Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Zell Miller be added as an original cosponsor on the bill on which we are about to vote.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yesterday's decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow v. U.S. Congress was, in a word, outrageous. It is inexplicable that this man so seriously objected to his daughter having to listen and watch others recite the pledge at their school. Keep in mind, in this country no one can be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It is simply a matter of respect. It is appalling that this court took the time and judicial resources to resuscitate this case which the district court had already dismissed for failing to state a claim. This complaint was a mess. The plaintiff, Dr. Newdow, who represented himself, asked a Federal court to order the President to change a law. The court took great pains to find a claim in Mr. Newdow's complaint and then to rule in his favor. He did this at a time when Federal judicial resources are very strained. The Nation is trying to function in the speedy manner required by the sixth amendment, with 89 judicial vacancies, a staggering number, representing 10 percent of the Federal judiciary. According to the Judicial Conference, in the past three decades, a U.S. Courts of Appeals judges' average caseload increased by nearly 200 percent. In light of these strained resources, it is appalling to me that the court took time to resuscitate this very flawed case. The Pledge of Allegiance plays a very important part in the citizenship experience of every American. It is part of the patriotic thread that weaves us all together in times of crisis and times of celebration. If the ninth circuit's interpretation of the establishment clause stands, many national ceremonies and celebrations will be negatively impacted. Singing of songs with references to God on government property will be prohibited. For example, songs such as ``Star Spangled Banner,'' ``God Bless America,'' and ``America the Beautiful,'' which Americans sing every Fourth of July on the steps of this building. But such references are not just important in ties of celebration. On September 11 we stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang ``God Bless America.'' Countless Americans uttered the phrase ``God Bless America'' and prayed together in public spaces. This ruling could prohibit that. Judge Ferdinand Fernandez wisely dissented from this decision. His words have been quoted before. He said it beautifully. Such phrases as ``In God we trust'' or ``under God'' have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise or nonexercise of religion. He went on, in eloquent terms, and defends his dissent. I believe this ruling will be soundly rejected. I was so pleased that yesterday the majority leader and the minority leader moved the Senate very quickly in expressing its disapproval immediately following the ruling yesterday. The Ninth Circuit is not unfamiliar with going out on a limb, and the Supreme Court is not unfamiliar with striking it down. This circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country. There is certainly nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and using an original interpretation on novel issues of law, but this court repeatedly makes rulings which countervail standing precedent. Instead of administering justice, it seems some judges in the ninth circuit are far more interested in making social policy statements. It is not what the Constitution asks them to do and it is not what the American people pay them for. The first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law establishing a religion. Coming as they did from a land with an established religion where those of other faiths were not well tolerated, they set the highest value on freedom of religion. But they were not advocating freedom from religion. By passing this legislation today the Senate will make clear that we understand the Founders' intention. We will reiterate our support for the Pledge of Allegiance as codified and our national motto, ``In God we trust.'' Finally, I commend the Judiciary Committee today in voting out the nomination of Lavenski Smith to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lavenski Smith, who is from the State of Arkansas will make an outstanding jurist on the Federal bench. He is supremely well qualified as a former member of the Arkansas Supreme Court. He understands the proper role of the judiciary. I applaud the committee's unanimous vote today. I believe if we did not have the vacancies on the Federal bench to the extent that we now have them, the decision from the Ninth Circuit would not have occurred. In Judge Smith's confirmation hearings last month, he expressed his unshakable respect for an adherence to precedent. He said even when it goes against his personal beliefs, he would follow precedence. Clearly, we need people like Lavenski Smith on the bench. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee has taken this step. I am also pleased that the Senate will, today, make clear to the Federal judiciary, our reaffirmation of our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto ``In God we trust.'' I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. At 3:20 this afternoon we will vote on a piece of legislation I introduced to reaffirm Congress' commitment to the Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto ``In God we trust.'' I hope my colleagues will join me in this reaffirmation. Many already have. I ask unanimous consent the list of 32 Senators as original cosponsors be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues giving me an opportunity to speak on this amendment. I think it is very important to our country. It is a matter that, after cloture, is not germane, and I intend to withdraw it. But I give notice that this is an important issue for our country and I intend to talk about it in the future. It is a matter that is critical to the protection of our military. Today we are deploying our troops across the world to fight the war on terrorism, and it is clear our enemies have been actively attempting to acquire biological weapons. We know Saddam Hussein has been relentless in his pursuit of biological weapons. Yet even with this knowledge, we continue today to deploy our troops without adequate vaccine protection. The shortage of anthrax vaccine, due to the failure of BioPort, has been well publicized. However, as we meet today, our military has no stocks of vaccines against a range of other pathogens that we know could be used against our troops. According to unclassified documents released by the Pentagon, there are at least 10 nations right now pursuing biological weapons programs. Based on media reports, we know these nations include Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. In 1998, the Department of Defense instituted a program to vaccinate all uniformed military personnel against anthrax, but because of the debacle that has occurred since then, the resulting vaccine shortage, that program was curtailed and is only now beginning to get back in motion. Today, only 526,000 service members have received any vaccine doses. The vast majority of these have received fewer than the recommended six doses. Soon it is expected that DOD will announce a new anthrax policy whereby only troops being deployed to so-called high-risk areas will be vaccinated. I look forward to learning what areas are designated as high-risk areas. Given what occurred on 9-11, even the Pentagon itself should qualify. The tragedy of this situation is that there is no reason for us to be in this position. The DOD over a decade ago realized our nation needed a reliable source of vaccine. The private sector is simply unable to meet the requirement for vaccines against biological weapons. The production of these products is not profitable, the need is too small, the infrastructure costs are too high, and the liability is too great. There is no greater proponent of the private sector than I. However, throughout the past decade private industry has declined to participate in this market. In fact, the only company that is chosen to contract with the Pentagon is BioPort. We know that has not been an altogether satisfactory experience. This problem has been examined many times over the past decade. In fact, it has been studied twice by the Department of Defense. Both times, the conclusion was that our Nation needed a government-owned, contractor-operated vaccine production facility. This is referred to as a GOCO. In January of 1991, Project Badger presented a report to DOD entitled ``Long Term Expansion of Production Capability for Medical Defense Against Biological Warfare Agents.'' That is a long title, but the conclusion was that we needed to construct a Government-owned facility to provide assured manufacture of products against agents of biological origin. At that time, DOD began site selection. They began planning for such a facility. In 1994, they prepared a study entitled ``Department of Defense Vaccine Production Facility: An Economic Analysis of Alternatives.'' They were moving ahead. Then, the previous administration reversed course and decided to rely solely upon the commercial sector. After dumping over $120 million, we are only now beginning to receive anthrax vaccine. We do not want to repeat that. In November of 2000, the Department of Defense completed another in- depth study of a potential GOCO, which included detailed cost and design estimates. In February of 2001, the Department prepared a comprehensive life cycle cost estimate. Finally, last July the Pentagon released its latest study, ``Report on Biological Warfare Defense Vaccine Research & Development Programs.'' This study once again came to the same conclusion, was prepared by a team of DOD personnel, industry leaders, and academics, and it included a letter from former Surgeon General David Satcher, all of it endorsing the concept of a GOCO. Since September 11, the establishment of a GOCO has been recommended by other organizations outside the Department of Defense. In November of 2001, the Institute of Medicine at the National Academies issued a statement saying: The establishment of a government-owned, contract-operated facility for research, development, and production of vaccines is essential. I repeat, the Institute of Medicine concluded that such a facility is essential. In December of 2001, the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism, headed by former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, issued a report, with their recommendation: The establishment of a government-owned, contractor- operated national facility for the research, development and production of vaccines and therapeutics for specified infectious, especially contagious diseases, is needed. I offered an amendment to our DOD authorization bill, a critical bill for our troops, that I believe would provide protection for our men and women in uniform. This amendment was cosponsored by Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, and Senator Roberts of Kansas. All of them have cosponsored it. They recognize that it would ensure that our troops receive the protection they require. We have seen DOD study the matter twice; we have seen the Institute of Medicine-issued opinion; former Surgeon General Satcher recommended the building of a GOCO. All of these independent evaluations have concluded the same, and it is simply this: The private sector, for all of the good that it does, cannot, against some of the boutique biological pathogens and threats that may exist now and in the future against our troops and against our civilian population, and will not in the future see this as a profitable commercial venture. The insurance for the American people, and the insurance for our men and women in uniform, is to have a Government-owned production facility, contractor-operated, to ensure that vaccine will always be available if and when it is needed. I will withdraw the amendment I have offered. However, I will continue to bring this issue before the Senate. Our troops deserve more, I believe, than they are getting right now, and I intend to continue to pursue this issue as long as it takes until our troops are protected, whether it is through the homeland security bill or the Defense appropriations bill or other vehicles we may have, because this is vitally important. It is important for our country. It is important for our troops. It is the right thing to do. We have waited too long to act, and should delay no longer. Amendment No. 4069 Withdrawn

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4069.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important role that free, over-the-air broadcasting plays in local communities. Every 2 years, the National Association of Broadcasters conducts an industry-wide census of television and radio broadcasters' public service efforts. The results from the most recent census found that America's radio and television stations contributed a staggering $9.9 billion in service to their local communities throughout 2001. The President has spoken in recent months of how Americans have rediscovered the value of service. Today, I would like to applaud an industry that consistently demonstrates how small business can weave itself into the fabric of a community and play a vital role in helping others. In my home State, radio and television stations often assist local charities and non-profits. It is estimated that local Arkansas television and radio stations' community service efforts during 2001 amounted to over 71 million dollars. During 2001, KPOM-TV in Fort Smith continued its partnership with the Salvation Army to support the charity's year-end Red Kettle Drive. The event netted a quarter of a million dollars to support needy families in the surrounding area. On their end, KPOM ran a schedule of 10 public service announcements per day to support the effort. Local Arkansas stations have also actively worked to promote health and health awareness in their communities. In Little Rock, radio stations KURB-FM and KLAL-FM were official sponsors and hosts of this year's Arkansas Race for the Cure benefit for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Thanks to these stations' promotional activities, more than 34 thousand people participated, bringing in more than 1.6 million dollars to fight cancer. In Mountain Home, AM and FM stations KTLO and KCCT-FM partner every year to put on a Senior Fair and Hospital Expo. The event brings in more than 3,000 senior citizens every year for free health tests, information and referrals. In Jonesboro, KAIT-TV conducted an active Public Service Announcement campaign to promote prostate cancer awareness. The on-air effort included interviews with prostate cancer survivors in the community. The timing of the campaign coincided with a local hospital's program to provide free screenings for area men. While $9.9 billion is an impressive figure, what is most impressive about broadcasters' community service work is that each station endeavors to meet the community's unique needs. The efforts of broadcasters are as diverse as the different communities they serve. Local broadcast stations serve every community differently. In this new era, I think it is important that we recognize those among us who have a solid record of service. And so to my local Arkansas broadcasters, I would like to say thank you. We appreciate everything that you do to make our communities and our lives better, and we sincerely hope that you will keep up the good work.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for leading the opposition to this ill conceived amendment. I thank him for his courage and conviction in this area of human life. I thank him for yielding time. I rise today in very strong opposition to the amendment that is being put forward by the Senator from Washington. This amendment would allow abortion on demand on military facilities overseas. In fact, it would force the American people--including those millions who are strongly opposed to abortion and who are pro-life--to help pay for abortions. I know the opponents of this amendment argue otherwise. But I think a little thought shows the fallacy in that proposition and that, in fact, it would force those who have very deep conscientious convictions against abortion to help pay for abortion on our military bases. Abortion is an issue that continues to divide our Nation. The Defense authorization bill should be focused on ensuring that our military has all the resources to fight and win our Nation's wars. It is unfortunate that this bill has year after year been the vehicle to attempt to advance a pro-abortion agenda. In 1976, Congress adopted what has come to be known as the Hyde amendment. This amendment essentially prohibits the use of Federal funds for performing abortions. It has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. I share the view of millions of Americans that abortion is a destruction of human life and that it represents one of the great moral outrages of our day and one of the great moral questions of our generation. The Hyde amendment ensures that the tax dollars of these citizens who deeply believe abortion is something that is morally objectionable--it ensures that those citizens are not forced to pay for something to which they so object. It ensures that their money is not used for what they consider to be the murder of the unborn. This is the foundation of my objection to the Murray amendment. My colleagues claim that no public funds will be used for these overseas abortions. However, military facilities overseas were built with Federal tax dollars. The medical equipment was paid for by the U.S. Government. The military personnel facilities are paid from the Federal Treasury. Under the Murray amendment, will a portion of the cost of the construction of the military facility be charged to the woman seeking an abortion or will this funding come from the pockets of the taxpayers, millions of whom believe abortion is a reprehensible practice? It would be impossible--technically impossible--to accurately calculate the cost of reimbursing DOD for an abortion. It is not feasible with existing information systems and support capabilities to collect billing information relevant to a specific encounter within the military health care system. Military infrastructure and overhead costs cannot be allocated on a case-by-case basis. It is clear that the Murray amendment runs counter to both the letter and the spirit of the Hyde amendment. A military health care professional cannot be forced to perform a procedure, such as abortion, that runs against their moral beliefs. That is a good thing. But it is a recognition we have had in the U.S. military that physicians who have moral convictions against abortion can't be forced to do that to which they morally object. In these cases, the military will be forced under the Murray amendment to contract out to civilian physicians. In 1993, President Clinton issued an Executive order allowing privately funded abortions at military facilities. That is what we are voting on tomorrow morning. Every military medical professional stationed in Europe and Asia refused to perform an abortion--every single one; all of our military. I think it speaks very highly of them. Every one of these military medical professionals in all of the continent of Europe and all of the continent of Asia, to a person, refused to perform abortions. Think about that. Military funding will have to be used to pay a nonmilitary doctor to come into a military hospital to perform an abortion. That, I think, is objectionable to most Americans, regardless of how you feel about abortion. It is unconscionable that this body is considering pushing the military into the business of performing abortions. We are engaged in a global war unlike any in our Nation's history. The Defense authorization bill should be a vehicle to ensure that our military has all the resources it requires to protect the American people. Unfortunately, in this case it is being used to advance a pro- abortion agenda. This amendment addresses a problem that does not exist. Servicemembers can use military air at virtually no cost to travel back to the United States for any medical procedure--any medical procedure. As the former chair and current ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, I have spoken with thousands of our military personnel all over the world. They have concerns about many things--concerns about military pay, about housing, and about vaccines against biological weapons--but not once have I heard a complaint about not being able to get an abortion on a military base overseas. It is the policy of the Department of Defense to follow the laws of the nations in which our bases are located. Many nations ban abortion. The Murray amendment would subvert the laws of those countries that host American military personnel. South Korea bans abortions. Saudi Arabia bans abortions. Essentially, the Murray amendment would require Department of Defense personnel to perform crimes in the nations that are hosting our military. This amendment was defeated in the House of Representatives on May 9 by a vote of 215 to 202. Should this amendment pass the Senate and be added to the Senate Defense authorization bill, it will be a heavy weight on this bill. The conference committee will be sharply divided on this issue, as are the American people. This amendment will become the bone of contention in the conference committee, as it has been in previous years and as abortion issues have been in previous years. It will complicate what many of us already believe and anticipate will be a difficult conference. It will complicate this conference on the DOD authorization bill at a critical time in our Nation's history, when we need to speak with one mind and one voice and when we need to move ahead in unity to fight this war on terrorism. To see the DOD authorization bill bogged down on an emotional and divisive issue, which should not be in this legislation, is a disservice to those men and women who are fighting this war on terrorism around the world. The Defense authorization bill includes the funding that our military desperately needs to fight the war on terrorism. It includes the pay raise of our troops. It includes funding for important initiatives aimed at improving the quality of life for military families. This bill is not the forum for a fight on abortion. I regret that the amendment is being offered. It will place the Senate and the conferees in the position of having to fight this issue out in what will undoubtedly be a protracted, prolonged debate in the conference committee. Our military medical facilities are designed to save lives, not destroy them. I ask my colleagues to not turn them into abortion clinics. Please do not place this very heavy burden on the men and women of our military, especially while they are risking their own lives in defense of the American people against international terrorism. I remind my colleagues, it violates the spirit and the letter of the Hyde amendment. No matter how you simplistically present it, you cannot allocate all of the various costs involved in this procedure to military personnel, to a tax-funded facility with tax-funded personnel, and to equipment purchased by the taxpayers. You simply cannot determine what that individual would have to pay to privately pay for the abortion. It is really not a problem. It is not something we hear a hue and cry about from men and women in the military. And it violates, in many cases, the host country's laws and will put our own military in a position of violating the current Department of Defense policy, and a right policy, that we should recognize and respect the laws of the countries in which we are being hosted. Frankly, and finally, it creates a great practical problem in bringing this legislation to finality and getting it to the President's desk and moving on at a critical time, as our Nation continues to fight this war on terrorism. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the abortion issue to think long and hard about the wisdom of attaching this amendment to the DOD authorization bill. I thank the Chair. And I thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding this time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to introduce the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002. This legislation is based on President Bush's plan to strengthen welfare reform, and on the bill already passed by the House of Representatives over one month ago. The 1996 welfare reform law expires this year, and it is important that the Senate work quickly to strengthen one of the most successful reforms we have seen in decades. The results are clear: Welfare reform has been enormously successful. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1996 to 2000, the number of mothers participating in TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, decreased by about 50 percent; 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, Heritage Foundation. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen to the lowest point in U.S. history. Employment of young single mother has nearly doubled, and employment of single mothers who are high- school dropouts has risen by two-thirds. And this, amidst arguments made in 1996 that this law would seen millions of people into poverty. While this is good news, and shows the importance or reforms enacted in 1996, we will have work to do. Significant numbers of welfare recipients are still not employed and on their way to self-sufficiency. That is why I am here today. I join with Senator Sessions to introduce the President's welfare reform plan. This legislation maintains the important features of the 1996 welfare reform law. It emphasizes the themes of work, State flexibility, marriage, and child well-being. Our goal for every family on welfare is to lead them to self-sufficiency. While States have made great improvements in moving recipients to work, much more needs to be done. This legislation requires that each welfare recipient would have an individual plan devised for them that maps out their plan to self-sufficiency. Recognizing that everyone has different barriers in gaining employment, these individual plans would address the specific needs of each individual and provide opportunities for meaningful activity. Recipients would be required to participate in activities for 40 hours per week, simulating the work week of the typical American. This 40 hours is composed of 24 hours of actual work, and 16 hours of work- related activities, such as job search, training, education, drug treatment, marriage and relationship counseling, and parenting education. And states are required to increase their work participation rates with modest increases each year. By 2007, States must have 70 percent of recipients participating in work. We have added an important provision in this legislation to ensure that the work requirements stay strong. Due to credits that states can receive under current law, many work participation rates are effectively close to 0 percent. This bill requires that by 2007, states have 55 percent of their caseloads working, irrespective of credits that the State receives for moving recipients to work. This is an important provision that ensures that states are actually focusing on work. With the strengthening of these work requirements, we also provide significant new flexibility for states. States may apply for a new State flex program, allowing them to improve service delivery to recipients across various programs. TANF is not the only program that benefits low-income persons. Food stamps, workforce investment programs, Federal housing programs, and adult education programs all serve similar populations, yet program requirements are often different. The differences in the administration of these programs often deters caseworkers and recipients from knowing about all the programs available to them. This state flex program would allow a state to apply to the appropriate Cabinet secretaries for approval. States must continue to serve the same general population, but they could devise a more cohesive approach to delivery of services and program eligibility. Waivers could only be granted to proposals that are likely to improve the quality of the programs involved, and states must have specific objectives in their proposal. Regular reporting to Congress is included to maintain proper oversight. This new flexibility will provide a real opportunity to serve low-income populations seamlessly and without conflicting and cumbersome program requirements. This bill also provides a modest new investment in supporting healthy marriage. A child born and raised outside of marriage will spend an average of 51 percent of his childhood in poverty. However, a child born and raised by both parents in an intact marriage will spend only 7 percent of his childhood in poverty. While one of the goals of welfare reform is to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, this issue has gone largely unaddressed. This legislation authorizes $200 million in federal funding to reverse the trend of out-of-wedlock births. States may use funds for various purposes, including marital preparation programs, high school courses about the benefits of healthy marriage, and relationship counseling. States will have the flexibility to use the program or programs that they determine work best for them. Children raised by single parents are 5 times more likely to live in poverty, 2-3 times more likely to show behavioral problems, and twice as likely to commit crimes or go to jail. Marriage and family formation programs will not force anyone into marriage, but will provide people with the tools to improve their relationships, both at home, and in the working world. Finally, important TANF funding would be maintained. Despite an unprecedented decline in the caseload, this legislation maintains TANF funding at $16.5 billion a year. In addition, the supplemental grants, which are important to my home state of Arkansas, are also reauthorized. This legislation provides an additional $1 billion in child care funding. Mandatory funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant would increase to almost $3 billion over the next 5 years. While this bill increases mandatory funding for child care, I am working with my colleagues in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant. That process is moving forward, and I hope that these two both the TANF issues in the Finance Committee, and the child care issues in the HELP Committee, will be merged when they are considered before the full Senate. I hope that the Finance Committee takes this legislation into consideration as they work to formulate a plan. I believe that the President's plan has strong support, as evidenced by the quick action in the House of Representatives, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to improve upon the impressive results in welfare reform that we have seen so far. More remains to be done, however, in our quest of working towards independence.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to introduce the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002. This legislation is based on President Bush's plan to strengthen welfare reform, and on the bill already passed by the House of Representatives over one month ago. The 1996 welfare reform law expires this year, and it is important that the Senate work quickly to strengthen one of the most successful reforms we have seen in decades. The results are clear: Welfare reform has been enormously successful. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1996 to 2000, the number of mothers participating in TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, decreased by about 50 percent; 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, Heritage Foundation. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen to the lowest point in U.S. history. Employment of young single mother has nearly doubled, and employment of single mothers who are high- school dropouts has risen by two-thirds. And this, amidst arguments made in 1996 that this law would seen millions of people into poverty. While this is good news, and shows the importance or reforms enacted in 1996, we will have work to do. Significant numbers of welfare recipients are still not employed and on their way to self-sufficiency. That is why I am here today. I join with Senator Sessions to introduce the President's welfare reform plan. This legislation maintains the important features of the 1996 welfare reform law. It emphasizes the themes of work, State flexibility, marriage, and child well-being. Our goal for every family on welfare is to lead them to self-sufficiency. While States have made great improvements in moving recipients to work, much more needs to be done. This legislation requires that each welfare recipient would have an individual plan devised for them that maps out their plan to self-sufficiency. Recognizing that everyone has different barriers in gaining employment, these individual plans would address the specific needs of each individual and provide opportunities for meaningful activity. Recipients would be required to participate in activities for 40 hours per week, simulating the work week of the typical American. This 40 hours is composed of 24 hours of actual work, and 16 hours of work- related activities, such as job search, training, education, drug treatment, marriage and relationship counseling, and parenting education. And states are required to increase their work participation rates with modest increases each year. By 2007, States must have 70 percent of recipients participating in work. We have added an important provision in this legislation to ensure that the work requirements stay strong. Due to credits that states can receive under current law, many work participation rates are effectively close to 0 percent. This bill requires that by 2007, states have 55 percent of their caseloads working, irrespective of credits that the State receives for moving recipients to work. This is an important provision that ensures that states are actually focusing on work. With the strengthening of these work requirements, we also provide significant new flexibility for states. States may apply for a new State flex program, allowing them to improve service delivery to recipients across various programs. TANF is not the only program that benefits low-income persons. Food stamps, workforce investment programs, Federal housing programs, and adult education programs all serve similar populations, yet program requirements are often different. The differences in the administration of these programs often deters caseworkers and recipients from knowing about all the programs available to them. This state flex program would allow a state to apply to the appropriate Cabinet secretaries for approval. States must continue to serve the same general population, but they could devise a more cohesive approach to delivery of services and program eligibility. Waivers could only be granted to proposals that are likely to improve the quality of the programs involved, and states must have specific objectives in their proposal. Regular reporting to Congress is included to maintain proper oversight. This new flexibility will provide a real opportunity to serve low-income populations seamlessly and without conflicting and cumbersome program requirements. This bill also provides a modest new investment in supporting healthy marriage. A child born and raised outside of marriage will spend an average of 51 percent of his childhood in poverty. However, a child born and raised by both parents in an intact marriage will spend only 7 percent of his childhood in poverty. While one of the goals of welfare reform is to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, this issue has gone largely unaddressed. This legislation authorizes $200 million in federal funding to reverse the trend of out-of-wedlock births. States may use funds for various purposes, including marital preparation programs, high school courses about the benefits of healthy marriage, and relationship counseling. States will have the flexibility to use the program or programs that they determine work best for them. Children raised by single parents are 5 times more likely to live in poverty, 2-3 times more likely to show behavioral problems, and twice as likely to commit crimes or go to jail. Marriage and family formation programs will not force anyone into marriage, but will provide people with the tools to improve their relationships, both at home, and in the working world. Finally, important TANF funding would be maintained. Despite an unprecedented decline in the caseload, this legislation maintains TANF funding at $16.5 billion a year. In addition, the supplemental grants, which are important to my home state of Arkansas, are also reauthorized. This legislation provides an additional $1 billion in child care funding. Mandatory funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant would increase to almost $3 billion over the next 5 years. While this bill increases mandatory funding for child care, I am working with my colleagues in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant. That process is moving forward, and I hope that these two both the TANF issues in the Finance Committee, and the child care issues in the HELP Committee, will be merged when they are considered before the full Senate. I hope that the Finance Committee takes this legislation into consideration as they work to formulate a plan. I believe that the President's plan has strong support, as evidenced by the quick action in the House of Representatives, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to improve upon the impressive results in welfare reform that we have seen so far. More remains to be done, however, in our quest of working towards independence.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the concurrent receipt amendment. I thank Chairman Levin for ensuring it was a committee amendment. It came out with the full endorsement and strong support of the committee. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his commitment to concurrent receipt and how engaged he has been on ensuring that this finally becomes a reality. And a special thanks to Senator Reid, with whom I have been privileged to work on this important issue. We introduced S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. Last year, we offered this amendment to the Defense authorization and saw it pass overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate. Truly, Senator Reid has been the champion of this issue. I believe we are on the verge of a real victory on this, and I commend him for his commitment and his diligence, year in and year out. The word ``injustice'' has been used a number of times in regard to the issue of concurrent receipt. I think it is the right word to use and it is the right context in which we put this vote. Military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are forced to fund their own disability benefits. That is the issue. Military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who have to fund their own disability benefits. The Senator from Louisiana rightly pointed out that we are dealing with only a portion of our veterans, about 400,000 disabled military retirees, who must give up their retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. For those 400,000, it is the most important issue of the day--it impacts their daily lives. I suggest to my colleagues that it is a far bigger issue than those 400,000. As the ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee, I have seen how important issues like concurrent receipt are to the recruitment and retention of our men and women in uniform. The kind of message that our Government sends, the kind of dynamic we create, is reflected in issues such as this. When military retirees are treated in a discriminatory way, when they are treated with less respect than other Federal retirees, the message to the American people, the message to our young people who are considering what career to go into, is sent that we do not truly value them. We may say the words and we may salute them and we may honor them, but if we do not honor them in policy, then we are not honoring them as we should. I want to share with my colleagues excerpts from two letters I received in recent days from my constituents. One is from a veteran in Harrison, AR, who said: It is a matter of fundamental fairness that we provide our disabled military retirees with the pay they have earned and rightfully deserve. I am sure it has been brought to your attention numerous times that retired Federal employees receive VA disability compensation concurrent with Federal retirement pay. Why are military retired treated differently? That is the question--why are they treated differently? Then there is a letter from a veteran from Mulberry, AR, who wrote: The purpose of VA disability compensation is to defray the effects of lost earning potential caused by injuries and sickness incurred while defending our country. Retirement pay is based wholly on the number of years of dedicated service. The two pays are entirely separate and should be mutually exclusive. That is exactly the case. The offset that has existed is an injustice. It is unfair. We have an opportunity to rectify that this year. I know there are thousands of veterans right now watching C-SPAN who are following this debate and are doing so with a sense of cynicism. They have seen this debate before, and they have seen the vote of the Senate before. They have seen the Senate vote to end the 110-year inequity on concurrent receipt, only to see it dissolve and disappear in the course of the conference negotiations. The House has not seen to take the step we have taken, and so there will be again the negotiations that will go on between the House and Senate. I say to my colleagues, to the veterans of this Nation, and to our retired military, I pledge, through the conference committee that will exist, to continue to fight on this issue until the fundamental inequity that exists in current law has been eliminated, once and for all, for all of America's heroes. I am committed to full concurrent receipt and to fight for that until our veterans get what they have earned, and I urge my colleagues to fight for that as well as we go through the continuation of this process in the coming weeks. I thank the chairman. I thank Senator Warner for this time and for the opportunity to express my strong support for the amendment that has been agreed to. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution, along with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Bond, and Hollings, that would establish the week of August 18, 2002, as National Community Health Center Week. Community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers are nonprofit providers of health care for our Nation's medically underserved. An essential element of our Nation's safety net, health centers provide care to 1 of every 9 uninsured Americans, 1 of every 8 low-income Americans and 1 of every 10 rural Americans. In rural and small communities, health centers are often the only health care providers, and in many cases can be the difference between life and death. Communities served by these health care centers have experienced reduced infant mortality rates by as much as 10 and 40 percent. Not only are health centers contributing to the physical well-being of communities, they are also contributing to the economic well-being of the communities where they are located, by employing over 50,000 community residents nationwide. I commend President Bush for recognizing the valuable role of community health centers. The President has wisely called for the establishment of 1,200 new and expanded health center sites by 2006 that will enable health centers to serve more than 16 million patients annually. Congress should also pay tribute to the role of these centers in improving the health and well-being of our Nation's poor and medically underserved by establishing the week of August 18, 2002, as National Community Health Center Week.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Beyond the practicalities, the underlying issue is, is it fair? Is it right? A bigger exemption does not solve the basic unfairness. A greater exclusion, lowering rates, none of that really deals with the underlying issue. It is an unfair tax. It taxes success. It taxes accomplishment. It taxes that which is the American dream. For that reason, we need to get rid of it. We don't need a mirage for the American people. We need it to be real. We can make it real by supporting the Gramm-Kyl amendment. I thank my colleague for the time and the opportunity to speak in favor of his amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Arizona for his outstanding leadership on this issue. And he has been the leader on this. I was struck by one statement the Senator from Arizona made in which he said the American people, according to all the polls--and we all know this--overwhelmingly support the elimination of the death tax, even though most of them realize they will never be impacted by it. It does say a lot about the American people. It also says an awful lot about the unfairness of this tax; that is, the underlying tax. That is the basic issue at stake in the debate we are having. Is this the way we want to tax or not? It is not about whether or not we are going to lose money for the Federal Treasury or not. We may or may not. It is not about whether we can reduce the number of people impacted by this unfair tax by expanding exclusions and lowering rates. It is fundamentally about, Is this the right kind of tax to impose on the American people? The American people realize and recognize it is unfair for a person, a small businessperson, a farmer, for any American to work decade after decade, saving and investing, making decisions that reward their family, building something for the future, building something for future generations--someone, a businessman, a farmer, an individual paying property taxes, paying sales taxes, paying income taxes, year after year, and decade after decade--and then, at the point of death, at the event of death, you see the Federal Government reach into the grave and take half of everything that person worked for. I think the American people, rightly, have concluded that is unfair. As the Senator from Arizona also pointed out, the decision about the unfairness and about the need to eliminate this tax was already made. It was made by this body. It was made by the House. It was made by the President over a year ago--a year ago June 7. The decision was: It is unfair. Let's repeal it. Let's eliminate it. Because of arcane Senate rules, it could not be permanently eliminated. We could not do that last year. But we can do that now. The decision then that it was the right thing to do to eliminate it--that was made last year--we need now to say we really meant that. It has already been very rightly pointed out that this is not a tax that affects only a few. It is not just a few fat cats we are talking about. We are talking about literally millions of Americans. According to the Treasury Department, more than 120,000 individuals filed death tax returns in the year 2000 alone. But that does not tell near the story because not only are there employees and family members who are impacted, but it is also the case that about twice as many people sell their businesses or sell their property early, before they die, so the death tax is not going to be a burden on their family. So instead of 120,000 individuals, you literally have doubled that, and suddenly you are talking about half a million people, plus their families and their employees who are impacted. This is not a tax that just touches a few people. In addition, even more Americans are forced to pay this tax, not to the Federal Government, but to lawyers, to accountants, and to life insurance agents. Privately held businesses get involved in estate planning because if they don't, all they have worked for will be eliminated. To ignore the death tax statute is suicide for a family business. Frankly, while the death tax is a terribly ineffective way to redistribute wealth, it is a very effective way to create and maintain an industry geared at avoidance. This tax generates very little real income for the Federal Treasury. My colleague has already pointed out that the Gramm-Kyl amendment, because of the way it handles untaxed capital gains and the way it changes the step-up provisions in current law, any impact upon Federal revenues will be far more minimal than that which has been estimated. In addition, the death tax is a very inefficient way of gaining Federal revenue, for 65 cents of every dollar gained is paid out in collection enforcement costs. Other studies have found not only are thousands of dollars going to attorneys and accountants and financial agents, but the average minority-owned business will spend nearly $28,000 a year on life insurance premiums to prepare for the death tax, and $9,000 on death tax planning. Frankly, the 1.5 percent of Federal income that currently is generated by the death tax is so small that it would, to a great extent, offset the cost of administering and collecting and enforcing the tax. Beyond all of that, I return to the point with which I began. There are the practicalities that it generates little income, and a whole avoidance industry has developed because of the estate tax.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is with great pride, but with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to one of America's greatest heroes and fellow Arkansan, Clarence B. Craft. Mr. Craft passed away on March 28, 2002, but left behind a legacy of kindness and courage. Though he was born in California, he spent the last twenty- five years of his life in northwest Arkansas giving selflessly of his time as a volunteer for the Veterans' Affairs Medical Center in Fayettville. He will be remembered as a true and dedicated friend to the veterans, one who lifted their spirits with personal visits, often visiting every patient in the hospital. After his passing, those who knew him characterized Clarence as a ``special man.'' Clarence Craft was an extremely humble person, and rarely talked about the accolades that made this great American truly special. On May 31, 1945, then-Private First Class Craft faced a numerically superior Japanese force on the island of Okinawa. PFC Craft's one-man attack against a Japanese defense that had repelled repeated, heavy assaults by battalion-sized U.S. formations for 12 days, resulted in the entire defensive line crumbling. For these heroic acts Clarence Craft was recognized with our nation's highest award for actions above and beyond the call of duty, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Let the record show on behalf of a grateful nation, that the U.S. Senate pays tribute to Clarence B. Craft, an American hero. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, the area wage index floor and base payment change proposals both enjoy broad bipartisan support. As I mentioned earlier, 26 Senators have cosponsored the Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act. Elements of this legislation have also been included in legislative proposals introduced by both Senators, Grassley and Baucus, and I thank them for their leadership in this regard. The fact is that rural hospitals desperately need Congress to fix this inequity. These hospitals are a vital like in our Nation's health care safety net, and we must ensure that they are able to continue to offer quality health care services to rural Americans.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have also filed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill on this critically important issue. While my amendment, cosponsored by Senator Cleland, will not be considered relevant if the Senate invokes cloture on the supplemental appropriations bill this morning, I want to stress to my colleagues how important it is to the livelihood of hospitals across America who are struggling every day to survive and to meet growing health care demands. Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, coupled with health care inflation and a dramatically growing health care worker shortage, are forcing many hospitals to shut down units, cut services, or close down entirely. This truly is an emergency situation, and Congress needs to take action. The amendment I am offering is based on bipartisan legislation I introduced called the Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act, which now has 26 cosponsors. It is designed to help rural hospitals keep pace with today's salary requirements for their workers by setting a minimum payment on the area wage index. Such an area wage index floor--set at .0925 percent--would bring Medicare payments for at least 2,100 hospitals nationwide closer to the national average of 1 percent. The amendment also eliminates the disparity in the Medicare inpatient base payment amount by moving rural and smaller metropolitan hospitals to the same payment level received by large urban facilities. This change in the base payment amount is also supported by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. In total, my amendment would provide an additional $328 million in needed payments to rural hospitals in Arkansas. These rural hospitals are truly the lifeblood of their community. Not only are they often the primary source of health care in a given community, they are also a major provider of jobs in a given area. The financial failure of a hospital puts its whole community at risk because, without these institutions, medical services, social services, and jobs disappear. Small and rural hospitals have been especially hard hit by staffing shortages, particularly in the field of nursing, since lower Medicare reimbursements and the very nature of rural areas make it difficult to recruit and retain qualified staff. In Arkansas and Alabama, rural hospitals are losing staff to bigger salaries offered by large, urban hospitals out-of-state. Meanwhile, in many urban area hospitals, fierce competition for qualified workers is creating serious retention issues as workers are hopping from job to job. I ask my colleague how is this competition for workers affecting hospitals in Alabama?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Senate is going to pass landmark legislation today bolstering our Nation's efforts to prepare against future bioterrorist threats and attacks. As a member of the joint House-Senate bioterrorism conference committee, I am pleased to support this conference report. Eight months ago, five U.S. citizens died due to anthrax, buildings were shut down, and thousands of Americans were tested for possible exposure. Our country learned first hand about the need for improved knowledge about biological weapons and agents--how to detect them, what to do in the case of exposure, and the need for accelerated research and development of countermeasures to defend against such agents. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act provides for the development of vaccines and drugs to defend against biological agents or toxins, improvement of public health emergency response efforts, tightening of requirements for individuals who use and possess biological agents or toxins, enhancement of protections for our food supply and agricultural research facilities, and the development of emergency response plans and security upgrades for our Nation's water systems. I would like to particularly highlight provisions in the conference report to speed approval of vaccines and drugs developed as countermeasures against biological weapons, improve security at facilities where such countermeasures are researched and developed, and strengthen federal penalties for acts of sabotage against such facilities. These provisions I introduced as part of freestanding legislation last November, S. 1635, along with Senators Gregg and Frist. I believe that these provisions are at the heart of our preparedness for future bioterrorist threats and attacks. I am thankful to my fellow Senate and House conferees for working with me to include a proposal I offered to provide grants for proficiency testing of laboratory personnel in identifying biological agents and toxins. Laboratory personnel will be on the front lines of our detection efforts, and we must make sure they can identify biological toxins and agents. All States, including Arkansas, will benefit from grants to improve planning and State preparedness efforts, enhance laboratory capacity and educate and train health care personnel. I am also pleased with the inclusion of $5 million in grants for small community water systems in order to conduct vulnerability assessments, prepare emergency response plans, and make security upgrades. In summary, this is comprehensive legislation and it is needed legislation. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act lays the foundation for significant changes in America's infrastructure, training, and response programs to protect our Nation's citizens against deadly weapons, particularly biological and chemical agents.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senator Nelson in introducing legislation today that will provide a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate through fiscal year 2003. The National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers recently reported that over 40 states are facing an aggregate shortfall of $40 to $50 billion. One of the primary reasons for these shortfalls is the rising cost of health care. Medicaid costs, which increased by 11 percent last year, are the fastest growing component of State budgets. Our legislation is critical to addressing these State budget deficits, especially in Arkansas, where a $12.8 million Medicaid shortfall was announced last November. Specifically, our bill would increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs by 1.0 percent and hold harmless the Federal matching rate for each state for the remainder of this fiscal year and next. Additionally, a temporary block grant program would be established in order to help meet the rising demand for social services resulting from the recent economic downturn. In total, this legislation will provide $8.9 billion in relief to States for the provision of Medicaid and social services. For Arkansas, this legislation will provide $71 million in relief over the next two years. Endorsed by the National Governors Association, this bipartisan legislation is worthy of Senate support, and I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senator Nelson in introducing legislation today that will provide a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate through fiscal year 2003. The National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers recently reported that over 40 states are facing an aggregate shortfall of $40 to $50 billion. One of the primary reasons for these shortfalls is the rising cost of health care. Medicaid costs, which increased by 11 percent last year, are the fastest growing component of State budgets. Our legislation is critical to addressing these State budget deficits, especially in Arkansas, where a $12.8 million Medicaid shortfall was announced last November. Specifically, our bill would increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs by 1.0 percent and hold harmless the Federal matching rate for each state for the remainder of this fiscal year and next. Additionally, a temporary block grant program would be established in order to help meet the rising demand for social services resulting from the recent economic downturn. In total, this legislation will provide $8.9 billion in relief to States for the provision of Medicaid and social services. For Arkansas, this legislation will provide $71 million in relief over the next two years. Endorsed by the National Governors Association, this bipartisan legislation is worthy of Senate support, and I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors.