Kay Hutchison

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 introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Breaux, addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our Nation's public coastal resources. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our Nation's marine recreational anglers. I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, but I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters. I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to defending and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. Recreational anglers are among America's most proactive conservationists and their contributions need to be recognized. The Act would establish guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources are preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the public who enjoy recreational fishing will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Secondly, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that measurable scientific criteria is used to determine the cause and impact of damage to fishery resources. Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection. I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fish Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Breaux, addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our Nation's public coastal resources. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our Nation's marine recreational anglers. I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, but I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters. I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to defending and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. Recreational anglers are among America's most proactive conservationists and their contributions need to be recognized. The Act would establish guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources are preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the public who enjoy recreational fishing will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Secondly, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that measurable scientific criteria is used to determine the cause and impact of damage to fishery resources. Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection. I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fish Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have a huge inequity in the Tax Code today. There are seven States that have a sales tax but no income tax. The States that don't have an income tax generally have a higher sales tax. That is the case with my State of Texas and six other States. Fifty-five million taxpayers who have only sales taxes for their State and a local major tax revenue base do not get to deduct from their Federal income taxes what they pay in local and State sales taxes. On the other hand, income tax State taxpayers do get that deduction. So if you have a high sales tax and that is the basis of your revenue for your State and local government, you are paying taxes on your taxes. This is not equitable. Fifty-five million taxpayers have this inequity. My amendment would treat everyone the same. It would give you the opportunity to either deduct sales taxes or income taxes on your Federal income tax return. This discrepancy has a huge impact on my State of Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, if taxpayers could deduct their sales taxes, more than $700 million would be kept in Texans' pocketbooks. This could lead to 16,000 new jobs and add $900 million in economic activity. Many States are facing financial crises. Our State certainly is, and many other States are. What we want is not an advantage. What we want is equity. I realize this bill is very important to end punitive tariffs the European Union has begun to impose on U.S. products. I do not want to impede this bill. It is so important for American manufacturers not to have this punitive tariff on our products going into European commerce. I am willing to work with the managers of the bill. I am willing to withdraw the amendment. But I am serving notice that we have had this inequity since 1986. Since 1986, seven States have had this discrimination. When there was a reform of taxation in 1986, they took away the deduction for sales taxes, and no one stood up and said there is an inequity in that there are seven States that have no income taxes and we are leaving the income tax deduction, but we are discriminating against States such as Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Nevada. We need to correct this inequity. I ask that the chairman withdraw the amendment at this time. I certainly support the underlying bill, but I am serving notice this inequity must be corrected soon. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Community Savings and Investment Act of 2004. This will create jobs, expand economic activity, and help to revitalize distressed urban and rural communities. It will accomplish this by providing tax relief for community-focused banks and helping to generate financial opportunities in low-income areas. As we address the challenges many of our communities face and search for ways to help those looking to improve their standard of living, we must properly leverage the tax laws to encourage economic development. Most people and communities do not want handouts. They want the chance to find solutions and make it on their own. However, to do this they need financial resources. The lifeblood of any economic development is capital. Too often it is difficult for people, especially those in distressed areas, to access financial resources and other banking services. Providing community banking will lead to much-needed investments in communities, allowing people to purchase homes, start new businesses, and revitalize their neighborhoods. The Community Savings and Investment Act will improve access to banking services by lowering taxes for community banks. It also provides incentives for banks to serve distressed communities by excluding any resulting income from taxation. By lowering the costs for banks to operate in communities, we can unleash powerful new forces for economic development. This initiative will make a significant difference in the lives of thousands of families and communities across this Nation. As we seek ways to further strengthen our economy, I urge the Senate to pass this common-sense approach. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to recognize the importance and need for increased weather modification research. Weather modification is the general term that refers to any human attempt to alter the weather. While we may not be able to stop Mother Nature entirely, we can sometimes alter her course, changing the weather in small, yet significant ways. These efforts have been used in the U.S. for more than 50 years to reduce crop and property damage, optimize useable precipitation during growing seasons and lessen the impact of periodic, often severe droughts. The weather modification projects in Texas and other States in the U.S. are much more than well considered responses to drought. They are trying to use the latest technological developments in the science to chemically squeeze more precipitation out of clouds. Moisture that is needed to replenish fresh-water supplies in aquifers and reservoirs. Political subdivisions like water conservation districts and county commissions have embraced the technology of rain enhancement as one element of a long-term, water-management strategy. This is critical to ensure growing populations have enough water to meet future needs. This bill will develop a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy through federal and state research and development programs. It will also establish a Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board within the Department of Commerce to promote and expand the practical knowledge of weather modification. Further, it recognizes the significance of state and federal collaboration in this endeavor. I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important research and I would urge my colleagues to support the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, at the Alamo, in San Antonio, 184 Texas rebels, led by William Barret Travis, made their stand against Santa Ana's vastly superior Mexican army. On the second day of the siege, February 24, 1836, Travis called for reinforcements with this heroic message. Just to put this in context, the war for independence from Mexico was being fought through the last several months and would eventually end because of the valiant stand at the Alamo, at the battle of San Jacinto. These 184 men were looking at what they thought were 6,000 Mexican soldiers marching on them. They were asking for reinforcements. They did not get those reinforcements, but they, nevertheless, fought to the last death. They held them for so long that it gave Sam Houston time to then get his troops lined up and to form the line on which they would take their stand; and that was near Houston, TX. It was the battle of San Jacinto. But this letter was dated February 24, 1836: Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana--I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death-- William Barret Travis, Lt. Col., Commander. So, Madam President, this is something that is celebrated in Texas on March 2 of every year. That is the date of the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico. My great-great-grandfather signed that declaration of independence, along with the first two Senators who eventually served Texas when, 10 years after it won its independence and had become a nation, then joined the United States as a State. And the first two Senators were Sam Houston and Thomas Jefferson Rusk. I hold the Rusk seat. He was the secretary of war and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence alongside my great-great-grandfather. They were both delegates from my mother's hometown of Nacogdoches, TX. So, Madam President, I thank you. And I certainly thank the Senator from Idaho for allowing me to keep this tradition.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of amendment No. 2388 without the second degree. It is a very important time for us to start treating our States more equitably and this bill-- I am sorry to say--is a step backward. TEA-21 embraced as its simple goal the elimination of redistribution of highway funds based on political considerations. For example, under the 1998 bill, Texas' rate of return rose from 77 percent to 90 percent in the formula programs. This means that for every dollar a Texas gasoline purchaser sent to Washington, we got 90 cents back on the dollar. So we contributed 10 percent of our revenue to other States. All of the donor States in TEA-21 were raised to the 90.5 percent level. There has never been a time when we have treated donor States differently from one another until this year. The bill before us creates a new superdonor status. Growing States and big States, such as California, Texas, Florida, and some smaller States, such as Colorado and Arizona that are also rapidly growing, are locked into superdonor status, still sending nearly 10 percent of our highway funds that we need even more because we are fast growing. My State is facing budget deficits and is trying to make those up so we can spend the money we need to fix our highways. Our States are rapidly growing, and yet we are continuing to be asked to send 10 percent of our highway funds to other States. We are the States that need the most new infrastructure, because we are experiencing the greatest population growth. My amendment would correct a small part of this glaring inequity. It would take $9 billion from the nebulous IPAM account and redirect it to the States that need it the most. Basically what you would do is take the IPAM account, which contains projects chosen on the basis of favoritism, and put that into the formula so that everyone is on a more level playing field. It is not a level playing field. Neither my State nor any other donor State will come out of donor status under this amendment. But it will provide gradual relief for these States to begin to work up to that 95 cent rate of return over the course of the bill. Under my amendment, all States would receive a minimum of 91 cents on the dollar in fiscal year 2005, and that minimum would rise 1 percent each year until 2009. My amendment would guarantee more money for every State. It would not reduce any State's formula percentage. It would not reduce any State's formula income by a penny. It simply distributes unallocated funds already in the bill, not increasing the bill, not lowering any State's income level. But instead distributing that money by projects, it will create a much fairer formula-based system. For 50 years, the Federal aid highway program and the States have maintained one of the world's finest highway networks. Highways are the first choice to transport most of the goods that drive our economy. The majority of that system was designed in the 1950s to help a rapidly growing Nation to connect to new population centers, especially in the West. Today there are other critical needs to be addressed. We are not in the 1950s. We are in another century, and we have new problems. One of those is the trade that has been created by NAFTA. That is not a problem, except that it has increased the highway needs in the States that have the corridors from Mexico to Canada. NAFTA has provided huge national benefits. The resulting traffic is crippling to our Nation's infrastructure. Early on smaller States and Western States needed extra help from larger and more established States such as Texas. Today the reverse is true. The funding inequity is increasing at a time when States are growing more equal in their abilities to contribute and our levels of existing infrastructure among the States are much more similar. In the name of fairness, why don't we go to a strict formula system that will increase everyone's part of the pie on a more equitable basis than when 100 Senators from 50 States go in a room and start trying to divide the funding themselves, knowing that some States are going to be left out, and some States are not going to be fairly treated? Why not make it fair from the beginning? My home State of Texas has borne the greatest burden over the life of the Federal aid highway program. Since 1956, Texas has contributed over $5 billion more to the program than we have received back in funds to build and repair our own highways. Each and every year Texas has sent more highway funding to Washington than it has received to cover projects in our State. Texas has more than 300,000 highway miles, the most of any State in our Nation. Our highways make up almost 8 percent of the total national mileage and 7 percent of interstates. As a result, the over 20 million people of Texas necessarily buy more gasoline and contribute more to the highway trust fund financed by the gasoline tax. In the past 12 years, Texas and other donor States have made good progress. In 1998, Texas received only a 77-cent return on every dollar sent to Washington, a loss of $1.7 billion. Current law guarantees us 90.5 cents on the dollar, but this is still $2.6 billion less than the contribution we make. This is a significant loss to a State that needs the infrastructure improvement to take on the added traffic caused by NAFTA. The minimum guarantee applies only to formula funding programs and does not restrict funds distributed through earmarks or by the administration in the underlying bill. Though we had hoped for more equality this year, and we hoped for the minimum of 95 cents return on every dollar we send to Washington, it has not happened. Of course, I hope the chairman and the committee understand I could not possibly support a highway funding formula so contrary to the needs of my home State. We are the biggest loser in this bill, to be sure. I am also concerned about the precedent it sets to create a superdonor status for the largest, fastest growing States in our country. This is not a good precedent for a United States that is supposed to be one United States. Our States are much more equal now in ability to contribute and pay for their own services. This is no longer a situation where we have vast amounts of western land that have no roads and no infrastructure. So I hope we will not set a precedent of a superdonor State category where we take the largest, fastest growing States and treat them even worse than they have been treated before and for so long. The bill before us distributes $227 billion in highway funds using a formula that will hold six States--Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Maryland--at this 90.5 percent rate of return for 5 years. Only in the sixth and final year does the level increase to 95 cents. If Texas were to receive 95 cents for all 6 years, the formula would provide Texas hundreds of millions of additional dollars over this period. But the amendment I have pending today does not even try to make up this discrepancy. What we are trying to do is increase just the rate of return 1 percent per year, starting at 91 cents, and reaching 95 cents in the last year. It is, I think, a reasonable compromise. It is fair to every State. It increases every State's take in this bill, and it will set a precedent of fairer distribution, even though there will still be many donee States that will get more than they send to Washington. The superdonor States have one aspect in common: They are the fastest growing States in America. But the formula in the bill offers the least relief to the States whose needs are most pronounced: the States and cities with populations that are developing most rapidly. Three of these six are also on the Southwest border, so we have the added burden of infrastructure needs brought on by NAFTA. In 2002, Texas contributed 9.11 percent of the total dollars in the trust fund, up from 8.27 percent 4 years earlier. Buying more gas allows us to contribute more funds. That is why when the distinguished chairman of the committee says, ``But you are getting more money than the spending increases in this bill,'' I have to say, yes, but that is because we are contributing more. We are still getting less in return than the other donor States that are going to be raised to a higher level at an earlier time. So, yes, we are getting more than the 36 percent increase in spending in the bill--I am told we are getting 42 percent--but what we are contributing is far more than the 42 percent growth we would be receiving. It is an enormous loss to Texas over the period of this bill; that amount could go a long way toward alleviating the huge traffic jams we are facing on our major NAFTA corridors. Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State of Texas. And while the entire Nation benefits from that resulting commerce, Texas bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our highways. In 2002, over 4 million trucks hauling 18 billion pounds of cargo entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border crossing facilities. Over 3 million of those trucks--or 68 percent--entered through Texas. In addition to commercial traffic, 90 million personal vehicles from Mexico also traveled through the southwest border States. So Texas, with its increased infrastructure burden, is getting a lower percentage of what it sends to Washington than almost all of the other States. I hope we don't break precedent and create this new stepchild in donor States because I know if we see it go through today, we will see it again in every formula. So the inequity in formula funding for Texas, California, and Florida will be imprinted on every formula we have in our system. This is a terrible precedent for a country that calls itself the United States of America. To its credit, the committee did, for the first time, create a border and corridor fund that reflects the added burden on the States on our northern border with Canada and southern border with Mexico. I commend the chairman and thank him for adding those funds. However, I have to say the $1 billion for each of those funds, when Texas gets its portion, will still not bring us anywhere close to a fair share or match the amount we are losing by not being treated like other donor States. The superdonor category just sets a terrible precedent. I would love to take the chairman of the committee and the ranking member to Interstate 35. Interstate 35 goes from the border of Mexico up through Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas. I had the unfortunate experience of driving from Austin to Dallas one evening, and it was a parking lot. It took us longer to drive from Austin to Dallas--almost 6 hours--than it does to fly from Washington, DC, to California. It is ridiculous. It is a parking lot because of the added traffic from Mexico that comes through this very important NAFTA corridor. I know small States have more voting power in the Senate. I also understand small States have traditionally had a larger piece of the funding pie than larger States. However, I have to say I think the concept of donor/donee States should go by the wayside, in a gradual manner, because States are much more equal in their capacity to pay than ever before, and some of these larger States on the border have a real and huge infrastructure need due to NAFTA traffic. I see my distinguished colleague from Arizona is in the Chamber. He wishes to speak on the bill and on my amendment as well. I am going to yield the floor, but first it is my great hope that the Senate will not take the unprecedented move of creating superdonor States that are in fact the stepchildren of America. Creating such an inequity says, ``because you are bigger, you should pay more,'' without considering you are sending more to Washington, you are in a crunch from the NAFTA traffic that is coming through your State, you have extra needs, you are a large, growing State, and you are being asked to take a 10 percent deficit on the funding you send to Washington despite all these reasons.'' It is time for the Senate to step up to the plate and say that we should not have stepchildren in formula funding. This is a new concept. In the past, the donor status has been shared by 20 to 25 States. So the cost of helping smaller States has been less of a burden. It is no longer fair to have such a disadvantage, and it is especially not right when many of these border States have greater infrastructure needs. When we were trying to help the West, Texas stepped up to the plate, as other States did. Now it is time to help the States that have the fastest growing populations and the greatest infrastructure needs and not to put them in a stepchild status for our country that calls itself the United States of America. I thank the Chair. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona.

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

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

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I hope very much our colleagues will also listen to the arguments against the second-degree amendment and for this amendment. I know the committee tried very hard to balance what they considered to be every State's wishes and needs, but they have made a major precedent-setting change in the business of the Senate by creating a new stepchild category for superdonor States. They picked States that have other huge problems such as high growth and falling median incomes. Targeting these high-growth, large States that have huge infrastructure problems and other problems that go with being on the border with another country is a major step in the wrong direction. I hope the chairman will reconsider. That is not likely right now, but we have been trying to work with the chairman to see if there could be some accommodation that would acknowledge the huge infrastructure needs of these superdonor States created in this bill. I hope the Senate does not do this in the end. In our amendment every State comes out better. It will create a more level playing field. The existing bill is not a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination. We are trying to gradually raise the percentage that every State will be able to get when we are sending more to Washington than we receive in return. Our amendment simply assures that every State will get at least 91 cents back from what it sends to Washington next year; the year after that, 92 cents; the year after that, 93 cents; and the year after that, 94 cents, until all the donor States reach 95. It would be a gradual increase to 95. If we went to 95 immediately, it would deliver even more to Texas. We are not trying to do that. We are trying to enact a modest increase aimed at a more equitable donor status. We will never get $1 back for what we send to Washington in this bill or in this environment. My hope, of course, is that at some point we will, that at some point other States will step up to the plate and say: We can bear our fair share and we do not need other States to pay our costs. That is not the case today. This amendment is a measured approach. Every State gets more under this amendment. Alabama will receive $125 million more under this amendment than they would under the committee bill before the Senate; Alaska, $13 million; Arizona, $216 million; Arkansas, $84 million; California, $1.30 billion; Colorado, $178 million; Connecticut, $66 million; Delaware, $16 million; the District of Columbia, $7 million. All of these are increases in what these States will receive under my amendment over 6 years: Florida, $481 million; Georgia, $288 million; Hawaii, $15 million; Idaho, $35 million; Illinois, $460 million more; Indiana, $291 million more; Iowa, $120 million more; Kansas, $68 million more; Kentucky, $142 million more; Louisiana, $12 million more; Maine, $40 million more; Maryland, $164 million more. Massachusetts, $119 million more; Michigan, $337 million more; Minnesota, $217 million more; Mississippi, $96 million more; Missouri, $188 million more; Montana, $28 million more; Nebraska, $48 million more; Nevada, $64 million more; New Hampshire, $29 million more; and New Jersey, $265 million more. Every State comes out better. It is more equitable and it takes out a lot of the politics. Senators who end up voting against my amendment think they will do better by divvying up a $9 billion pot into specific projects in their States, but all 100 Senators cannot come out winners that way. I would rather see us respond in a statesmanlike way, divide all of the money by formula, and give every State a more equitable portion. Every State will be helped and that is how our country should operate, with greater equity and a more level playing field. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Nevada. This bill came out of the committee with $9 billion in money that was unallocated. Now we are being told there is only $2 billion. It is a fair question to ask, where did the other $7 billion go? The fact is, the money has not been allocated until we vote on this bill. We would have the ability to create a level playing field with the exact same money that is in the bill. It has not been voted on by the Senate. Where is the $7 billion?

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. There was a misrepresentation that just occurred.

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we are not adding money to the bill. We are taking money in the bill that is unallocated--promised but not yet granted to specific projects in specific States--and redistributing that on a fairer basis than that of political rewards in project money. We are trying to take the politics out and establish fairness for the States made superdonors, or stepchildren, in the Senate's highway bill. I hope people will look beyond their pet projects and see that everyone benefits and the money used is already in the bill. The amendment does not add even a penny. Yet it creates a fairer planing field for every State already. So I hope the Senate will rise above project fighting and distribute this funding on a formula basis in order to treat every State more fairly. Madam President, when I came to the Senate, one thing that impressed me the most is that although I was a member of the minority party at the time, no State ever was ever penalized for size or growth. Every State was given funding that matched its needs. This bill is setting a new precedent that has never been the policy of the Senate to use big States as providers for other States. Everyone can see this play is not fair. I hope Senators will support this amendment. We are not adding a dime to the bill. We are redistributing the money that is in the bill in a fairer way. No one loses from the formula that is in the bill, and everyone gains much-needed funding. I hope the bill does not go to the President without a formula amendment. It would set a terrible precedent to institute a new superdonor category of States with more highway mileage and therefore always paying more money to the highway trust fund than they will ever get back.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. Last year, I worked with my colleagues and President Bush to pass a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. We are now seeing the fruits of our efforts. The tax relief has left more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, freeing the engines of the economy. Private sector growth is strong, the stock market is up, and jobs are being created. One of the most important provisions of the legislation provided immediate marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of almost $600 on their 2003 tax bills. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as people begin to feel the benefits from the relief, a tax increase looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by limitations imposed by Congress, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for 2 years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans. Without relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes. Even as the economy strengthens, many families face difficult choices in making ends meet. We must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, but without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. I have sought to make full marriage penalty relief permanent. However, given the current budget constraints and the politics of an election year, this will be difficult. I therefore am offering this bill to extend last year's victory for married couples for 1 year, through 2005. As Valentine's Day approaches, we should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to build on the 2003 tax cuts and say ``I do'' to extending marriage penalty relief today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. Last year, I worked with my colleagues and President Bush to pass a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. We are now seeing the fruits of our efforts. The tax relief has left more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, freeing the engines of the economy. Private sector growth is strong, the stock market is up, and jobs are being created. One of the most important provisions of the legislation provided immediate marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of almost $600 on their 2003 tax bills. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as people begin to feel the benefits from the relief, a tax increase looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by limitations imposed by Congress, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for 2 years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans. Without relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes. Even as the economy strengthens, many families face difficult choices in making ends meet. We must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, but without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. I have sought to make full marriage penalty relief permanent. However, given the current budget constraints and the politics of an election year, this will be difficult. I therefore am offering this bill to extend last year's victory for married couples for 1 year, through 2005. As Valentine's Day approaches, we should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to build on the 2003 tax cuts and say ``I do'' to extending marriage penalty relief today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.