Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Is there a chance we might get a time agreement on those other two amendments?

Mr. FORD. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley- Braun) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley- Braun) is necessarily absent. The PRESIDNG OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as April draws to a close this week I want to remind my colleagues of Alcohol Awareness Month. I think the tireless efforts of many types of groups have raised our awareness about alcohol consumption. This includes efforts made by federal and state governments, citizen action groups, and the beverage alcohol industry itself. More than ever, Americans deplore the devastation of drunk driving. More than ever, Americans understand the consequences of failing to deal responsibly with alcoholic beverages. Americans also need to understand that alcohol is alcohol. A standard serving of beer, wine, and distilled spirits contain the same amount of alcohol. Some fear that teaching alcohol equivalence would be paramount to promoting alcohol consumption. But I think it can actually have the opposite effect, promoting a rational approach to this topic and encouraging moderation The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation, Agriculture, and Education, as well as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans all define a drink as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, and 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits. And the federal government is not alone is recognizing alcohol equivalence. Many leading organizations involved in this debate do as well. Yet as recently as 1996, one survey found that only 39% of Americans understand that a 12 ounce can of beer, a 5 ounce glass of wine, and a mixed drink with 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits contain the same amount of alcohol. We owe it to Americans to do a better job of disseminating this information and providing basic facts on this topic. In recognition of Alcohol Awareness Month, it is the very least we can do.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on May 2-4, while their friends are celebrating the 124th running of the Kentucky Derby, some students from my home state will be answering questions about the Constitution, here in Washington, in a mock Congressional hearing. These students will be competing in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Louisville Male High School will represent Kentucky. These young people have worked long and hard to reach the national finals, winning local competitions to get here. I would like to recognize these students for their achievements. The members of this class representing Kentucky are Angela Adams, Perry Bacon, Katherine Breeding, Will Carle, Eric Coatley, Courtney Coffee, Brian Davis, Mary Fleming, Matt Gilbert, Amanda Holloway, Holly Jessie, Heath Lambert, Gwen Malone, Kristy Martin, Brian Palmer, Lauren Reynolds, Shane Skoner, LaVonda Willis, Bryan Wilson, Darreisha Wilson, Beth Wilson, Janelle Winfree, Treva Winlock, and Jodie Zeller. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Mrs. Sandy Hoover, who clearly deserves a lot of the credit for the class' success. The district coordinator, Dianne Meredith, and the state coordinators, Deborah Williamson and Jennifer Van Hoose, also contributed their time and effort to help the class reach the national finals. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing. Students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary constitutional issues. The simulated congressional hearing consists of oral presentation by the students before panels of adult judges. The We the People . . . program is run by the Center for Civic Education. The program has provided teaching materials to upper elementary, middle, and high schools for more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students across the nation. Members of Congress and staff also contribute by discussing current constitutional issues with program participants. This special program is designed to help students understand and appreciate the values and principles that unite us as Americans. The program also promotes the notion of citizenship--that the rights and benefits are tempered by the responsibilities of participation in effective government. I wish these young people the best of luck testing their constitutional knowledge in the upcoming national finals of the We the People . . . program. I also congratulate them on reaching this level of competition.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is the time of the year when we are certain to hear more ideas for tax reform. We're certain to hear many colleagues discuss the unfairness of our current tax code. Although taxes in this country remain lower than major competitors like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany, many families feel their tax burden has been increasing. One of the interesting reasons why some individuals feel squeezed is the changing nature of the tax burden over the last few decades. For example, individual income taxes--both as a percentage of all federal taxes paid and as a percentage of gross domestic product--are at roughly the same levels as they were in 1970. Yet during that same time period the so-called social insurance taxes or payroll taxes have risen dramatically, primarily to fund Social Security and Medicare. And the portion of revenues collected from corporate income taxes has fallen by an equally dramatic amount. For example, in 1960, we collected $1.89 in individual income taxes for every $1.00 in corporate income taxes. By 1980 this ratio has risen to $3.78 in individual income taxes for every $1.00 in corporate income taxes. And today we collect $4.02 in individual income taxes for every $1.00 in corporate income taxes. It is no wonder individuals feel squeezed. As we begin to debate several tax reform proposals this year, perhaps none will receive as much attention as the so-called marriage penalty. The marriage penalty refers to the aspect of the tax code, which results in many married couples paying more in taxes than they would if both spouses remained single. Yet few will discuss--and I found this to be very interesting--that 51 percent of married couples actually receive a marriage ``bonus'', meaning they pay less in federal taxes as a result of being married. Let me repeat that. Fifty-one percent of married couples--a majority of married couples--pay less in federal taxes than they would if both spouses remained single. Last June CBO found that 51 percent of married couples receive a marriage bonus averaging $1,300 per couple. If they were required to file as single individuals, federal revenues would be $32.9 billion greater each year. CBO also found that 42 percent of married couples are subject to a marriage penalty, paying an average of $1,400 more per couple in taxes than if both were single, for a total of $28.8 billion per year in additional revenues. In other words, fully eliminating the marriage penalty costs $28.8 billion per year. However, if both marriage penalties and marriage bonuses were eliminated, there would actually be a net increase in federal revenues of $4.1 billion per year. Forty-two percent of married couples would receive a tax cut, but 51 percent of married couples would receive a tax increase. There is no way to make a statement about income tax exciting. There is nothing you can talk about that brings you out on the edge of your seat. I am not going to try to do that. So I am going to put into the Record several examples of how couples, both making $20,000 a year and filing jointly or filing single, and then one breadwinner making $200,000 while his spouse stays home and cares for the children--how much less they would pay than the married couple making $40,000. I think you can already see the trend is to try to take care of that lower income and not increase the bonus, as S. 1285 does. CBO found numerous causes for these differentials in tax treatment. However, two major factors explain most of the reason why married couples are treated differently: (1) the standard deduction, and (2) the tax rate schedules. In each case, the cutoff for married couples is about two-thirds higher than for single individuals. For example, in 1998, the standard deduction is $4,250 for singles and $7,100 for married joint filers--about 67% higher, but applying to two people instead of one. This has significant implications for married couples who do not itemize their deductions. For a couple where one spouse earns all the income, this means a deduction of $2,850 more than if both spouses were single, giving them a marriage bonus. However, for a couple where both spouses have significant income, the result is a deduction of $1,400 less than if both were single. Similar results occur when comparing tax rates. In 1998 the 15% bracket extends to incomes of $25,350 for singles, and $42,350 for married joint filers--about 67% higher. Most one-income couples receive a marriage bonus because an additional $17,000 is taxed at the lower 15% level. However, many dual-income married couples will find that less of their income is taxed at the 15% level. So it is far more complex than some have been led to believe. For instance, many married couples currently receiving a marriage bonus have the impression that all married couples are penalized. Many married couples are unaware that there is such a thing as a marriage bonus. But remember--51 percent of all married couples currently receive a marriage ``bonus'' and pay an average of $1,300 LESS in taxes than if they were single, according to CBO. They tried to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty. But they increased the marriage bonus we now have for over 50 percent of our filers. Therefore, I think that is a little bit unfair for a $200,000-a-year filer to receive an additional tax cut where we are just trying to make it even for those who make $40,000 or less. I believe we should consider taking reasonable steps to address the marriage penalty. However, I strongly disagree with the approach taken in the leading Senate bill proposed on this topic--S. 1285. S. 1285 would allow married couples to file ``combined'' returns where income can be split 50-50, and each spouse taxed at single rates. S. 1285 would add significantly to the complexity of the current Tax Code. Last year we went through all of this. ``We are going to reduce the Tax Code; we are going to make it simpler.'' We only added almost 900 pages to the Tax Code last year. We go out here and beat our chest and say, ``Oh, we have reformed the Tax Code. We have made it simpler, we have given some tax cuts with 900 additional pages.'' No wonder H&R Block and CPAs are doing business. We made it so complicated even the smartest minds do not want to fool with it. S. 1285 would add significantly to the complexity of the current tax code, requiring many couples to calculate their taxes under both the traditional ``married filing jointly'' category and also under the new ``combined'' category. But even more troubling, it goes well beyond what is necessary to address the marriage penalty. The costs of the bill appear astronomical--somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion per year. For many couples who currently face a marriage penalty under S. 1285 their tax burdens would now be even lower than if they were both single. In other words, many couples currently facing a marriage penalty would find that S. 1285 would not only eliminated the penalty but create a new marriage bonus as well. And beyond the impact on the marriage penalty, S. 1285 would have the effect of actually increasing the marriage bonus for many couples who already receive a marriage bonus. Let me provide an example. Consider a young, affluent family of four. Spouse No. 1 makes $200,000 while spouse No. 2 stays at home to raise their two children. They have $30,000 in deductions. According to estimates supplied to me by Citizens for Tax Justice, this family currently receives a marriage ``bonus'' of $3,161, but under S. 1285 the marriage ``bonus'' would grow to $4,807. Mr. President, I understand the marriage penalty, I also understand the appeal of this issue politically. But why in the world would we pass a bill to give a couple making $200,000 the chance to pay $4,807 less in taxes than if they were single, and claim we are doing this in the name of fighting the marriage penalty? It seems that S. 1285 would give very generous tax cuts to wealthy married couples who currently do not face any marriage penalty whatsoever, Why would we do this? I believe there is a much more logical approach. It is a simpler approach. It would significantly reduce the marriage penalty, especially for lower and middle income families. And it would simplify the tax code at the same time. And perhaps most importantly it would not give huge tax windfalls to wealthy couples who already receive a marriage ``bonus'' under current law. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marriage Penalty Reduction Act. My legislation would significantly increase the standard deduction, to $6,000 for singles, $9,000 for heads of households, and $12,000 for married couples. For many lower and middle income married couples who face a marriage penalty, the current standard deduction is the single most important reason. Under my proposal, the standard deduction would no longer have any role in creating a marriage penalty. None. There are several advantages to this approach. By setting the standard deduction for married couples at exactly twice the level of singles, no marriage penalty can occur. Mr. President, 70 percent of all individual tax filers currently take the standard deduction. In other words, only 30 percent itemize their deductions. For married couples who currently take the standard deduction, my proposal will grant them a tax cut of at least $735, significantly reducing any existing marriage penalty. If this $12,000 deduction were in effect in 1998, along with the current personal exemption of $2,700, a family of four would find that their first $22,800 would not be subject to income taxes. Let me give a second example. Couple No. 2 is a young, newlywed couple. Each makes $20,000 per year, for a total of $40,000. They take the standard deduction. Under current law they owe $4,125 in income taxes as a married couple, but would only owe $3,915 in combined income taxes if both remained single. In other words, current law imposes a ``marriage penalty'' of $210 on couple No. 2. Under S. 1285, couple No. 2 would, in fact, be able to eliminate their entire marriage penalty. Their tax bill would be reduced by $210. However, under may proposal, since the standard deduction would also be raised overall, couple No. 2 would see their overall tax bill decline by $765. My proposal would completely eliminate the marriage penalty, and also provide tax relief for this moderate income couple. There are advantages for some of those who currently itemize deductions as well. Of the 30 percent who do itemize, the average amount of deductions is about $16,000. However, for married couples with itemized deductions under $12,000, they will no longer have to go to the trouble of making calculations under the legislation I am proposing today. They can simply take the higher standard deduction. For many, this will greatly simplify the process of doing their taxes. And my proposal will cost significantly less than S. 1285. Most who have looked at the issue of tax relief in 1998 understand that S. 1285 is far more than we can afford. My approach costs far less. I intend to ask the Joint Committee on Taxation for an official estimate of this proposal. If we are to debate a tax package later this year with a significant component devoted to the marriage penalty, it is my hope that the proposal I am introducing today can form the basis for a more logical, more rational approach, to the issue. It is also an approach which costs less and simplifies the tax code at the same time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this straightforward proposal appear in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Ford pertaining to the introduction of S. 1989 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is the time of the year when we are certain to hear more ideas for tax reform. We're certain to hear many colleagues discuss the unfairness of our current tax code. Although taxes in this country remain lower than major competitors like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany, many families feel their tax burden has been increasing. One of the interesting reasons why some individuals feel squeezed is the changing nature of the tax burden over the last few decades. For example, individual income taxes--both as a percentage of all federal taxes paid and as a percentage of gross domestic product--are at roughly the same levels as they were in 1970. Yet during that same time period the so-called social insurance taxes or payroll taxes have risen dramatically, primarily to fund Social Security and Medicare. And the portion of revenues collected from corporate income taxes has fallen by an equally dramatic amount. For example, in 1960, we collected $1.89 in individual income taxes for every $1.00 in corporate income taxes. By 1980 this ratio has risen to $3.78 in individual income taxes for every $1.00 in corporate income taxes. And today we collect $4.02 in individual income taxes for every $1.00 in corporate income taxes. It is no wonder individuals feel squeezed. As we begin to debate several tax reform proposals this year, perhaps none will receive as much attention as the so-called marriage penalty. The marriage penalty refers to the aspect of the tax code, which results in many married couples paying more in taxes than they would if both spouses remained single. Yet few will discuss--and I found this to be very interesting--that 51 percent of married couples actually receive a marriage ``bonus'', meaning they pay less in federal taxes as a result of being married. Let me repeat that. Fifty-one percent of married couples--a majority of married couples--pay less in federal taxes than they would if both spouses remained single. Last June CBO found that 51 percent of married couples receive a marriage bonus averaging $1,300 per couple. If they were required to file as single individuals, federal revenues would be $32.9 billion greater each year. CBO also found that 42 percent of married couples are subject to a marriage penalty, paying an average of $1,400 more per couple in taxes than if both were single, for a total of $28.8 billion per year in additional revenues. In other words, fully eliminating the marriage penalty costs $28.8 billion per year. However, if both marriage penalties and marriage bonuses were eliminated, there would actually be a net increase in federal revenues of $4.1 billion per year. Forty-two percent of married couples would receive a tax cut, but 51 percent of married couples would receive a tax increase. There is no way to make a statement about income tax exciting. There is nothing you can talk about that brings you out on the edge of your seat. I am not going to try to do that. So I am going to put into the Record several examples of how couples, both making $20,000 a year and filing jointly or filing single, and then one breadwinner making $200,000 while his spouse stays home and cares for the children--how much less they would pay than the married couple making $40,000. I think you can already see the trend is to try to take care of that lower income and not increase the bonus, as S. 1285 does. CBO found numerous causes for these differentials in tax treatment. However, two major factors explain most of the reason why married couples are treated differently: (1) the standard deduction, and (2) the tax rate schedules. In each case, the cutoff for married couples is about two-thirds higher than for single individuals. For example, in 1998, the standard deduction is $4,250 for singles and $7,100 for married joint filers--about 67% higher, but applying to two people instead of one. This has significant implications for married couples who do not itemize their deductions. For a couple where one spouse earns all the income, this means a deduction of $2,850 more than if both spouses were single, giving them a marriage bonus. However, for a couple where both spouses have significant income, the result is a deduction of $1,400 less than if both were single. Similar results occur when comparing tax rates. In 1998 the 15% bracket extends to incomes of $25,350 for singles, and $42,350 for married joint filers--about 67% higher. Most one-income couples receive a marriage bonus because an additional $17,000 is taxed at the lower 15% level. However, many dual-income married couples will find that less of their income is taxed at the 15% level. So it is far more complex than some have been led to believe. For instance, many married couples currently receiving a marriage bonus have the impression that all married couples are penalized. Many married couples are unaware that there is such a thing as a marriage bonus. But remember--51 percent of all married couples currently receive a marriage ``bonus'' and pay an average of $1,300 LESS in taxes than if they were single, according to CBO. They tried to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty. But they increased the marriage bonus we now have for over 50 percent of our filers. Therefore, I think that is a little bit unfair for a $200,000-a-year filer to receive an additional tax cut where we are just trying to make it even for those who make $40,000 or less. I believe we should consider taking reasonable steps to address the marriage penalty. However, I strongly disagree with the approach taken in the leading Senate bill proposed on this topic--S. 1285. S. 1285 would allow married couples to file ``combined'' returns where income can be split 50-50, and each spouse taxed at single rates. S. 1285 would add significantly to the complexity of the current Tax Code. Last year we went through all of this. ``We are going to reduce the Tax Code; we are going to make it simpler.'' We only added almost 900 pages to the Tax Code last year. We go out here and beat our chest and say, ``Oh, we have reformed the Tax Code. We have made it simpler, we have given some tax cuts with 900 additional pages.'' No wonder H&R Block and CPAs are doing business. We made it so complicated even the smartest minds do not want to fool with it. S. 1285 would add significantly to the complexity of the current tax code, requiring many couples to calculate their taxes under both the traditional ``married filing jointly'' category and also under the new ``combined'' category. But even more troubling, it goes well beyond what is necessary to address the marriage penalty. The costs of the bill appear astronomical--somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion per year. For many couples who currently face a marriage penalty under S. 1285 their tax burdens would now be even lower than if they were both single. In other words, many couples currently facing a marriage penalty would find that S. 1285 would not only eliminated the penalty but create a new marriage bonus as well. And beyond the impact on the marriage penalty, S. 1285 would have the effect of actually increasing the marriage bonus for many couples who already receive a marriage bonus. Let me provide an example. Consider a young, affluent family of four. Spouse No. 1 makes $200,000 while spouse No. 2 stays at home to raise their two children. They have $30,000 in deductions. According to estimates supplied to me by Citizens for Tax Justice, this family currently receives a marriage ``bonus'' of $3,161, but under S. 1285 the marriage ``bonus'' would grow to $4,807. Mr. President, I understand the marriage penalty, I also understand the appeal of this issue politically. But why in the world would we pass a bill to give a couple making $200,000 the chance to pay $4,807 less in taxes than if they were single, and claim we are doing this in the name of fighting the marriage penalty? It seems that S. 1285 would give very generous tax cuts to wealthy married couples who currently do not face any marriage penalty whatsoever, Why would we do this? I believe there is a much more logical approach. It is a simpler approach. It would significantly reduce the marriage penalty, especially for lower and middle income families. And it would simplify the tax code at the same time. And perhaps most importantly it would not give huge tax windfalls to wealthy couples who already receive a marriage ``bonus'' under current law. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marriage Penalty Reduction Act. My legislation would significantly increase the standard deduction, to $6,000 for singles, $9,000 for heads of households, and $12,000 for married couples. For many lower and middle income married couples who face a marriage penalty, the current standard deduction is the single most important reason. Under my proposal, the standard deduction would no longer have any role in creating a marriage penalty. None. There are several advantages to this approach. By setting the standard deduction for married couples at exactly twice the level of singles, no marriage penalty can occur. Mr. President, 70 percent of all individual tax filers currently take the standard deduction. In other words, only 30 percent itemize their deductions. For married couples who currently take the standard deduction, my proposal will grant them a tax cut of at least $735, significantly reducing any existing marriage penalty. If this $12,000 deduction were in effect in 1998, along with the current personal exemption of $2,700, a family of four would find that their first $22,800 would not be subject to income taxes. Let me give a second example. Couple No. 2 is a young, newlywed couple. Each makes $20,000 per year, for a total of $40,000. They take the standard deduction. Under current law they owe $4,125 in income taxes as a married couple, but would only owe $3,915 in combined income taxes if both remained single. In other words, current law imposes a ``marriage penalty'' of $210 on couple No. 2. Under S. 1285, couple No. 2 would, in fact, be able to eliminate their entire marriage penalty. Their tax bill would be reduced by $210. However, under may proposal, since the standard deduction would also be raised overall, couple No. 2 would see their overall tax bill decline by $765. My proposal would completely eliminate the marriage penalty, and also provide tax relief for this moderate income couple. There are advantages for some of those who currently itemize deductions as well. Of the 30 percent who do itemize, the average amount of deductions is about $16,000. However, for married couples with itemized deductions under $12,000, they will no longer have to go to the trouble of making calculations under the legislation I am proposing today. They can simply take the higher standard deduction. For many, this will greatly simplify the process of doing their taxes. And my proposal will cost significantly less than S. 1285. Most who have looked at the issue of tax relief in 1998 understand that S. 1285 is far more than we can afford. My approach costs far less. I intend to ask the Joint Committee on Taxation for an official estimate of this proposal. If we are to debate a tax package later this year with a significant component devoted to the marriage penalty, it is my hope that the proposal I am introducing today can form the basis for a more logical, more rational approach, to the issue. It is also an approach which costs less and simplifies the tax code at the same time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this straightforward proposal appear in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2308

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order? It is getting a little out of hand here. The Senator from New Mexico deserves to be heard, the same as those on the other side.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How many votes are we having?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. What about debate on that amendment, Mr. President?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the balance of time in opposition to the Coats amendment. I understand the change is offset. Most people are happy with it. Therefore, there is no opposition at the moment. I am sure some will vote against it, but I yield whatever time this side might have. It is my understanding that we now go to Senator Feingold for a statement as if in morning business. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on the 15 minutes on this side.

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

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator from Indiana withhold for just a moment? We have now allowed several minutes to introduce a bill. Then we are going back to an amendment that should be on this bill. Then we have others here who would like to speak for up to 30 or 35 minutes. I think we are going to have to have some sort of an agreement on how it is going to work. Is this the only debate for amendments?

Mr. FORD. Are they here?

Mr. FORD. With the understanding that it is approximately 35 minutes.

Mr. FORD. Just so there is no misunderstanding, we are all on the same wavelength.

Mr. FORD. I am certain there will be opposition. Mr. President, I am here to try to help facilitate this. I don't know who will be here. I am under the impression we will have somebody who will oppose it. But as of now it is like on the other side. The other two Members are not here to oppose it either, I don't imagine. We have 30 minutes to work it out. I suggest that since the Senator from Indiana only has 2 minutes left, we will wait to see if we can find somebody to use up our 15, and the Senator could have 2 minutes tomorrow.

Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman and the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Air Service Restoration Act. Over the last several months, there has been a growing debate about the airline industry, competition, slots and service. This Act seeks to reshape this debate by focusing on problems that small communities have with a deregulated aviation system. Deregulation has provided many benefits to many communities. But, as the General Accounting Office has noted, there are many small communities which have been left behind. Some of these communities, these ``pockets of pain'' as noted by the GAO, would like nothing better than for the Congress to re-regulate the industry. However, Mr. President, I do not believe that is the answer-- and that is not what this bill seeks to do. Rather, our legislation proposes to facilitate public-private actions which focus on developing market opportunities for small communities. In this way, communities can develop air service that fits the needs and desires of the community; rather than Washington regulating service. This bill is not about competition, but rather the lack of service. As the General Accounting Office noted, since deregulation, communities have seen a decline in the types of service and quality of service. That decline can be attributed to a variety of factors: airports nearby with better, or cheaper, service, the loss of a major employer in the community, or a lack of information about what it takes to create a market. But, there are ways to reverse these trends. Let me give you an example. One town in Virginia had about 18,000 enplanements annually, but gradually declined to under 10,000. The airport set out very aggressively to find out what happened, and why. Ultimately, the enplanements went back up, and service is now increasing. Unfortunately, Mr. President, not all our communities have the resources to aggressively pursue or create market needs. The Federal government must play a role in helping our small communities. It can not stand by as communities lose service, or get cut off from the national air transportation system. Travel, tourism and businesses are too dependent on the system, and each of our small communities must be a part of the system. This legislation brings together the Federal government, local government, airports, air carriers and the business communities in partnership to develop ways to increase the use of our nation's small airports. Without these services, small communities can not attract new jobs. It is that simple. We have too much invested in our small towns to let them simply lose their access to the national air transportation system. In Owensboro, Kentucky, our airport, in conjunction with community business leaders, is developing an air park: attracting businesses, and creating jobs. That type of activity should be encouraged. There are a number of carriers that will not like some of the provisions in the bill--for example, the bill gives DOT the authority to require joint fares and interlining. These provisions may be necessary to make sure that a small community has the ability to connect with major hubs. Such authority would only be required in limited circumstances. Mr. President, we need to begin to look at solutions to the problems faced by our small communities--and the need for these communities to have access to our national aviation transportation system. The economic survival of these communities in a global marketplace depends on the ability to connect to the marketplace. It is my hope and belief that this legislation re-focuses the debate on this issue--connecting America's small communities to the greatest, most efficient, and safest air transportation system in the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.