Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished minority whip, are you proposing to go to amendments right away? The only issue is, I want to make a statement on the bill of which I am a major cosponsor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Brownback and I are going to make statements about the bill. This is my bill. I have been working on marriage penalty relief for the last 4 years. Senator Ashcroft, Senator Abraham, Senator Grams of Minnesota, Senator Brownback, and I, along with my colleague, Senator Gramm, have all made this a very high priority in our legislative agenda. We have made this a high priority because we believe it is un-American to make people choose between love and money. That is what the marriage penalty does. In America, if you make $30,000 and you are a schoolteacher and you marry a policeman who makes $30,000, all of a sudden, you owe more in taxes. I thought it was interesting; the Senator from Massachusetts just said we have spent a trillion dollars by giving death tax relief. We spent a trillion dollars, and what do we have to show for it? I have to ask the question: Whose money is it? Is letting people keep more of the money they earn in their pocketbooks and to decide how they want to spend it wrong? I think we should let people keep their money. I don't consider it spending a trillion dollars, allowing people to keep the money they earn. I think it is the reverse. I believe we should not be spending other people's money, when we are running a huge surplus and don't need it in the Federal Government for new programs. I believe the American people can make better decisions about how they spend the money they earn than we can here in Washington. So when you are talking about tax relief, you are not talking about spending money. It is not the Government's money. It belongs to the people who earn it. Government, by the consent of the governed, will take some money for the good of everyone--for national defense, for clearly Federal issues that cannot be done by people individually, for our security. But it becomes confiscatory when a couple making $30,000 apiece has to pay $1,000 more in taxes just because they get married. That is what we are trying to eliminate today. When the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says we have done nothing for the average family, I just ask him if a policeman and a schoolteacher constitute an average family. I think they do, and I think they deserve the $1,000, or $1,400, more they are paying in taxes to make the downpayment on their first home. That is help for the American family. That is help for the average family. A young couple who make $30,000 each and get married may not be able to save for a downpayment if they are having to pay $1,400 more in taxes just because they got married. So tax relief is not spending money. Spending money that other people earn is spending money--their money. I think there is a huge difference. The bill we have before us today would double the standard deduction so that if you get married, you don't get penalized. Today, if two single working people get married, they will pay approximately $1,100 more in taxes because of the standard deduction. We want to double the standard deduction because we don't think it should be different for two working singles or a married couple, both working. So we want the standard deduction to be $8,800, exactly double the standard deduction. Secondly, we want people in the 15-percent bracket and the 28-percent bracket not to be punished because the got married and were pushed into a higher tax bracket. We do this by widening each bracket for married couples so that it is exactly double the bracket size of a single taxpayer. So in the 15-percent bracket, if you are single or married, it will not make any difference because you will not go into the next bracket if we can pass marriage penalty relief because, of course, that is the problem. When a schoolteacher, who makes $26,000 and is in the 15-percent bracket, marries a policeman who makes $26,000 and is in the 15-percent bracket, they go into the 28-percent bracket, and that is why they pay more in taxes. We want them to be able to stay in the 15- percent bracket, each of them making $26,000 a year. That is exactly what our bill does. Our bill increases the earned-income tax credit because we know that people--especially people coming off welfare--need to be able to have an earned-income tax credit to make sure they do better working than being on welfare. The Senate bill increases the earned-income tax credit parameters by $2,500. That is higher than the House version of the bill by $500. We think that is right. We want the people at the lowest end of the spectrum to know it really does make a difference that you work. We want it to be a benefit. Another important aspect of our bill is preserving essential tax credits for families. Important tax credits such as the $500 per child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, the HOPE scholarship credit for families who want to send their children to college, the credit for expenses related to child care--they would all remain intact, regardless of the alternative minimum tax. Many families are finding that, with the alternative minimum tax, they lose the basic deduction that everyone else gets. The $500 per child tax credit should apply, regardless of whether a person is in the alternative minimum tax category. We are trying to have a balanced approach for people who have a real problem. Just prior to this debate I, and several other Senators met with some of the couples that are affected by this bill. We had a couple from San Antonio, TX, Noe and Connie Garcia. He works for an insurance company; she is a Government employee. When they did their taxes last year, they estimated that they paid over $1,000 more in taxes because they are married. We had a very young couple, Hubert and Min Joo Kim, come to visit with us today. They live in Maryland. She is a teacher; he is an engineer. They have been married for 2 years, and they have a 1-year- old daughter named Isabelle, who is absolutely a precious child. But they are losing the ability to do some of the things they would like to do for Isabelle because they are paying a marriage tax penalty. Earlier this year I met with Kervin and Marsha Johnson live in Washington, DC. Kervin is a D.C. police officer. His wife is a Federal employee. They were married last July. This year, they paid almost a $1,000 more in taxes because they chose to get married. Mr. President, these are just a few of the 21 million American couples who are suffering from the marriage penalty tax. This is not just tax relief, this is a tax correction. This is correcting an inequity that I don't believe Congress ever intended. Congress did not intend to say: If you are a policeman and you make $30,000 a year, and you marry a schoolteacher who makes $30,000 a year, we want you to pay $1,400 more in taxes. I don't believe Congress ever intended that to happen. I think it is time for Congress to correct this inequity. If we pass this, next year the vast majority of couples will get immediate tax relief as we increase the standard deduction. Beginning the year after next, we start the phased-in increase of the tax brackets. We are going to be debating this bill today, and we are going to start voting on some amendments Monday night. When we passed marriage tax penalty relief once before, the President vetoed the bill. He said he didn't like some of the other tax cuts that were in the bill. The President said in his State of the Union Message that he favored tax relief for American families. He has said he favors marriage tax penalty relief. He said: Send me those bills individually because then I can pick and choose. So we sent him individually the elimination of the earnings test on Social Security recipients. He signed that bill. Today, because Congress acted and the President signed the bill, a person who receives Social Security benefits can work as much or as little as he or she wants to work. There will be no penalty. There will be no earnings test. We have opened the doors to hundreds of thousands of our senior citizens who would like to earn extra income. Today we passed the elimination of the death tax. It is going to the President because we believe the American dream does not have fences. We believe the American dream is, if you come to America, you will have the freedom to succeed, and it will not be dependent on who your grandfather was. It will be dependent on you. If you want to work hard and give your children a better chance than you had, we want you to be able to keep the fruits of your labors and give your children that chance. We have passed that. We have sent it to the President. We hope the President will sign that bill. Now we have marriage penalty relief. This is the marriage penalty relief for middle-income people who do not have the ability to make the choice not to get married because they want to start a family, and they want their children to grow up in a healthy, wholesome atmosphere. They don't have that choice because our tax code punishes them for doing so. We are going to correct this inequity. We are going to pass marriage penalty relief. We are going to do what the President asked us to do; that is, send him the bill by itself. I hope he will sign it so we can give marriage penalty relief to hard-working American families. I will close and ask that we hear from Senator Brownback from Kansas, who has been the lead cosponsor of marriage penalty relief. We have worked for years side by side, along with Senator Abraham, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Grams, and my colleague, Senator Gramm, to see this come to a successful conclusion. I hope we can give the middle-income people of our country--people in the 15-percent bracket, the people in the 28-percent bracket, and people who get earned-income tax credits--more of the relief they deserve because I reject the argument that tax relief is spending money. Tax relief is spending money only if you think the Government has a right to the money you earned, and I don't think the Government does. I think the people who earn the money are entitled to that money. Tax relief is not spending money because the Government doesn't own the money that is earned by the hard-working people of this country. We want them to keep more of it. That is the bottom line in this debate. I would like to yield the floor to the Senator from Kansas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, shortly before the July 4th recess, the Senate passed an Emergency Supplemental spending measure as part of the Military Construction Appropriations Bill. This measure dealt with a number of critical needs, including aid for fire victims in New Mexico and funds to continue the war on drugs in Colombia. I am pleased that this legislation also included $12 million to reimburse county and municipal governments along the U.S.-Mexico border for the high costs that they have incurred in handling drug prosecutions and incarcerations for the federal government. Dramatic increases in manpower and resources for the Border Patrol and Customs Service has meant dramatic increases in drug and alien smuggling and illegal crossing apprehensions. Our border counties, which have handled these cases for the federal government for many years, have borne heavy costs of these prosecutions with no reimbursement from the federal government. These are some of the poorest counties and communities in the nation, and they can no longer afford to pay the costs associated with an expanded caseload they are handling for the federal government. Specifically, this provision will enable the United States Attorneys to assist border county and municipal governments in the Southwest Border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California with their court costs, courtroom technology needs, the building of prisoner holding spaces, administrative staff, and indigent defense costs that are associated with the handling and processing of drug cases that would otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. I appreciate the help and commitment of Senator Gregg, Chairman of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Stevens, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for working so closely with me to address the needs of the Southwest border. I also want to thank Jim Morhard, Staff Director of the Commerce-Justice-State panel, and Kevin Linskey, for their hard work on this matter. Jim and Kevin serve both the Committee and Senator Gregg very well, and their efforts on the staff level are making a difference in improving the lives of people living along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask to be notified at 2 minutes because Senator Craig from Idaho also desires to speak. Mr. President, if the highway trust fund were going to be affected at all, I could not be a sponsor of this amendment. But the highway trust fund is specifically held harmless. We passed a budget resolution in this Senate that said we would give $150 billion in tax relief for this Nation over the next 5 years. We are talking about roughly $12 billion of that money that we have already allocated for tax relief for hard-working Americans. That is what will keep the highway trust fund totally whole. The highway trust fund will not lose one penny. There will be no safety crisis. There will be no stoppage of money going into the flow for the highway trust fund. In fact, this is a tax relief measure because we have had a crisis that was not expected. We have had a crisis with families going on vacation, consumers, people who have to drive to work every day. What about the independent trucker who is now paying $150 to $200 a tank more than they have ever paid before because the price of gas is so high? We must give this temporary relief, as we take longer term measures to try to take our dependence on foreign oil down to a level that is acceptable. Until we do that, we need to give this immediate relief. We have it in the budget to do it. We will not touch the highway trust fund. The leaders in this effort--Senator Abraham, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Grams--come from States that are particularly hard hit. They are States where truckers are saying they can't meet their contract requirements. They may even lose their trucks. Mr. President, I urge support for the Abraham amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains for Senator Abraham?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of this bill. There is no question that what the Senator from New Jersey has just said has some resonance when you talk about paying dues to society. But this is not money that has never been taxed before. This is money that was taxed when it was earned. It is money that was taxed when it was invested. It has been taxed and taxed and taxed. Who could say that an average family who now pays 40 percent of their income in taxes is not giving back enough to society? On top of all of the taxes they paid on this money, now we are saying we want to change the American dream, which has always been to come to our country--come to America where you have the freedom to work as hard as you want to work, do as well as you want to do, and give your kids a better chance than you have. That is what the American dream has always been. Those who are against this tax are saying: No, no. That is not the American dream anymore. What we are saying in America is come to America and you can be this successful, and as long as you don't go beyond this, it is OK. We should not put boundaries on success in America. That built our country. Hard work of people who are judged on what they are and not on who their grandparents were is what has built this country. The estate tax takes away part of the incentive for people who work so hard to give their kids a better chance than they had. It hurts small business. Seventy percent of all family-owned businesses do not survive through the second generation, and 87 percent don't make it to the third generation. That affects the small business itself, but it affects a lot of people who have jobs in those small businesses. It is the little people who are getting hurt because they don't have jobs anymore. I have read stories where the main employer in a small town had a family-owned business and could not make it because they had to sell the assets of the business in order to pay inheritance taxes. Among a survey of black-owned enterprises, nearly one-third say their heirs will have to sell the businesses to pay the death tax, and more than 80 percent report they do not have sufficient assets to pay the death tax. In fact, the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce has written a letter in support of this bill because he says the total net worth of African Americans is only 1.2 percent versus 14 percent of the population. The CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce supports the bill before us today. He said African Americans have been stuck at 1.2 percent of the total net worth of this country since the end of the Civil War in 1865, and that getting rid of the death tax will start to create a new legacy and begin a cycle of wealth building for blacks in this country. The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supports the bill before us today. They write: When one family loses its business due to the unfair estate tax, which really is a death tax, the face of an entire community changes. Employers become ex-employers. The economy suffers and a thriving self-supporting group of individuals vanish. This is a gut issue for small businesses in our country. The reason is that the assets of a small business are not readily sellable. The assets of a farm and a ranch are oftentimes valued at much more than their actual productivity. So if they have to have a valuation that puts them in the category of needing to pay an estate tax, they have no choice; they have to sell the land in order to pay that tax. It is not right. It is not perpetuating the American dream. Let me talk about conservation and the effect of the death tax on conservation. This is an article published in the Dallas Morning News, written by David Langford of San Antonio, the executive vice president of the Texas Wildlife Association. He says it so much better than I ever could. Since 1851, my family has worked the land in the Texas Hill Country. Through the ups and downs of the past 148 years, we have run flour mills, farmed, ranched and offered hunting and fishing opportunities. Our land also serves as a habitat for many species of birds, including two endangered migratory songbirds--the golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo. As a result, my family and I consider ourselves stewards of precious natural resources. But as is the case for much of the wildlife habitat in this country, the estate tax threatens to tear it apart. The need to pay large estate tax bills often forces families to sell or develop environmentally sensitive land. The estate tax is the No. 1 destroyer of wildlife habitat in this country. Although we have managed to hold our land together, it hasn't been easy. Before my mother died in 1993, we did everything we could to protect our family's land. Like millions of other family businesses, we paid accountants, tax attorneys and estate planners to help manage our assets in ways to avoid the tax, but it still came to this. In order to pay the estate taxes and keep the land together when my mother died, we had to sell almost everything she owned, including her home. My wife and I had to sell nearly everything we owned, including our home, and move into a two- bedroom condominium. We also had to borrow money for 35 years from the Federal Land Bank. Because the value of the land has increased since 1993, if we were killed in a car accident tomorrow, my children would owe more inheritance taxes than the amount I originally had to borrow to pay mine. But that isn't the end of the story. Not only would they pay more taxes than me, but they still would inherit my 35-year note that they would have to continue to pay. Could my children then keep the land? The short answer is no. It probably would become a subdivision. Mr. President, these are people whom I hear the other side keep calling ``rich,'' needing to pay their debt to society. These are people who care so much about the land that has been in their families since 1851 that they now live in a two-bedroom condominium to keep that land together. That is not the American way. That is not right in this country. It is not good for the environment. It is not good for conservation. It is not good for small businesses that create jobs. And it doesn't produce 1 percent of the revenue of this country. It sends a powerful message that you can only succeed in America this much, and if you have this much, we will take part of what you have worked so hard to earn, what your parents and grandparents may have worked so hard to give you, and we are going to say, I'm sorry, you've done too much. Mr. President, that is not the American dream. I agree with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; I agree with the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce. They want the opportunity for their members to create a stability through the generations for their families. I stand with the people who want to keep their land together, to keep a tradition in their families. That is the American way. I hope we will send this bill to the President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the condition of the classrooms within our military dependent schools. A number of our classrooms contain asbestos, roofs leak, classes are overcrowded, three or four teachers have to share the same desk, science labs are 30 plus years old and potentially unsafe, and some schools are not in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. I am ashamed that military families who live on base are forced to send their kids to school facilities in these conditions. I was even more disturbed when I found out the many other school districts that teach large numbers of military dependents have similar infrastructure problems. Amazingly most kids have done well despite this environment but I worry about the impact the deteriorating school facilities has on declining military retention and recruitment. The condition of these schools is clearly a quality of life issue for military families. Mr. President, I offer an amendment today to help alleviate these problems and ensure a safe and comfortable learning environment for more than 80,000 children of members of our armed forces. My amendment establishes a grant program within the Department of Defense to assist school districts with repair and renovation costs for facilities used to educate large numbers of military kids. The program would enable qualified school districts to apply for grants up to $5 million every two years to help meet health and safety, class size, ADA, asbestos removal, and technology requirements. The program would also assist school districts faced with significant enrollment increases due to increases in on-base housing or mission changes. Lastly, school districts could seek assistance for repair and renovation costs of Department of Defense owned schools being transferred to a local school district. For example, at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia a DOD owned elementary school is being transferred to the local school district but $4 million in repairs is needed to bring the school up to the local district's safety and fire standards. Why is Department of Defense assistance needed? Most of the school districts serving large numbers of military children have limited bonding ability or no tax base to raise the necessary capital funding. For example, seven public schools districts that serve military dependents are located solely on the military installation and in turn have no tax base or bonding authority. The seven schools rely on impact aid and state funding and almost all repair or renovation expenditures come at the expense of instructional funding. The Department of Education is authorized to provide construction funding for impacted schools but only $10 million is provided for hundreds of impacted schools nationwide. An additional $5 million is available for school facilities owned by the Department of Education but the needs of those schools far exceed the available funding. The Department of Education has essentially abdicated its responsibility to ensure a safe and comfortable learning environment at federally impacted schools. We often hear of the need for more federal dollars for school construction but who deserves this more than the children whose parents serve in our armed forces. Schools that teach large numbers of military dependents receive supplemental impact aid assistance through the Department of Defense, $30 million in FY 2000 benefitting about 130 schools. However, the funding is not sufficient to meet major repair and renovation costs. A comprehensive program is needed to address this serious quality of life issue. And, without Department of Defense assistance tens of thousands of military children will continue to learn in inadequate and unsafe facilities. This amendment would benefit the 30 most heavily impacted school districts that teach military children. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important quality of life issue that will benefit more than 80,000 military children. amendment no. 3762, as modified

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins, the cosponsor of this amendment, who has worked with me because of the very example that she just gave. She has the situation in her State where this actually has curbed the creativity of public schools in offering more options for parents who believe their adolescent boys or their young girls would do better in a single-sex setting. In fact, in Detroit, MI, there is a boys school that has the same success that Senator Collins has just mentioned about a girls class in Maine; the boys are able to have a single-sex atmosphere. And sometimes it is shown by studies that adolescent boys do better in that atmosphere. We want public schools to have the same options and the Federal help that are available in parochial and private schools for creative approaches and solutions to our education problems. We want options, not mandates. But we want every child in this country to reach his or her full potential. We want that child to be given opportunities in a way that best fit that child's needs. That is why I think this amendment is going to be overwhelmingly accepted in the Senate--just as these amendments have been in the past. It will give the guidance to the Department of Education that will clarify the issue once and for all; that we want absolutely every option available in our public schools that will give every child in this country the ability to succeed. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and ask my colleagues for their support of the Hutchison-Collins amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is no one on the other side, which I believe is the case, I ask unanimous consent to give 2 minutes to Senator Collins, and then 2 minutes to myself.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly because I think we have agreement in a bipartisan effort on this amendment. I am very pleased that we will be able to offer this amendment and hopefully clarify some of the issues that have surrounded single-sex classrooms in schools for public education. As most people know, title VI is the part of our education funding that allows for new and innovative and creative approaches to public education. We have set aside money so school districts can come forward and say that their school districts need this particular type of emphasis. If it is creative, and it serves the needs of that particular school district, they can get Federal funding for those kinds of programs. One of the types of education that has been proven in certain instances to help the girls or boys who have participated are single- sex schools and single-sex classrooms. Many parochial schools and private schools are single sex. There are girl schools and boy schools. Some parents want to have their children in that atmosphere because they believe that sometimes girls can excel if they don't have boys in the class and they are more willing to speak up. This has been shown in many instances to be the case. And the same is true particularly with adolescent boys where they have single-sex schools, and they are not diverted by having girls in the class. They do better in some circumstances. We are not saying that we prefer this approach. We are not saying that we mandate it. We are not even suggesting that it be done. We are saying that we want to have as many options for public school districts and students as we can possibly give them so that the local community and the parents can make the decision for the boys and girls who are attending those schools about what will give them the best chance to get the best education that they can get. Allowing them to have title VI funding for a single-sex school or single-sex classroom is one way to put one more option out there. That is what this amendment does. I am very pleased to have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to try to clarify this situation because, in fact, we have several public schools that are single sex. The Young Women's Leadership Academy in East Harlem is a girls school. California has three girls schools and three boys schools. Western High in Baltimore is over 100 years old. It is a girls school. Philadelphia has a girls school that has been quite successful for many, many years. We say if this is an option that parents want to pursue, we want to have that option on the table. Parents may not be able to afford a private school or maybe they prefer public education. Let's give them another option among the many that we are seeing now in creative learning and better opportunities for the young people in a particular school district. That is what the amendment does. I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle. I believe there is no opposition to this amendment. I am very pleased that is the case because if we can clarify this and if we can open more options for school districts to have to meet specific needs of students and their individual school districts, why not? That is what our Federal dollars should do--allow the decisions to be made at the local level with as many options as we can possibly give them. I appreciate the support of everyone in the Senate. I have worked with many Members of the Senate. Senator Collins is a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Collins has been one of the strongest supporters of girls schools and classrooms and boys schools and classrooms of any Member of the Senate. I look forward to having our vote tomorrow. I hope, frankly, that it is unanimous. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3619.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of several of my colleagues who spoke previously on several issues of importance to me and my home state of Texas with regard to provisions in the fiscal year 2001 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. The bill as presently drafted would rescind important welfare funding to states under the program known as ``TANF'' (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). It would also cut the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program by $1.1 billion. Finally, the bill would threaten funding under the Children's Health Insurance (or ``CHIP'') Program. I was very pleased to hear Senator Stevens, the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Roth, the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, confirm on the floor today that they are committed to resolve these issues in favor of the states during the conference. I look forward to working with both Senator Stevens and Senator Roth to ensure that these issues are adequately addressed in that process. It is my understanding that the rescissions in TANF, CHIP, and SSBG funding in the bill were, in effect, temporary measures included until the broader funding issues could be resolved in conference. Nevertheless, I am very pleased to hear a reaffirmation of their commitment to address this in conference. In particular, I am committed to ensuring that TANF funds totaling $240 million, including $39.5 million in Texas, are not jeopardized. These funds stem from a provision in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that I and others supported to provide additional funds to high-growth, high- need states like Texas, Florida, California, and others. Under the revisions in federal welfare payments contained in that welfare reform bill, states like these stood to lose significant funds, and it was unclear whether they would be able to meet their legal obligations to low income families. To help ensure that states like these could continue to meet the needs of their residents while they transition to the new system of emphasizing work and self-sufficiency over dependence, I supported the inclusion of these so-called ``supplemental grants'' funds in the welfare reform law. Since then, these funds have been an important component of some 17 states welfare reform programs, programs that have been tremendously successful. For example, in my state of Texas, welfare rolls have been reduced by 63 percent. Texas and other states that have been so successful in helping people to become self-sufficient should not be penalized for that success. While some have argued that states have billions in unused welfare funds, it is my understanding that Texas, for one, has obligated to date all of its TANF funds. To rescind more than $39 million in funds from our state would disrupt not only the welfare program, but also the many other activities funded by TANF funds in the state, including worker training and child care. This disruption of fiscal year 2000 funds would also affect the state legislative process, necessitating a retroactive budget adjustment during the next session of the Texas Legislature, which will not meet again until January of next year. The federal TANF program was also intended to allow states to develop funding reserves to utilize during times of economic downturn and/or higher than usual unemployment. For example, the Texas Workforce Commission was able to recently use TANF funds to respond to the more than 18,000 Texans who lost their jobs during the oil price crash of 1997 to 1999. It is also fundamentally unfair to only cut TANF funds to the 17 states that presently receive them, while not affecting the funding received by the other 33 states. These states, on average, use TANF funds at a higher rate than the national average, using 97 percent of their total allocations versus 93 percent for other states in fiscal year 1999. In short, they need the additional funds. Many states that receive these supplemental funds are presently planning to expand their welfare and related programs, to include a broader range of services to enable all welfare recipients to become self-sufficient. Many single mothers, for example, have child care and transportation needs that make it all but impossible to find and keep a job. Others simply lack basic education and job skills that preclude them from holding virtually any employment. Still others have chronic substance abuse and psychological problems that are complex and difficult to address. As states seek to bring these so-called ``hard core'' welfare recipients into the economic mainstream, they will need all the TANF and other forms of federal assistance they can get to break the cycle of poverty. Mr. President, I again want to thank the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth for their comments today and for their responsiveness on these issues. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, as it was reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill reduced funding for two vitally important programs--the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program. When you look at the bill, there are major increases for other programs, which to me, suggests that the Subcommittee did not adequately prioritize what should be funded. The programs that these cuts would have affected--S-CHIP and SSBG-- are essential for welfare reform; helping to keep people off welfare and eliminating some of the reasons why people went on welfare in the first place. I support many of the programs and items that are funded by this bill, and I commend the fine work of our federal agencies in carrying out these programs, but I am not convinced that we should provide huge increases in funding for some programs--like a 15 percent increase for NIH--at the expense of addressing basic human needs in other programs--such as S-CHIP and SSBG. Mr. President, I oppose the cuts to these programs that have been included in this bill. I know that the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, has indicated that he will work to ensure that full funding is restored in Conference. However, I want to be clear to my colleagues--these two programs must not return to the Senate floor with these cuts intact. Funds must be restored in Conference, and, in my view, the Conferees also need to take out some of the increases in the Labor-HHS bill in order to bring it within its 302b allocation. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, one of the provisions included in that landmark legislation called for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program--or S-CHIP as it is known. S-CHIP is the single largest federal investment in health insurance since the establishment of the Medicaid and Medicare programs in 1965. It is a partnership between the federal government and our states, enacted to improve access to health care for children. I lobbied for this program as Vice Chairman of the National Governors' Association. As the Governor of Ohio, I understood how important it would be to the children of this country and their parents. In particular, I saw what it would mean to parents who were moving off welfare as part of welfare reform but needed assurances that their kids would have health care. As most of my colleagues know, as people move off welfare, they lose their Medicaid insurance. However, even as individuals move towards picking up health insurance where Medicaid left-off, the biggest thing that parents are concerned about is being able to provide health care for their children. I am concerned that if the S-CHIP program is not funded appropriately, it will take a lot of people who have gone off welfare and force them to have to go back on. I remember speaking to mothers who were on welfare when I was Governor, at the time when we were going through welfare reform, and many of these individuals told me that the reason they went on welfare in the first place was to get health care coverage for their children. S-CHIP gives parents peace of mind that their children have access to quality health care if it is not available through their place of employment and they don't have enough money to afford health care coverage. S-CHIP is not a ``one size fits all'' sort of program. One of the more appealing aspects of S-CHIP is its flexibility. States have been able to design innovative new programs and methods of reaching out to help uninsured children. Some states are even looking at with ways in which they can provide family coverage for the same cost as covering a child. Thus far, S-CHIP has been able to help over 2 million children obtain health insurance, and the opportunities to expand the program through its flexibility seem limitless. It is a program that is universally supported in our states. Therefore, you can imagine my surprise to find that when the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill last month, the bill contained a provision to rescind $1.9 billion from S-CHIP. The reason given for this S-CHIP rescission was a desire to free up $1.9 billion in budget authority to help finance discretionary programs in the Labor-HHS appropriation bill. Although the Senate appropriations bill restores the $1.9 billion to S-CHIP in 2003, the funds would be of little use to states and children in need of health insurance in the coming fiscal year. If the federal government is to be a true partner with the states, then the states must have the confidence that the federal government will not shrink from its commitment to S-CHIP and to children. Actions such as the proposed $1.9 billion rescission threaten the integrity of a critical program designed exclusively to help 2 million of our nation's children. I can understand why our nation's governors, Republicans and Democrats, have been united in their opposition to the proposed cut in S-CHIP--because the program works. We should not be in the position of reversing the federal-state partnership that makes this vital program function. In addition to the proposed cuts in S-CHIP, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill had proposed another break in a commitment that Congress made with the states. In 1996, as part of welfare reform, Congress agreed to provide $2.38 billion each year for the Social Services Block Grant, or SSBG. States and local communities have been able to target SSBG funds where they are most needed. For example, in my state of Ohio, funds have been used for such programs as adoption services in Washington County and foster care assistance in Montgomery County; home-based care for the elderly and the disabled such as home delivered meals in Franklin County; child and adult protective services in Cuyahoga and Allen Counties; and substance abuse treatment in Hamilton County--just to name a few. However, the funds for SSBG have been chipped away little by little. In fiscal year 2000, the program is funded at $1.7 billion, but the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill, as reported, only proposed $600 million for fiscal 2001--75 percent less than the amount promised to governors in 1996! A cut of this magnitude would be difficult, at best, for state and local governments to absorb, especially on top of the cuts over the past few years. Congress can't assume states will make up for the loss. As such, the lack of funding would have caused a disruption in critical services to individuals in need--many of whom are not covered by other federal programs. Many of the programs funded through SSBG prevent additional costs to the federal government in the long run. For example, SSBG helps provide in-home services to the elderly and the disabled, thereby eliminating the need to place them in a costly institutional setting. In addition, SSBG funds are used for family preservation and reunification efforts in order to cut down on the number of foster care placements. The notion that states can make up this $1.1 billion loss with TANF funds is false. Many of the populations served through SSBG, primarily the elderly and the disabled, have no connection to the traditional welfare system and cannot be served with TANF funds. That's why I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with the Appropriations Committee to take these provisions from the Labor-HHS bill. In my view, these provisions would have had a devastating impact on our most vulnerable citizens: children, the poor and the elderly. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work in getting these provisions removed from this bill. I believe their efforts will go a long way towards restoring the faith of our state and local leaders that the Senate is truly committed to giving them the opportunity to help all Americans.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that has been discussed by Senator Thomas, and others, just before I came to the floor. It is also an issue that every American who drives a car has on his or her mind. No one could fail to see the impact the high price of gasoline at the pump is having on hard-working Americans and American families at the end of June who are looking to take their family vacations. They hope to do it by car. I hope they can, too. But we have a situation with regard to gas prices that has occurred for a number of reasons. And because Congress and this administration have not acted, we have a worse situation than ever. I will talk a little bit about some of the causes of this. But I do not think we have to dwell on the causes all day because I think we can do something proactive that will begin to be a solution--both a short- term solution and a long-term solution. First, the causes. Clearly, we have an incredible dependence on foreign oil today. Seven years ago, we had about a 46-percent dependence on foreign oil; today, it is 56 percent; and it is projected to be 65 percent of our oil needs by 2020. So I think it is incumbent on all of us in public office to try to take short-term steps to solve the immediate crisis, particularly in the Midwest, but not without taking long-term action as well. We have a bill that is pending at the desk today. It is the National Energy Security Act. It would take some steps, putting some things on the table that would make a difference for our country and for the working people of our country who depend on gasoline. Let's look at some of the causes for the gas price crisis now being seen in the Midwest and elsewhere. The Congressional Research Service has attribute 25 cents of every gallon of gasoline at the pump in certain parts of the Midwest to the reformulated gas phase 2 requirement that the EPA is insisting on imposing beginning June first of this year. These additional costs are the result of the added expense of adjusting the refining process for the new gasoline requirement, particularly when the gasoline is required to be blended with ethanol, as is the case in the Midwest. In addition, there are added costs of transporting the ethanol, which cannot be moved via pipeline, to the sites where the gasoline is blended and distributed. Other additives, such as MTBE, are readily available at the refineries and so you have reduced transportation costs. You can put the MTBE-- which was the requirement in the past--in at the refinery and send it to places such as Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan--the places that are suffering right now--but the ethanol has to be carried from the agricultural areas, where it is grown, put into a new system in the refineries, and then shipped back to the Midwest. So you are talking about time, shortages, and costs that have added 25 cents per gallon. CRS estimates that an additional 25 cents of the increase in Midwest gas prices is attributable to recent problems with oil and gas pipelines that feed the upper Midwest, which have come at a time when gasoline stocks nationwide are particularly low and when the demand for gasoline is on the rise. With regard to the EPA requirements, we had hoped the EPA would say, OK, we are facing a crisis right now, so maybe for this summer we can relax those new EPA regulations and go with what has been the regulation of the past. Secondly, it is very important to realize that each State and many local governments impose additional taxes on gasoline at the pump. It just so happens that many of the midwestern States and cities within those States have higher taxes than the average in the country. The average combined federal and state gasoline excise tax is about 40 cents per gallon. In Chicago, Illinois, however, it is 61.3 cents per gallon. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, it is 47.2 cents per gallon. So we can see that there are wide differences across the country in taxes of gasoline. I commend the Governors of these States who are seeing the crisis and responding immediately. The Governor of Indiana has put a moratorium on the State sales tax on gasoline. The Governor of Illinois is calling a special session of the legislature to review taking similar action. The Federal Government should assist these and other States by repealing, for a time, the 18.4 cents-per-gallon Federal gas tax. If we suspend this Federal tax through Labor Day of this year, that will give relief in addition to the State taxes selected States are giving, and it will give us time to catch up with the EPA regulations and some of the other transportation problems that have caused the rise in gasoline prices. We should follow the lead of these midwestern Governors. That may also encourage other States to follow suit by responding in a similar fashion and giving the American people some much needed relief at the pump. I would not for one minute suggest we should take the money from that gasoline tax and take it away from the highway trust fund. We need to keep the highway trust fund whole so we can continue to make the improvements in safety and highway construction necessary for the States that depend on those funds. The on-budget Federal surplus is estimated to be about $60 billion this year. The estimates are going up because in fact we are getting more and more of a surplus. We know we want tax relief for hard-working Americans, and this is in fact tax relief for hard-working Americans, including truckers who are suffering under the increases in diesel fuel costs. We read stories about our own Coast Guard not being able to patrol the waters, where they are supposed to be doing drug interdiction and patrolling for summer safety. They can't afford the fuel because the prices have gone up so much. We need to give relief across the board, and we need to give tax relief for hard-working Americans. I am today introducing legislation granting a temporary repeal, through Labor Day, of the entire Federal gasoline and diesel tax. The bill will also ensure that the highway trust fund is made whole. This bill will give hard-working Americans immediate tax relief during the peak summer driving months, those who have to drive to work or who are going to take a family vacation this summer. At the same time we in Congress must act to take the longer term steps that we must take to have an energy policy in this country that makes sense. Let's talk about that for a minute. This administration is not only adhering to the regulations that make it so hard to drill for oil and gas in our own country, causing hundreds of thousands of jobs to go overseas, but they are also insisting on increasing the oil royalty rates. I fought the increase in oil royalty rates last year and the year before because I was very much afraid we were going to add so much to cost that our domestic drillers would go overseas. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. We are continuing, through this administration, to have increases in oil royalty rates at a time when oil prices have spiked to $30 a barrel. The fact is, we can't survive on $10-a-barrel oil and we can't sustain the economy on $30-a-barrel oil. That does not make sense for our country. What we need is price stability within a reasonable and sustainable range. The numbers show we are more and more dependent on foreign oil because we make it so hard for the little guys, the marginal well producers, to make it in our country. The big guys are leaving our country in droves because it is more efficient to go elsewhere to drill for oil and gas. As a matter of fact, just to cite a few real numbers, when oil was $10 a barrel, the little oil and gas producers went out of business in droves: 150,000 marginal oil and gas wells closed--that is out of a total of 600,000--65,000 good paying jobs were lost in this country; communities were devastated. In one example, in Midland-Odessa, the unemployment rate doubled in 1 year from 5 to 10 percent. School district revenues were hit by $150 million, causing a virtual halt to any new hiring, and in some cases school districts were having to let teachers go in the middle of the term because they could not pay their salaries for the rest of the year. They had to close classrooms because of this crisis when the price of oil was $10 a barrel. For some reason, when we were having that kind of problem, people weren't as tuned in. What has happened is, when we lost the 150,000 marginal wells, we lost the ability in 15-barrel-a-day wells to match the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia every day, because it adds up. We can produce 20 percent of the needs of oil in our country with these 15-barrel-a-day wells. Just to put that in perspective, a well in Alaska produces on average about 600 barrels a day; a well offshore, over 1,000 barrels a day. We are talking 15 barrels a day for marginal wells. What I would like to do is have a trigger. If the price goes below $14 a barrel for these 15-barrel-a-day drillers, let us have a tax credit so they will be able to stay in business and keep those jobs, not cap the wells, so that when the price goes up to $17 per barrel or more, those people have stayed in business and will keep producing. That is one part of a long-term strategy that would bring us up to 50- percent capacity for our oil needs every day. This problem is not going to get better. Dr. Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author who is probably the most credible independent oil economist, told a group of Senators and Members of Congress just last week that one of the problems we are facing is an increasing demand because of an increasingly hot economy worldwide. We know our economy in America is very strong, but that is also the case around the world. That causes more demand on our energy resources. So if we are going to have a policy that we would be dependent on foreign oil only 50 percent, we are going to have to produce oil in our own country and we are going to have to have those little barrels that add up, those little wells that produce 15 barrels a day, that add up to hundreds of thousands of jobs in our country, that support our schools. We are going to have to keep those people in business because they can't make it at $10 a barrel, but they can make it on $17 a barrel. So if we will treat them like farmers and when we don't have markets, or when the prices are so low that a farmer can't make it, we will try to keep them stable and level. That is what we have been doing in this country for a long, long time. I would like to see us treat our small oil producers in the same way because if there is anything that is crucial to the security of our country, it is at least being able to produce 50 percent of the energy needs of our country in order to have some stabilizing effect. When we depend so much on foreign oil, what happens is they can shut down the supply whenever they want to, and the OPEC countries have clearly done that. That causes a spike because of low supply, high demand, overregulation in our own country, and the unwillingness of this administration to say we are in a crisis. Let's work together to do something about it. Senator Lott, Senator Murkowski, Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles, Senator Breaux, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Landrieu have all been very proactive in trying to put forward a program that would give us short-term relief and long-term relief for energy in our country. I do want the short-term relief of the 18-cent Federal tax to be paused until after Labor Day for our independent truckers, for our families going on vacation, and for the working people of our country who must use cars to go to and from work. I want that relief, but we must tie it to long-term relief because, if we don't, if things stabilize for the short term, we are still going to be under the thumb of foreign interests; we are still going to face the possibility that another crisis will come. Why not anticipate it and do something proactive now that will provide long-term relief as well as short-term relief? I am introducing legislation that will provide the short-term relief. We must tie that in with the long-term relief if we are going to do what is right for this country. The National Energy Security Act is pending before the Senate. I hope we will take the action that has certainly been called for with the crisis we are facing. But let's take a longer-term view. Let's try to put some long-term energy policies in place because, certainly, this administration has failed to do so. If this administration would step up to the line and say: Of course, we are not going to increase our royalty rates at a time like this and say we need a little more time before the phase II ethanol regulations take effect in the major cities--let's try to tamp down this crisis. Let's help the Governors of the Midwest, who are taking State taxes off gasoline for this summer, and take the Federal gasoline tax off as well, make the highway trust fund whole by giving tax relief to hard-working Americans, and let's realize that the security of our country depends on our being able to provide for our own energy needs. It is clear that no matter what we do for our neighboring countries that supply most of the oil and gas we consume in this country, they don't seem to pay back. I think the fact that they will not up their production to meet the demand is wrong; nevertheless, I am not going to whine about it. I am going to take positive action that puts America in charge of our own destiny. That is the responsibility of this Congress, and that is what this Congress must do. Hopefully, the President will follow our lead and we can do something that is right for America, even if other countries we have helped in the past will not give us a break. We can do what is right for ourselves, and I hope we will. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object. I would like to work with the Senator, but I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear the request.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. If Senator Stevens wishes to make a motion to table, that would still be in order; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Wellstone amendment. I think it would be the height of irresponsibility to reduce this defense budget by $1 billion, for any purpose. Obviously, for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has not yet been reauthorized, there will be billions spent--correctly so--for the improvement of the education of our children. To withdraw the funds from the Department of Defense and put money into a bill that has not yet been reauthorized, I think would be shirking our responsibility to support our troops in the field and make sure they have the equipment they need to do the job we are asking them to do. Whether it be the missile defense system, the F-22, the F-16, the ships that we need so badly, or whether it is a quality-of-life issue, we are trying to increase the pay levels and the quality of housing for our military. We are trying to provide the health care that is deserved for the people in the service and for their families. Where would we take the $1 billion? Which part of our military budget that is already underfunded would we withdraw? I think it is very important we continue to finish this bill, that we allocate the resources we need to stop the flight from our military that we see occurring as we speak. We are having a very hard time retaining the good people who are serving in the military. They are leaving the military. They are leaving the military for a variety of reasons, some of which we can do something about: pay, types of housing, health care, and making sure they have the training and the equipment they need to do the job we are asking them to do. We need to make sure we do retain our best people. Second, I think it is very important we let potential recruits know we are going to take very seriously these quality-of-life issues. That is exactly what this bill, the underlying appropriations bill for the Department of Defense, is designed to do. I object to any reduction of the Department of Defense bill to reallocate resources to other areas that have already had their budgets approved by this Congress. We have set the levels of spending in Congress. We have allocated money for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have allocated money for all of the other agencies to be able to do their jobs. We need to set up a firewall in defense. We need to say we are going to put the money into defense to keep our security in this country. If we start adopting amendments such as the Wellstone amendment that would start taking $1 billion out and allocating it to some other cause, I think we would be walking away from our responsibility to strengthen our national defense. When we are 6,000 below the congressionally mandated troop strength level, as we are today, I think it is most certainly the responsibility of Congress to say, why do we have 6,000 fewer troops than we have allocated to do the job of keeping the security of the United States? I think once we determine the cause, we need to address that cause and we need to correct the problem. The way we do it is to make sure we are fully funding the equipment, the training, and the quality-of-life issues for our military personnel. We are asking them to do a pretty tough job. We need to give them the tools to do it. I am very fortunate to be able to visit so many of our troops around the world. I am very privileged to be on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and, before that, on the Armed Services Committee. I have visited our troops in Saudi Arabia, Italy, Bosnia, Kosovo, Germany, as well as, of course, throughout the United States of America. It lifts your heart to go to a base or to an outpost and talk to our military personnel. They are dedicated. They believe in our country. They believe in what they are doing. They are out there and they are going to do the job given to them to do. In the 7 years that I have been in the Senate and have made it a point to visit our troops wherever they may have been, I have never yet met one who did not inspire me, who did not make me believe that the security of our country was being handled by these young people and these generals and these admirals. They are dedicated and they are doing a terrific job. But it is the responsibility of Congress, it is the responsibility of the Senate, it is the responsibility of this body to make sure every one of those young men and women out in the field, who are patrolling as we speak, who are walking along the lines between Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, who are in Bosnia trying to keep Bosnia in a peaceful condition, who are in the deserts of Saudi Arabia right now, or in Kuwait, trying to keep some stability in the Middle East, get the support and the equipment and the training they need to do the job. If we start voting for amendments that take $1 billion out of an already short defense budget and start allocating that to other programs--worthy programs, but we have already set the spending limiting for those programs--we would be shirking our responsibility to support those who are supporting us. That is why I oppose the Wellstone amendment and why I hope this Senate will take the responsible action and reject any effort to take $1 billion out of the funds for the defense budget. It has emergency money in it to replenish the coffers where we have taken from the basic defense budget to fund the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is essential we get on with our responsibility and reject the Wellstone amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we now back to the Wellstone amendment numbered 3366?