs and Growth Act was just signed, but even as the ink dries a tax increase on married couples looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by artificial limitations to $350 billion, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for two years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans. Similar restrictions were placed on the 2001 tax cut, so, while relief will be phased in by 2009, it will disappear for good in 2011 unless we act decisively.

Millions of couples across America will be penalized once more by our tax code simply because they are married. Without marriage penalty relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay the government an average $1,400 more in taxes.

Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

Without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle, and the benefits of marriage are well established. 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.

The bill I am offering would make the marriage penalty relief in the Jobs and Growth Act permanent. It also will accelerate changes to the earned income tax credit that were passed in the 2001 tax reform bill. This will reduce the marriage penalty on lower income couples.

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 finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to providing permanent marriage penalty relief today.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti- family aspects of the tax code--the marriage penalty. Relieving American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities as a U.S. Senator.

Last week President Bush signed into law a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. The bill provides immediate marriage penalty relief by enlarging the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly to twice that as for single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of $589 this year alone.

Enacting marriage penalty relief is a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. The Jobs and Growth Act was just signed, but even as the ink dries a tax increase on married couples looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by artificial limitations to $350 billion, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for two years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans. Similar restrictions were placed on the 2001 tax cut, so, while relief will be phased in by 2009, it will disappear for good in 2011 unless we act decisively.

Millions of couples across America will be penalized once more by our tax code simply because they are married. Without marriage penalty relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay the government an average $1,400 more in taxes.

Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

Without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle, and the benefits of marriage are well established. 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.

The bill I am offering would make the marriage penalty relief in the Jobs and Growth Act permanent. It also will accelerate changes to the earned income tax credit that were passed in the 2001 tax reform bill. This will reduce the marriage penalty on lower income couples.

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 finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to providing permanent marriage penalty relief today.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to improve the deplorable housing situation on the U.S. border with Mexico. In Texas along the 1,248 mile stretch from Cameron County to El Paso County, there are more than 1,400 colonias, or underdeveloped subdivisions, that suffer from such conditions as open sewage, a lack of indoor plumbing, and poor housing construction. These colonias are the most distressed areas in the country, yet despite terrible living conditions, they have grown in population. The legislation I introduce today, along with the Colonias Gateway Initiative Act which I am sponsoring, will go a long way toward eliminating the substandard living conditions that should not exist here in the United States of America.

This legislation will prohibit Federal funding for counties and municipal governments that refuse to enforce reasonable rules to prevent the development or construction of any new colonias that lack water, wastewater, and other basic infrastructure needs. I have inserted and the Senate has passed this exact language into the VA-HUD Appropriations bill every year since fiscal year 2001.

In 1993, I visited with a woman named Elida Bocanegra, who led me through the streets of the colonia where she lived. Elida showed me her community, which lacked paved roads, wastewater facilities and running water. Quite frankly, I could not believe I was in America. After that experience, the first amendment I offered as a U.S. Senator authorized $50 million for a colonias clean-up project. Since my election to the U.S. Senate, I have worked to improve the quality of life and ensure fundamental services are provided for people like Elida, helping to secure more than $615 million for the colonias of my state.

This act will ensure that colonias lacking water and wastewater facilities will be a thing of the past, and the neediest people along our border with Mexico will have the basic necessities to live. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to improve the deplorable housing situation on the U.S. border with Mexico. In Texas along the 1,248 mile stretch from Cameron County to El Paso County, there are more than 1,400 colonias, or underdeveloped subdivisions, that suffer from such conditions as open sewage, a lack of indoor plumbing, and poor housing construction. These colonias are the most distressed areas in the country, yet despite terrible living conditions, they have grown in population. The legislation I introduce today, along with the Colonias Gateway Initiative Act which I am sponsoring, will go a long way toward eliminating the substandard living conditions that should not exist here in the United States of America.

This legislation will prohibit Federal funding for counties and municipal governments that refuse to enforce reasonable rules to prevent the development or construction of any new colonias that lack water, wastewater, and other basic infrastructure needs. I have inserted and the Senate has passed this exact language into the VA-HUD Appropriations bill every year since fiscal year 2001.

In 1993, I visited with a woman named Elida Bocanegra, who led me through the streets of the colonia where she lived. Elida showed me her community, which lacked paved roads, wastewater facilities and running water. Quite frankly, I could not believe I was in America. After that experience, the first amendment I offered as a U.S. Senator authorized $50 million for a colonias clean-up project. Since my election to the U.S. Senate, I have worked to improve the quality of life and ensure fundamental services are provided for people like Elida, helping to secure more than $615 million for the colonias of my state.

This act will ensure that colonias lacking water and wastewater facilities will be a thing of the past, and the neediest people along our border with Mexico will have the basic necessities to live. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for a job well done. This has been difficult. When I hear people talking about the tax bill and saying it is really amazing that we sunset some of these taxes and then bring them back--no one wanted to do that. The reason we have to sunset some of these taxes is that we had to work within an artificial constraint of $350 billion. That is why we have sunsets. What we certainly hope to do is not to sunset these tax cuts, the tax relief for hard-working American families, but instead to allow these to go forward. We will have to pass new legislation to do it.

Even with these modest tax cuts, we are going to spur the economy. People seem to forget that the purpose of this bill is to stimulate the economy. Eighty percent of the benefit of lowering the top rate to 35 percent goes to small businesses, and small businesses are going to reap the benefits. Small business is the job creator of America. It is small business we want to spur to create jobs. We want to put people back to work. The purpose of the legislation is to put people back to work and, in addition, to bring a little equity into the system.

Why in the world would we have a penalty on marriage? Why would a couple in Abilene, TX, who make $65,000 a year pay $1,000 more in taxes just because they got married? We go a long way toward eliminating the marriage penalty tax with this bill, and we are going to do everything we can to keep that in place from now on. There should not be a penalty for marriage. We should treat everyone equally. The marriage penalty bill was mine. It is a part of this legislation. I am going to do everything in my power to keep it forever, doubling the standard deduction and doubling the 15 percent bracket when people get married. That is for the lowest income and moderate-income people.

We are making a giant leap for child tax credits, from $600 to $1,000, because it is our families who are suffering so much today. We are going to do everything in our power to make the child tax credit absolutely permanent.

I want to discuss the State aid package because as we speak this morning, the Texas Legislature is in the last days of its regular session. They meet every other year for 6 months. They are in the last days of that session, and they are grappling with over $500 million. I spoke to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst yesterday. He and the Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, are working diligently to cut the budget, to try to be fair, try not to cut services too much.

Help is on the way. My State of Texas is going to receive more than $1.2 billion in aid over the next 2 years. Under this proposal we are going to pass today, more than $510 million will go for Medicaid help. That is one of the biggest problems my State and many others have. $710 million will go in block grants for essential government services so they will be able to put this money where it is most needed--$510 million for Medicaid, $710 million in block grants. And it is going to be this year and next year. I hope this will resolve the problems of my State, as it

has done as much as it can right now. The legislature is grappling with it. We are going to help my State and every State in America.

We understand the hard times because the Federal Government is feeling it, too. We have increased national defense responsibilities, increased homeland security, and our States have as well. So help is on the way.

I am very pleased to have been part of the group who worked on the State aid package to try to help. I have been reading the Texas papers. I see the problems we face.

The committee did an outstanding job. I commend the House. I commend the President of the United States for his leadership. The President didn't just sit on his laurels after doing a great job in Iraq, a wonderful job protecting the young men and women of our country; he said: We are going to put people back to work. The President deserves credit. The Senate and House deserve credit. We will put people back to work in this country.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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