Kay Hutchison

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 thank the Senator from Arizona. I also thank the Senator from South Carolina for making sure that we have an FAA reauthorization bill on the floor in a timely manner. There has been so much impact on the aviation industry over the last 2 years that I think we have had to refocus our efforts from capacity issues which we were trying to address before 9/11 to now security issues. Certainly, the parts of the bill that deal with capacity are still here. I think it is warranted that we look ahead. The aviation industry is going to come back, and we need to make sure we have the expedited environmental procedures for building new runways and help communities be able to meet the needs of increased demand when that occurs. If we can do that before a crisis, it will help us allow airports to grow in an environmentally positive way. In a way, that can be handled by the community effectively. I think this bill is a good bill. I have worked on it as the former chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and now as a member of the Aviation Subcommittee. I think it is very important that we look at the major issues of security. I commend the committee for keeping the Security Trust Fund, which I think is so important. People pay a ticket tax for security. I want to make sure this ticket tax goes for security purposes. That is what this bill does. If we start having a shoestring for the Transportation Security Agency, they are going to start cutting corners, and we are not going to have an airtight system that a number of us want to ensure. We have a safer aviation system today than we had on 9/10 in 2001. We want to make sure it stays that way. We should not let our guard down. The kind of enemies there are today are looking for vulnerabilities, and we are not going to allow them to have that. I think that is why this reauthorization discusses and handles the security issues, the capacity issues, and the issues of air traffic control and safety all in a way that I think is quite positive. I appreciate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member working to get this bill out. It came out of our Commerce Committee, and I look forward to supporting it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I stand today in support of S. 1182, introduced by Senator McConnell that I am cosponsoring. This bill answers the rising concern that democracy cannot begin to take its first promising steps in Burma. The news in the last few days clearly indicates that democracy in Burma is in serious trouble again. On Friday, May 30, in its latest crackdown against the National League of Democracy, Burma's military regime detained Aung San Suu Kyi, a popular prodemocracy activist, and other leaders of her political party. There are reports that her car had been hit by gunfire, and conflicting reports whether she had been hurt. The clash came in a town 400 miles north of the capital city of Rangoon. She was transported to Rangoon where she remains under house arrest. It took nearly 2 weeks of constant international pressure on Burma's military regime for a United Nation's envoy to visit her yesterday. The envoy reported she is in good spirits and had not been hurt in the clash that resulted in her detention, but Burmese officials still refuse to give a timetable for her release. When Aung San Suu Kyi was detained, the Burmese Government closed the offices of the National League of Democracy and arrested some of its provincial leaders. They also closed all university and college campuses. The Burmese military government is acting with renegade abandon. The detention of Aung San Suu Kyi follows a clear pattern by the ruling military over the past decade to prevent her and her political party from assuming power, despite the democratic election they won by a landslide in 1990. Barely a year ago, the Burmese Government released her from 19 months of house arrest, but only after intense international pressure. Aung San Suu Kyi captured the world's attention as a leader in the prodemocracy movement in her country after her Government refused to let her party take office. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her nonviolent efforts to promote democracy. Today, the military rule in Burma has shackled Aung Sun Suu Kyi again, but the world has not lost notice. It is time to isolate this oppressive regime and demand the release of those it is holding for doing nothing more than seeking democracy for their nation. Senator McConnell's bill will sanction the ruling Burmese military junta, strengthen Burma's democratic forces, and support and recognize the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people. It is time to increase the pressure on those who seek to snuff out the flame of democracy in a nation whose people clearly support it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti- family aspects of the tax code--the marriage penalty. Relieving American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities as a U.S. Senator. Last week President Bush signed into law a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. The bill provides immediate marriage penalty relief by enlarging the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly to twice that as for single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of $589 this year alone. Enacting marriage penalty relief is a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. The Jobs and Growth Act was just signed, but even as the ink dries a tax increase on married couples looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by artificial limitations to $350 billion, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for two years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans. Similar restrictions were placed on the 2001 tax cut, so, while relief will be phased in by 2009, it will disappear for good in 2011 unless we act decisively. Millions of couples across America will be penalized once more by our tax code simply because they are married. Without marriage penalty relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay the government an average $1,400 more in taxes. Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. Without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle, and the benefits of marriage are well established. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. The bill I am offering would make the marriage penalty relief in the Jobs and Growth Act permanent. It also will accelerate changes to the earned income tax credit that were passed in the 2001 tax reform bill. This will reduce the marriage penalty on lower income couples. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to providing permanent marriage penalty relief today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti- family aspects of the tax code--the marriage penalty. Relieving American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities as a U.S. Senator. Last week President Bush signed into law a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. The bill provides immediate marriage penalty relief by enlarging the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly to twice that as for single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of $589 this year alone. Enacting marriage penalty relief is a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. The Jobs and Growth Act was just signed, but even as the ink dries a tax increase on married couples looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by artificial limitations to $350 billion, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for two years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans. Similar restrictions were placed on the 2001 tax cut, so, while relief will be phased in by 2009, it will disappear for good in 2011 unless we act decisively. Millions of couples across America will be penalized once more by our tax code simply because they are married. Without marriage penalty relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay the government an average $1,400 more in taxes. Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. Without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle, and the benefits of marriage are well established. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. The bill I am offering would make the marriage penalty relief in the Jobs and Growth Act permanent. It also will accelerate changes to the earned income tax credit that were passed in the 2001 tax reform bill. This will reduce the marriage penalty on lower income couples. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to providing permanent marriage penalty relief today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am certainly going to support this bill and this vehicle. But I did hold it up for a few hours because I am concerned that we are not able to put marriage penalty relief in a permanent position on this bill. However, I have an agreement with the majority leader that he will bring it up this year. Working with the distinguished chairman of the committee, and hopefully with the ranking member, we must fix the marriage penalty. What we have today is a situation in which we relieve the marriage penalty for 2 years, then for 4 years it comes back, then 2 years later it goes away, and then it comes back for good. This is outrageous. Our married couples do not need a rubber band; they need a Band-Aid. They need to be able to know that when they get married, it is not going to cost them $1,200 a year. Two Navy lieutenants will lose more than $1,500 a year if the marriage penalty goes away in 2 years; two Army warrant officers will lose $852 a year. This is not right. I have the commitment from leadership that we will take up a bill this year that fixes this inequity, and I hope there will be a bipartisan effort. We cannot let people be unsure about their marriage penalty relief. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and ask him if he will work with me to ensure that we take this up this year so we can get on and fix the child tax credit. Next on the agenda I hope will be marriage penalty relief.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to improve the deplorable housing situation on the U.S. border with Mexico. In Texas along the 1,248 mile stretch from Cameron County to El Paso County, there are more than 1,400 colonias, or underdeveloped subdivisions, that suffer from such conditions as open sewage, a lack of indoor plumbing, and poor housing construction. These colonias are the most distressed areas in the country, yet despite terrible living conditions, they have grown in population. The legislation I introduce today, along with the Colonias Gateway Initiative Act which I am sponsoring, will go a long way toward eliminating the substandard living conditions that should not exist here in the United States of America. This legislation will prohibit Federal funding for counties and municipal governments that refuse to enforce reasonable rules to prevent the development or construction of any new colonias that lack water, wastewater, and other basic infrastructure needs. I have inserted and the Senate has passed this exact language into the VA-HUD Appropriations bill every year since fiscal year 2001. In 1993, I visited with a woman named Elida Bocanegra, who led me through the streets of the colonia where she lived. Elida showed me her community, which lacked paved roads, wastewater facilities and running water. Quite frankly, I could not believe I was in America. After that experience, the first amendment I offered as a U.S. Senator authorized $50 million for a colonias clean-up project. Since my election to the U.S. Senate, I have worked to improve the quality of life and ensure fundamental services are provided for people like Elida, helping to secure more than $615 million for the colonias of my state. This act will ensure that colonias lacking water and wastewater facilities will be a thing of the past, and the neediest people along our border with Mexico will have the basic necessities to live. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to improve the deplorable housing situation on the U.S. border with Mexico. In Texas along the 1,248 mile stretch from Cameron County to El Paso County, there are more than 1,400 colonias, or underdeveloped subdivisions, that suffer from such conditions as open sewage, a lack of indoor plumbing, and poor housing construction. These colonias are the most distressed areas in the country, yet despite terrible living conditions, they have grown in population. The legislation I introduce today, along with the Colonias Gateway Initiative Act which I am sponsoring, will go a long way toward eliminating the substandard living conditions that should not exist here in the United States of America. This legislation will prohibit Federal funding for counties and municipal governments that refuse to enforce reasonable rules to prevent the development or construction of any new colonias that lack water, wastewater, and other basic infrastructure needs. I have inserted and the Senate has passed this exact language into the VA-HUD Appropriations bill every year since fiscal year 2001. In 1993, I visited with a woman named Elida Bocanegra, who led me through the streets of the colonia where she lived. Elida showed me her community, which lacked paved roads, wastewater facilities and running water. Quite frankly, I could not believe I was in America. After that experience, the first amendment I offered as a U.S. Senator authorized $50 million for a colonias clean-up project. Since my election to the U.S. Senate, I have worked to improve the quality of life and ensure fundamental services are provided for people like Elida, helping to secure more than $615 million for the colonias of my state. This act will ensure that colonias lacking water and wastewater facilities will be a thing of the past, and the neediest people along our border with Mexico will have the basic necessities to live. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for a job well done. This has been difficult. When I hear people talking about the tax bill and saying it is really amazing that we sunset some of these taxes and then bring them back--no one wanted to do that. The reason we have to sunset some of these taxes is that we had to work within an artificial constraint of $350 billion. That is why we have sunsets. What we certainly hope to do is not to sunset these tax cuts, the tax relief for hard-working American families, but instead to allow these to go forward. We will have to pass new legislation to do it. Even with these modest tax cuts, we are going to spur the economy. People seem to forget that the purpose of this bill is to stimulate the economy. Eighty percent of the benefit of lowering the top rate to 35 percent goes to small businesses, and small businesses are going to reap the benefits. Small business is the job creator of America. It is small business we want to spur to create jobs. We want to put people back to work. The purpose of the legislation is to put people back to work and, in addition, to bring a little equity into the system. Why in the world would we have a penalty on marriage? Why would a couple in Abilene, TX, who make $65,000 a year pay $1,000 more in taxes just because they got married? We go a long way toward eliminating the marriage penalty tax with this bill, and we are going to do everything we can to keep that in place from now on. There should not be a penalty for marriage. We should treat everyone equally. The marriage penalty bill was mine. It is a part of this legislation. I am going to do everything in my power to keep it forever, doubling the standard deduction and doubling the 15 percent bracket when people get married. That is for the lowest income and moderate-income people. We are making a giant leap for child tax credits, from $600 to $1,000, because it is our families who are suffering so much today. We are going to do everything in our power to make the child tax credit absolutely permanent. I want to discuss the State aid package because as we speak this morning, the Texas Legislature is in the last days of its regular session. They meet every other year for 6 months. They are in the last days of that session, and they are grappling with over $500 million. I spoke to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst yesterday. He and the Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, are working diligently to cut the budget, to try to be fair, try not to cut services too much. Help is on the way. My State of Texas is going to receive more than $1.2 billion in aid over the next 2 years. Under this proposal we are going to pass today, more than $510 million will go for Medicaid help. That is one of the biggest problems my State and many others have. $710 million will go in block grants for essential government services so they will be able to put this money where it is most needed--$510 million for Medicaid, $710 million in block grants. And it is going to be this year and next year. I hope this will resolve the problems of my State, as it has done as much as it can right now. The legislature is grappling with it. We are going to help my State and every State in America. We understand the hard times because the Federal Government is feeling it, too. We have increased national defense responsibilities, increased homeland security, and our States have as well. So help is on the way. I am very pleased to have been part of the group who worked on the State aid package to try to help. I have been reading the Texas papers. I see the problems we face. The committee did an outstanding job. I commend the House. I commend the President of the United States for his leadership. The President didn't just sit on his laurels after doing a great job in Iraq, a wonderful job protecting the young men and women of our country; he said: We are going to put people back to work. The President deserves credit. The Senate and House deserve credit. We will put people back to work in this country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 thank Senators Collins, Talent, and Snowe for bringing up this subject in the Defense bill. I have small business advisory committees in my State and just last week hosted an African American leadership summit. The major complaint these small businesses have is bundling. They would like to have an opportunity to bid, but they are frozen out by this process. I vowed I would try to help open the door because it is good for small business. Small business is the economic engine of America. That is where the jobs are created and it will be good for taxpayers, as the Senator from Maine has said, to have competition, to have more people working to get into Federal contracting, bringing something different to the table. So this is a very important part of our strong national defense, getting the best deal for taxpayers, but it is also very important that we help our small businesses have access to the biggest contracts that are made in America. Government contracts are the biggest and small businesses have something to offer. Where they are proven and where the 8A program has come in to help our minority-owned businesses get those opportunities, getting the backup they need to be reliable minority contractors, that is what we need in this country. We need to open that door. The 8A program does open the door and it creates that level playing field that allows them then the platform to get some of the larger contracts. I appreciate the Senators working with all of us to try to bring about this result. I vowed I would do it. I think if we can do it in the Department of Defense, later we can then use that as a model for all of the Federal agencies in our country. We will do a better job for the taxpayers and we will help the small businesses of this country that are creating the jobs. We want more jobs in our economy. That is the bottom line. It is a win for everyone.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues who serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and their staffs for the superb work done on the bill before us today. The bill comes to the floor of the Senate at an important time in our Nation's history. We have been at war for the past 20 months, ever since the devastating attacks on September 11, 2001 brought the violence of terrorism to our own country. We have come far since then, but we have much farther to go. Our first goal in the war on terrorism was to topple the brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to destroy the camps where the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked us trained. We have done that. Our Nation's military, the finest in the world, successfully led that charge. Today we see in Afghanistan the beginnings of a democracy. We will continue to help in the future to make sure that order is kept in Afghanistan and that it will be a part of the flourishing world community. Our second goal was to disarm the dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq before he could surface and use weapons of mass destruction once more against innocent civilians. We have done that. Again, our brave men and women in uniform successfully achieved that important goal in an astounding 3 weeks. It was a charge that was lightning fast in its speed and thunderous in its conclusion. Now we are working with other nations and world bodies to guide the Iraqi people toward stability. In our quest to unearth Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, we are digging up mass graves of thousands of innocent people whom Saddam Hussein put to death for opposing him. Mr. President, we may not have found the weapons of mass destruction yet, but we have found horrifying mass graves that show the world the grim importance of our success in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill before us provides our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families with the important tools they need to continue the vital work they are doing. Whether they are active duty or reservists or members of the National Guard, they are the ones who must continue the global fight against terrorism and against nations ruled by despots who develop or possess weapons of mass destruction. I commend my colleagues for authorizing a military pay raise in this bill that provides a 3.7-percent across-the-board increase and for an additional raise targeted for experienced midcareer personnel, ranging from 5.25 to 6.25 percent. I commend the committee for establishing incentive pay in the amount of $100 per month for service members who are serving in the Republic of Korea. One need look no further than the news headlines on any given day to appreciate the stability our presence has on the Korean peninsula to keep in check the totalitarian regime in North Korea. I am also glad to see this bill increase family separation pay from $100 to $225 per month and increased pay for imminent danger or hostile fire from $150 to $225 per month. This is not enough, and anyone listening or who will read this will say it is not enough. It is not. But it is one more thing we can do to show people who are making these sacrifices that we want to compensate them in every way we possibly can for a debt we know we will never really be able to repay. I was also pleased the committee agreed to continue the development of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft in the amount of $4.4 billion. There is no question the Joint Strike Fighter is the fighter of the future, and it will keep America preeminent in defenses for whenever we may need them in whatever place and in whatever way. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for including the Bipartisan Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Structure of the United States. That is a long way of saying that we are going to look at foreign bases, as well as American bases, as we are making the transition for our Department of Defense into the security assessment that we face today. This is a bill I introduced with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. I am the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Feinstein is the ranking member. In looking at military construction, as we have, and the issues facing us with military construction for American bases versus foreign bases, it occurred to us that the Department of Defense is in a huge transition now, trying to assess the threats we have and the different kinds of threats we have been seeing since 9/11, and we have not kept up in military construction requests. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cold war concept guiding the overseas basing for the U.S. military is obsolete. Yet the number, structure, and scope of our overseas bases is still largely alive with the threat of Soviet aggression. The process of when, how, and why we base troops abroad is in need of a thorough examination to assure that our basing structure is adequate for the new security environment. This legislation will assess every overseas installation. During the cold war, our primary military mission was to defend our Nation and our allies from the symmetric Soviet threat of aggression, and ``boots on the ground'' in Europe and Asia allowed us to do that. Even though the cold war has been over for a decade, our Nation still has 112,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in Korea, and 45,000 in Japan, largely in installations designed, devised, and intended for the threats of an earlier era. Training constraints are evident on many of these bases. The threats we face today are asymmetrical. They are terrorist groups or rogue states gaining weapons of mass destruction. Events of the past decade, especially since 9/11, have taught us that we not only need to maintain a military presence abroad, but we need to be in a position to support contingencies where we have no permanent bases, such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Africa, and throughout the Middle East. In the final analysis, we may need more troops overseas, not fewer, but clearly the needs are different than they once were, and it is critical that the United States move beyond the cold war basing concepts. This is not simply a matter of security, although that is a sufficient concern, but also of assuring that taxpayers' dollars are well and wisely spent. The Defense Department has requested as of right now $174 million for Korea and $284 million for Germany for new military construction next year. That is a large bill for a model in transition. In South Korea, our soldiers often serve on the same patches of ground U.S. troops occupied when the Korean war ended in 1953. Today, these training areas are inadequate to accommodate the extended reach of our weapons and the rapid pace of modern maneuver warfare. In fact, more than 7,000 U.S. troops are stationed at the Yongsan Army Garrison which was built by the colonial Japanese Army before World War II. In Grafenwoehr, Germany, our troops train on tank and artillery ranges used by the Bavarian Army over 100 years ago. The army has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the complex in the past decade, even though the best training area consists of 18,000 acres of land, a postage stamp compared to the 400,000 acres of maneuver area and ranges available at the National Training Center in California, or the more than 1 million acres at Fort Bliss's MacGregor Range on the Texas-New Mexico border. Further complicating matters, the Defense Department is preparing for another round of domestic base closures in 2005. As we scrutinize stateside military installations, we must take a look at our worldwide structures as well. To make sure we get the answers to these questions right, our bipartisan legislation that Senator Feinstein and I introduced and is included in this bill would create a congressional commission to take an objective and thorough look at our overseas basing structure. The commission will consider criteria to determine whether our bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st century. It will be comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts who will provide a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force structure to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure Commission. We certainly want to work with the Pentagon. This is a timely review. Some in the Pentagon have suggested that the 2005 BRAC could result in the closure of one in every four domestic bases. But if we are going to reduce our presence overseas, we will certainly need stateside bases to station returning troops. It is senseless to close bases in the United States only to later realize we made a costly and irrevocable mistake, a painful lesson we learned in the last rounds of closures. Our national security strategy is shifting to take on the new threats facing our Nation. The position of U.S. troops around the globe must reflect that thinking. I appreciate what the committee did in including this legislation that Senator Feinstein and I introduced. It will be a major component of a future BRAC, and I hope a major part of the thinking at the Pentagon about what our threats are and where we need troops to be able to address those threats. Amendment No. 763

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 763, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That would be acceptable.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Things have changed for sure. If the ranking member would also work with, that would be very much appreciated.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I think the committee went a long way toward exactly the point we are making, and that is we will never be able to repay fully those family members who have lost their loved ones. I have talked to a mother who lost her only son, and she had lost her husband. She has nothing else left in life. There are many stories like that. But the chairman has gone a long way toward trying to compensate in the only way Congress can, by adding money for support services, adding money for the hardships, making sure health care is better, doing what we can do in Congress, though we know from our hearts we will never repay these people in totality. We cannot. We do want them to know that with the monetary compensation and the benefits we are giving, there is a deep respect for what they have done for our country that will last throughout eternity.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as I have traveled across Texas and visit military bases, I have met with many military members and their families. The feedback I have received from the members and the spouses was that the military services provided wonderful family support during the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also heard that some family members who were deployed, particularly from the National Guard and Reserve, need better access to family support resources at the nearest military base. Because many Guard and Reserve personnel do not live where they serve, family members do not get to develop the relationships with the nearest family support service, and if it is provided by a different military service or component, than their own, it is a special hardship. To work toward ensuring that families of our Guard and Reserve personnel are adequately served, I have introduced an amendment that requires the Secretary of Defense to include in his report on the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom a study of family support services provided to the dependents of National Guard and other Reserve components of the Armed Forces who are called to active duty. This amendment requires the Secretary to address the extent to which interservice cooperative agreements are in place to support dependents of mobilized members, regardless of the member's service or if they are a member of the National Guard or Reserve, and to outline what additional outreach programs should be established to support dependents in the region of an existing military base or post. It also asks the Department of Defense to identify additional resources necessary to ensure that adequate family support services are available to dependents of mobilized members at the nearest military installation to the residence of the dependents. Family support access is one key lesson that we are learning from the frequent and extended mobilization of members of the National Guard and Reserve to help fight our ongoing wars. We never intended to use our Guard and Reserve this much. It is important to note that their families also serve through their sacrifices and commitment, and approving this amendment is the least we can do to help them. I ask for a vote on the amendment, but I also want to say that because of the constraints put forward about the relevancy of amendments, I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if they would work with me in conference to give this amendment the direction that it originally had. It is now part of a report. It would not cost anything, but it would hopefully eventually direct the Department of Defense to establish these communication systems so our Guard and Reserve families will have the same access to support services when they are on active duty that an active-duty person's family would have. So I ask for that commitment from the distinguished chairman to work with me in conference to give that direction and then I will ask for a vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman very much for that comment. I think the Senator is right. People do not realize that the makeup of our Armed Forces is much different today demographically than it was in the past. There are more families. There are two-service families, and it used to be mostly single people. So we have had to make accommodations which I think the distinguished chairman and ranking member and the committee have done in many areas, such as in health care. We did not have to have pediatricians as a reliable component of health care in the military so much in the past as we do now, or OB/ GYN, but those are the issues we must address today. I am pleased the Senator is doing so, and I hope we will all work together.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the past 50 years U.S. transportation policy has focused on building a system designed to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population that was still expanding westward. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will ease congestion brought on by the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, by reforming the Coordinate Border Infrastructure Program and the National Corridor Planning and Development Program. These two programs are commonly known, collectively, as the Border and Corridor program. Thanks to NAFTA, more of our trade crosses international borders, and 80 percent of that trade moves into and through the United States in trucks. Since the passage of NAFTA in 1993, traffic on America's trade corridors has doubled. Although this commerce has been a boon to the Nation's economy, it has been devastating to some of the country's infrastructure. With almost 80 percent of the NAFTA trade traveling through my home State of Texas, the increased volume has further congested and worn out our major highways including I-35, and created the need for new highways like I-69 and Ports-To-Plains. The loss of productivity resulting from increased time spent in traffic, and the declining condition of critical international corridors will have the long term effect of diminishing the economic benefits of NAFTA trade. It is also forcing border States to bear an unfair portion of the infrastructure cost. In TEA-21, Congress created the Border and Corridor programs, intending to address the infrastructure needs generated by NAFTA trade. Unfortunately, funding for those discretionary programs has often been misdirected to non-border states and corridors lacking international significance. The Border and Corridor programs provide funds for projects on the border to speed international crossings, and to provide resources to High Priority Corridors that experience increased NAFTA truck traffic. With almost every state in the country having a designated High Priority Corridor, the limited funding was insufficient to provide any real benefit where it is most needed. My legislation will reaffirm that only those corridors that are carrying the burden on NAFTA trade are eligible to receive funding. Both programs are important to the goal of addressing infrastructure needs resulting from NAFTA trade traffic. However, the two programs do not always receive equal funding. My legislation will guarantee that the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program will receive 50 percent of the available funding, to ensure that border regions will have the resources to conduct truck and bus inspections, and inspect commercial vehicles rapidly enough to keep traffic moving at the border. As Congress considers TEA-21 reauthorization, I will be dedicated to shifting the federal focus on programs that can address the critical need of states that have been impacted by NAFTA trade traffic. I want to thank my cosponsors, including Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Kyl, and Cornyn for recognizing the importance of restoring fairness to these critical highway programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the past 50 years U.S. transportation policy has focused on building a system designed to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population that was still expanding westward. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will ease congestion brought on by the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, by reforming the Coordinate Border Infrastructure Program and the National Corridor Planning and Development Program. These two programs are commonly known, collectively, as the Border and Corridor program. Thanks to NAFTA, more of our trade crosses international borders, and 80 percent of that trade moves into and through the United States in trucks. Since the passage of NAFTA in 1993, traffic on America's trade corridors has doubled. Although this commerce has been a boon to the Nation's economy, it has been devastating to some of the country's infrastructure. With almost 80 percent of the NAFTA trade traveling through my home State of Texas, the increased volume has further congested and worn out our major highways including I-35, and created the need for new highways like I-69 and Ports-To-Plains. The loss of productivity resulting from increased time spent in traffic, and the declining condition of critical international corridors will have the long term effect of diminishing the economic benefits of NAFTA trade. It is also forcing border States to bear an unfair portion of the infrastructure cost. In TEA-21, Congress created the Border and Corridor programs, intending to address the infrastructure needs generated by NAFTA trade. Unfortunately, funding for those discretionary programs has often been misdirected to non-border states and corridors lacking international significance. The Border and Corridor programs provide funds for projects on the border to speed international crossings, and to provide resources to High Priority Corridors that experience increased NAFTA truck traffic. With almost every state in the country having a designated High Priority Corridor, the limited funding was insufficient to provide any real benefit where it is most needed. My legislation will reaffirm that only those corridors that are carrying the burden on NAFTA trade are eligible to receive funding. Both programs are important to the goal of addressing infrastructure needs resulting from NAFTA trade traffic. However, the two programs do not always receive equal funding. My legislation will guarantee that the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program will receive 50 percent of the available funding, to ensure that border regions will have the resources to conduct truck and bus inspections, and inspect commercial vehicles rapidly enough to keep traffic moving at the border. As Congress considers TEA-21 reauthorization, I will be dedicated to shifting the federal focus on programs that can address the critical need of states that have been impacted by NAFTA trade traffic. I want to thank my cosponsors, including Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Kyl, and Cornyn for recognizing the importance of restoring fairness to these critical highway programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.