Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. To help these farmers stay in business. I thank the Senator for helping us get through this hard time while we try to make Mexico keep its commitments.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank Senator Cochran for all his amendment does to deal with the drought and the severe crises in the agricultural community in our country. I want to specifically speak about a part of this amendment that affects my home State and thank him for the support he has given to the farmers who live in south Texas and who are suffering because Mexico has refused to meet its requirements under the 1944 water treaty with the United States. Farmers, families, and communities in the Rio Grand Valley of Texas have suffered devastating economic losses due to Mexico's refusal to comply with this treaty. The treaty obligates Mexico to allow an average of 350,000 acre feet of water to flow into the Rio Grande River annually for the United States, while obligating the United States to allow an average of 1.5 million acre feet of water to flow to Mexico from the Colorado River. Even during the hardest times, since 1944 America has strictly complied with its obligations under the treaty of 1944, but Mexico has accrued a deficit of 1.5 million acre feet. Mexico claims that drought conditions in Chihuahua prevented it from releasing Rio Conchos water into the Rio Grande. However, Mexico's agricultural production in Chihuahua has blossomed. Recent reports by Texas A&M University's Extension Service, accompanied by NASA satellite photographs from the University of Texas, document Mexico's increased use of irrigation water to promote high value water-dependent crops such as corn, oats, forage, and vegetables in the state of Chihuahua. We can see from this satellite photograph the Madero Reservoir's water storage is at 14-percent capacity on June 25 of 2002. Even during the low 14-percent water storage, Mexico continued to irrigate its fields. However, two months later, August 28, 2002, the Madero's water storage has risen to 75 percent of its total capacity and we still couldn't get Mexico to comply with the treaty and fully deliver its water obligations to South Texas this year. We cannot stand by and allow our farmers and ranchers to suffer because an international treaty is not being met. This satellite image clearly shows Mexico is holding the water it owes the U.S. While its reserves are full, Mexico only delivers the bare minimum this year. Furthermore, Mexico is making no effort to repay its debt. I find it incomprehensible that Mexico would not even comply this year when it clearly has the water available. Mexico's domestic agricultural production is flourishing with U.S. treaty obligated water while the Rio Grande Valley in Texas is suffering from a decline of more than 100,000 acres of farmland, nearly a $1 billion net loss to the regional economy and 30,000 lost jobs. Many agricultural operations have been forced to go out of business and many are expected to fail unless the United States can resolve this issue immediately. Agricultural production and its allied industries are the economic engines of south Texas. It is one of the few weapons that south Texas has to combat--unemployment and poverty. The United States cannot afford to stand by and allow Mexico's destruction of an American industry and the communities and people whose survival depend on it. Mexico needs to change its water management practices. I have urged the President to press Mexico to immediately comply with its obligations, and the President has done so. He has repeatedly talked to the President of Mexico, as have I, and many others. If Mexico continues its refusal to comply with the 1944 water treaty, I think the United States must consider renegotiating this treaty with Mexico and taking into consideration the 1.5 million acre feet of water that we are sending to Mexico every year from the Colorado River. Texas has suffered severe losses and the Rio Grande Valley's economic viability and livelihood depend on this water. The United States has a duty to either force Mexico to deliver the water to South Texas or compensate Texas families who are paying the price for this abrogation of the treaty. Senator Cochran's amendment has $10 million that would be available for grants through the Texas Department of Agriculture----

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, Senator Feinstein and I introduced this bill last session. Under the leadership of Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch, it went through in a remarkably short amount of time. Everyone could see the need for this bill, something that could be done on a volunteer basis, but with that Coordinator in the Department of Justice, we could really make a difference when a child is abducted in this country. Unfortunately, the bill died in the House. So we have introduced the bill again. And this time, once again, through the leadership of Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, it has gone through the committee in record time. I hope we can pass this bill and give the House plenty of time to also pass this legislation and send it to the President. The President has asked for this bill. He knows we need legislation on the books to create this Coordinator and to help every abducted child have a chance to live. A Department of Justice study shows that 75 percent of child homicides occur within 3 hours of abduction. AMBER Alerts have gone out within 17 minutes of an abduction. That means we are giving law enforcement personnel the help they need to find this person who takes a child and wants to do harm to this child. Forty-three abducted children have been recovered with the assistance of AMBER Alerts. We now have 85 regional AMBER Alerts in this country, up from 53 when we introduced the bill last summer. People like Joann Donnellan are running the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and have provided the technical assistance to States and local governments to help us find these children quickly. In fact, this bill is named for Amber Hagerman of Arlington, TX, who was abducted in 1996 and found murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community that it was determined that if we could get the word out and try to find someone who had taken a child, that it would help save these children. In fact, we have found that AMBER Alerts have been so effective that an abductor who saw an AMBER Alert sign in California went to the side of the road and let the child out because he knew he was going to be caught and that he was in trouble. So it is very effective. What we want to do is have a Coordinator in the Justice Department who a local law enforcement official can call and not have to make 10 calls to contiguous States. He or she can make that one call to the AMBER Alert Coordinator in the Justice Department. That person will then be able to put the word out in contiguous States, without having to go through different call lists and wasting time. We know that time saves lives in AMBER Alerts. When a child is abducted, if we can save time, we can give that child the chance to not be harmed or horribly murdered, as we have seen in so many instances with child abductions. It is hard for me to understand how someone could prey on a defenseless child. It is the worst nightmare a parent would have to hear, that her child or his child has been taken by a stranger and you don't know what has happened. I have met with the parents of Elizabeth Smart, the wonderful couple from Utah, who have lost their child to an abductor and still have not heard from her. The agony they must go through every day is something no parent can imagine. With this bill, we will put the coordinator in place. We will help set criteria for when an AMBER Alert would go out. We thank the National Association of Broadcasters and the local broadcasters associations because they voluntarily put the word out through radio and television in a community where this has occurred. We want to make that go further and wider. We also want to try to help States with signage and help them know what works. For instance, the blinking signs on highways have been very effective. This is a bill that will make a difference. We know that if we can find a child within 24 hours, we have the best chance for them to be recovered safely. I thank Senator Feinstein, my cosponsor of this bill, and thank again Senators Hatch and Leahy for pushing this bill through the Judiciary Committee in record time because we know this bill needs to be on the books. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Feinstein, the Air Cargo Security Act. Since the 9/11 attacks, we in Congress, working with the Administration, the aviation industry, and the flying public have made tremendous progress in transportation security. Together we have created the new Department of Homeland Security, signifying the largest governmental reorganization in 50 years. We have created the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and worked together with the Administration to hire and train over 40,000 new security employees. We have invested heavily in our personnel and equipment, and we have revamped screening procedures in virtually every aspect of passenger air travel. Today, there is no doubt in my mind that the traveling public is considerably safer than we were on September 10, 2001. That is important to recognize. I think it is also important to note that our progress is due in large part to those Americans who continue to patiently cooperate with personnel during the security overhaul. The importance of their contributions and vigilance during this time cannot be overstated. With their cooperation, passengers today are screened more carefully. Bags are being checked more thoroughly, and we all are traveling under a more secure system. While our efforts in the 107th Congress have dramatically improved our transportation security, we in the 108th must continue to strive for seamless security operations. This responsibility includes closing the cargo security loophole. It just does not make any sense to go to the trouble of inconveniencing airline passengers with security screening and baggage checking if we are then willing to leave the contents of the plane's belly unchecked. Currently, twenty-two percent of all air cargo in the U.S. is carried on passenger flights, only a tiny fraction of which is inspected. That is inexcusable. The measures that I am introducing today, with my good friend from California, Dianne Feinstein, have already received the unanimous support of the full Senate, as well as the Commerce Committee last year. The purpose of the Air Cargo Security Act will be to strengthen air cargo security on all commercial flights. Specifically, this bill establishes a more reliable known shipper program by requiring random shipping facility inspections, creating an accessible shipper database, and providing for tamper-proof identification cards for airport personnel. It also gives the TSA the tools required to hold shippers accountable for the contents they ship by allowing the Administration to revoke the license of a shipper and freight forwarder engaged in unsound or illegal practices. This legislation also requires the TSA to develop a comprehensive training program for cargo professionals as well as an approved cargo security plan. The rules and procedures that are strengthened in this bill were developed in consultation with the TSA, the airlines, and the cargo carriers to ensure that the requirements were aggressive. Working together has allowed us to remain sensitive to the airline industry that finds itself in dire financial straits. What this vote boils down to is the simple question of, ``Are we going to continue doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our passenger airplanes?'' By closing the cargo security loophole and passing the Air Cargo Security Act, we will demonstrate our commitment to finishing the job we started after 9/11/01. To strengthen air cargo security and passenger safety, I urge my colleagues to support the Air Cargo Security Act of 2003.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Feinstein, the Air Cargo Security Act. Since the 9/11 attacks, we in Congress, working with the Administration, the aviation industry, and the flying public have made tremendous progress in transportation security. Together we have created the new Department of Homeland Security, signifying the largest governmental reorganization in 50 years. We have created the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and worked together with the Administration to hire and train over 40,000 new security employees. We have invested heavily in our personnel and equipment, and we have revamped screening procedures in virtually every aspect of passenger air travel. Today, there is no doubt in my mind that the traveling public is considerably safer than we were on September 10, 2001. That is important to recognize. I think it is also important to note that our progress is due in large part to those Americans who continue to patiently cooperate with personnel during the security overhaul. The importance of their contributions and vigilance during this time cannot be overstated. With their cooperation, passengers today are screened more carefully. Bags are being checked more thoroughly, and we all are traveling under a more secure system. While our efforts in the 107th Congress have dramatically improved our transportation security, we in the 108th must continue to strive for seamless security operations. This responsibility includes closing the cargo security loophole. It just does not make any sense to go to the trouble of inconveniencing airline passengers with security screening and baggage checking if we are then willing to leave the contents of the plane's belly unchecked. Currently, twenty-two percent of all air cargo in the U.S. is carried on passenger flights, only a tiny fraction of which is inspected. That is inexcusable. The measures that I am introducing today, with my good friend from California, Dianne Feinstein, have already received the unanimous support of the full Senate, as well as the Commerce Committee last year. The purpose of the Air Cargo Security Act will be to strengthen air cargo security on all commercial flights. Specifically, this bill establishes a more reliable known shipper program by requiring random shipping facility inspections, creating an accessible shipper database, and providing for tamper-proof identification cards for airport personnel. It also gives the TSA the tools required to hold shippers accountable for the contents they ship by allowing the Administration to revoke the license of a shipper and freight forwarder engaged in unsound or illegal practices. This legislation also requires the TSA to develop a comprehensive training program for cargo professionals as well as an approved cargo security plan. The rules and procedures that are strengthened in this bill were developed in consultation with the TSA, the airlines, and the cargo carriers to ensure that the requirements were aggressive. Working together has allowed us to remain sensitive to the airline industry that finds itself in dire financial straits. What this vote boils down to is the simple question of, ``Are we going to continue doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our passenger airplanes?'' By closing the cargo security loophole and passing the Air Cargo Security Act, we will demonstrate our commitment to finishing the job we started after 9/11/01. To strengthen air cargo security and passenger safety, I urge my colleagues to support the Air Cargo Security Act of 2003.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the President's bold and visionary stimulus package, one that will promote jobs and growth in our country. One would have to admit to sleeping for the last 3 years not to have seen that we have had a very unstable economy. It has spooked investors. It has spooked retirees. People do not know what they can count on to live. The President has said: I can sit here and twiddle my thumbs or I can do something, and I can do something bold that will do the most for the most people in our country. The President did not say: I am going to only try to help one segment of our society. He said: I am going to try to help every segment of our society. That is why he put forward a very balanced plan and one that certainly will stimulate the economy. I wish to talk about the income tax rate deductions. The income tax rate reductions were set in the bill that we passed 2 years ago that cut taxes, probably one of the largest tax cuts in the history of America. The bill provided that over the next 10 years, people would have income tax rate reductions that would allow them to keep more of the money they earned. This applies to every person in America who works--people who pay taxes at the highest level and people who do not pay taxes at all and yet get an earned-income tax credit, even if they are in the lower brackets. We want to help every single segment of working America. We especially want to help those at the lower end because we do not want the many people coming off welfare to think that their lifestyle and their ability to live has gone down. That is why we have the earned-income tax credit for the very lowest brackets. These are people who do not pay taxes. Their wages are too low to pay taxes, but we give them an earned-income tax credit. They get money back to help them and give them the incentive to work and to continue working and to build their working lives so they can improve their incomes. That is expanded in the tax cuts that are envisioned by the President. In the marriage penalty, for instance, we increase the amount one can earn by $3,000 and still get the earned-income tax credit. That is part of the President's plan. That is a bill I have introduced with Senator Evan Bayh that would allow every married couple to double their standard deduction, and we would double the 15-percent bracket. That helps people in the 15-percent bracket stay in the 15-percent bracket even if they get married to someone who makes about the same amount of income as they do. We do not want to penalize marriage, and we bring forward the marriage penalty reduction to January 1 of this year under the President's plan. We also increase the earned-income tax credit. That is a very helpful part of this bill. We also decrease the rates that every taxpayer pays, from the lowest to the highest levels, because we want everyone in America who is working and paying taxes, and people who are not paying taxes because they are not in a bracket, to have more money in their pockets to spend. We believe this is good policy. I think the President has been very bold in this. I will be carrying the marriage penalty part of this bill. I carried the bill 2 years ago when we passed the tax cuts, and I certainly intend to try to bring it forward so it takes effect this year. Senator Bayh and many others are cosponsoring this legislation, and I hope that we can finalize this when we are talking about the President's plan. In addition, the President has suggested that we take away all tax on dividend income. A lot of people say: That just helps the rich. Let me talk about the dividend investment income part of this tax cut. A tax cut on investment income particularly helps the elderly and others who rely on fixed incomes. More than half of all dividends go to senior citizens. With such pressures as rising health care costs, it is certainly critical that we let them keep more of their money. These tax cuts will help a broad cross section of Americans. For example, almost half of those who receive dividends have less than $50,000 in income. I have talked with senior citizens who are very concerned that the retirement for which they have prepared, for which they have saved is not going to be enough to allow them to cover their expenses. Interest rates and dividends are notoriously low, and then they are taxed. That is because our Tax Code has promoted a tax that is a double tax on dividends for people who give it and people who earn it. People who have already paid taxes on their income take that money after paying taxes and try to invest it in the stock market. Companies that have already paid tax on their income before they distribute also are hampered from giving dividend income. There is no incentive for them to do it because they have to pay tax on their income before they distribute. The people who receive it are receiving money on which they have already paid taxes. So we have a double taxation to the corporation, a disincentive to the corporation to pay dividends, therefore hurting the people who have invested and who are trying to prepare for their own retirement security. This leads to two unintended consequences. First, it encourages investors to focus on returns through stock price appreciation which are taxed at the lower capital gains rate. So people are encouraged to invest in companies that might be riskier, and in many cases are riskier, than the more stable dividend-paying companies. As anyone can see from the collapse of stock prices in the high-growth sectors over the past 2 years, the current incentives in the Tax Code may not lead to the best investment decisions for people who are trying to prepare for their own retirement security. Second, the double taxation of dividends encourages companies to raise capital by loading up on debt rather than issuing stock because interest expense on debt can lower a company's taxes while dividend payments do not. This leads to an increase in highly leveraged companies that then become at a greater financial risk when the economy slows. America is increasingly a nation of investors. Today, one-half of U.S. households own stock. That has increased 60 percent since 1989. This is a good thing. It is good for the people of our country to say: I am going to try to make sure I have a retirement security for myself and my family. I am going to do it myself. I am going to take advantage of the Tax Code where I can invest in IRAs--and certainly 401(k)s, if one works for a corporation--to be able to invest tax free while they are still in the earning mode and then have something that will be a bigger nest egg when they retire. We have encouraged people to invest for their retirement security, but our Tax Code today is not helpful. It is not helping them with interest income deductions. They cannot get any help on paying taxes on their interest, and certainly they have to pay full income tax rates on their dividends from corporations. So where do people on fixed incomes go? What do they do to try to live and not go for help to their children or to the Government? Well, they do not have many choices right now. That is why the President is trying to spur the economy to encourage corporations to give dividends rather than going to the market and borrowing money. It will make the corporations healthier. It will encourage people to invest in corporations, thereby increasing the prices of stocks, which will stabilize the stock market, which is a key indicator of the economic growth in our country. It will also allow people to make these investments and know they are going to have a better chance of getting dividends. If a corporation can pay dividends before taxes rather than after taxes, they will have more to distribute and it will be in their best interest to distribute. It will be an encouragement. If we pass this, I am going to be the first person to stand up and call on corporations to look at paying dividends instead of sitting on pots full of money or going out and borrowing in the market. They can do their part to help the security of our country by paying dividends, and I encourage them to do it. We need to give them an incentive to do it because right now it is a disincentive, both for the corporation and for the recipient of the dividends. I also want to bring up another point that has been raised against the President's plan, and that is that we do not do anything for States. I disagree with that. I think it is absolutely wrong. My State, like most States in this country, is looking at lower revenues this year. My State mostly relies on sales taxes. We do not have an income tax so we rely on sales taxes. Everybody who has read a newspaper in the last 5 months knows we had a very slow holiday season. Consumers did not buy as much. Our retailers are suffering from that. So when we encourage people to spend by putting more money in their pockets, that is going to help our States as well. It is going to increase State revenues. It is a key help for States. Secondly, in other parts of our appropriations bills, we are sending money to the States. We are sending money to the States for homeland defense. We are going to fund our first responders in our States on a population basis so that it will be a fair distribution of our assets at the Federal level to try to help our States and local governments deal with protecting our citizens from domestic terrorism. We want our citizens to have a trained police force and first responder force. We want our citizens to know that our water supplies are safe, that our transportation lines are safe. So we are going to give money back to the States to help them meet the needs of our citizens for homeland defense at the local level. We are also trying to look at giving more money to the States in Medicaid. I am cosponsoring a bill by Senator Rockefeller that would increase the Medicaid payments, making sure that our public hospitals that treat our Medicaid patients are fully reimbursed so they can stay in business and so our health care system will remain a great health care system for those who cannot afford it and those who can. We want to also encourage people to have health insurance by allowing more trade associations to give health insurance options to their members because small businesses are not able to afford health care costs. If they are able to afford them, they are suffering even more. We are hearing of more small businesses that are dropping health care coverage for their employees because of the high cost of health care. So we are going to be doing some things that would benefit the States. The President's package is a good one. It is a bold package, and it is a package that will stimulate our economy. If people know they are going to have money in their pockets, even if it is next year or the following year, they can plan. That is the key--being able to know what the Tax Code is, so people can plan accordingly and know what their savings are going to do. So I applaud the President. I think he has been visionary in not sitting back and saying: I cannot do anything; we are going to let the market take its course. He is watching the stock market. He is watching the jobless rate. He is concerned about it. I have talked to him. He is very concerned about people who do not have jobs. It is probably the largest concern he has right now in addition to national defense and trying to make sure we make the right decisions in national defense for the security of our country. These are the two most important issues we are facing. So the President is trying to do something about them. He is trying to stabilize the market, give people more money to spend, and encourage corporations to make the capital investments that would create more jobs. I applaud the President. I am going to support him, and I am going to do everything I can to see that we do not have rhetoric that says this is class versus class. This is for everyone. This is for more jobs. It is for more money to spend for people who are working and who deserve to keep more of the money they earn. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky might have been referring to the election held in November just after that statement you have just read was made.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will end by saying I really hope we can put aside the 57 percent, or the 60 percent, even though I think there is certainly the argument for precedent whenever there has been a clear majority at the beginning of a term to have a two-thirds/one- third split. In fact, I was told that in the really old days, the majority got 100 percent of the allocation of committee funds, and it was only to give the minority some ability to hire staff that it went from 100 percent to two-thirds/one-third. That has been the precedent ever since when there has been a clear majority at the beginning of a Congress. I think it is also a fact when the change was made, it was then said there would be a hold-harmless from the change in staff allocations so that we actually added budget to allow all the staff to stay on from both parties. So I think now that we are at the beginning of a Congress, you can argue we have to have certain levels of funding on the majority side for the administrative functions of a committee. You have to put out the notices, you have to pay for certain witnesses to come to your committee, you have to do the printing of the bills and the printing of the statements. There are administrative costs. So I think the majority has to have some lead to be able to function as a committee. I think that also is the precedent for the Senate. I do think we will be talking about this to determine what is fair. But even if you said there is a disagreement between two-thirds/one-third and 50/50, and maybe you go to 60/40, or maybe you don't, nevertheless, there is nothing that would not allow us in the next 30 minutes to have a unanimous consent resolution that would say the committees will be formed, the appointments will be made, they will be able to function, and we will fund them at a certain level until we have a final agreement. The key is the people of America deserve the business of our country to go forward. We can offer them the excuse that we cannot decide between two-thirds/one-third and 50-50 and, therefore, we are holding everything up, but I do not think that excuse holds water. I believe we ought to move forward. Let our committees convene. Let's work this out. This is a body of 100 intelligent people. We can work it out if we agree that we are going to all sit down and negotiate in good faith, but I do not think we ought to hold up the business of the people of this country for another week or a week after that. We were sworn in on January 7. We have been unable to have a committee hearing to confirm the Secretary of Homeland Defense so he can start the planning for his agency to protect this country. We had to cancel a hearing for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board to speak to the Budget Committee because we cannot form our committees. That is not what the people of our country expect, it is not what they deserve, and I do hope we can, in a very short order-- tonight or early in the morning--have the cooperation of the Democrats to go forward and do the business of the country. Let our committees be appointed. Let our work begin. Let's have a hearing this week for the Secretary of Homeland Defense. Let's have the Federal Reserve Board Chairman come to the Senate and talk about the state of our economy. We need to hear from him. The least we can do is form our committees and allow the business to go forward. We can talk about 60-40 or 67-33 or 50-50 for the next month and not hold up the business of the people of our country. I urge my colleagues to work with us to do that. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the distinguished deputy leader of the Democrats coming down because there are a lot of different precedents in the Senate for all the years that the Senate has been in session. Last session was quite unusual in that we had a 50-50 Senate when we first came into office. We made an agreement at that time that was based on 50-50, and the agreement was that it would stay in place regardless of what happened during that time. We can argue about what the funding ratio is of committees, but I don't think that should hold us up from doing the business of the people. The committee allocations have been determined by agreement. The numbers that serve on the committee have been set. So the committee appointments could be made, and we could open for business. What we are losing this week is the nomination hearing for the Secretary of Homeland Defense, because the Democratic chairman would not yield to the Republican chairman to chair such a hearing. Now, Mr. President, there should not be a Democratic chairman in this Senate. The Republicans have control of the Senate. That is a fact. So I ask the distinguished deputy leader if we can open for business, hold hearings, appoint the committee so the Democrats and Republicans would have their committee assignments and be able to begin the work and let the negotiations go on for what the money allocation is for the committees. Let us do the business of Government and worry about whether we have 60 percent of the money for the majority or 50 percent of the money for the majority, or 55, or 57, or whatever it is. We don't have to decide that to do the business of Government.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the deputy leader on the Republican side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would not know that, so I am happy for the Senator to do that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see the person presiding in the chair and welcome him to the Senate. I am looking at an empty Chamber except for Senator Harkin, who is just leaving. It is incredible to understand that the Senate was sworn in on January 7, and yet today we sit in the Chamber having transacted no business except for the extension of unemployment benefits which was done by unanimous consent because it didn't have to go through a committee. Why, one may ask, would something only be able to pass that didn't have to go through committee? Well, the answer is, because we don't have any committees. The Senate has not been able to reorganize since January 7 because we cannot get an agreement. We have not been able to organize our committees because the Democrats have been unwilling to come to an agreement that would be a fair allocation of resources and that would allow us to go forward. A lot of people in the country don't realize that the Senate is in an absolute stalemate because we do not have Republican chairmen, even though the Republicans control the Senate. There are eight new Members of the Senate, and none of them have been appointed to a committee--not one--because we don't have an organization resolution. I do not think that is what the people of America said last November when they went to the polls. They voted on Senators, and they voted to give Republicans a 51-to-49 vote count in the Senate. Any person who follows this would imagine that everyone would understand that there has been a change of control, and they would have expected us to be up and open for business, with committees meeting and doing the business of the people. That is what was said by the people who went to the polls in November and made their decisions on who would represent them in the Senate. I am very pleased that our new Members have been sworn in. It is little enough to ask, I would say. But to think that they have not been able to even go to a committee meeting yet is unconscionable. A lot of people have not realized that this is going on because we have tried to negotiate in good faith, and Senator Frist is doing that as we speak. Hopefully Senator Daschle is doing the same. I don't think we can wait another week before we start confirming some of these judges who have been sitting unconfirmed since May of 2001 or even unable to have their nominations acted on. We were ready to hit the ground running. The Judiciary Committee chairman wanted to start the process so the President would have his constitutional right to appoint and have confirmed or turned down his nominees to the Federal bench. He has had neither. We were ready to go. What has happened? The Judiciary Committee cannot meet because Senator Hatch has not been installed as chairman because we don't have an organization resolution. We had hoped to pass the appropriations bills that had been lingering since last Congress. We had only passed the Defense and military construction appropriations so all of the other Departments of Government have not yet been funded except in a continuing resolution, an omnibus bill that just says we will go on with 2002 levels of spending, but we don't have any allocations because the Appropriations Committee has not been able to meet. The appointments have not even been formalized yet. I do not think that is what the people of America expected when they voted last November to put a Republican majority in the Senate. They expected us to start appropriations bills. They expected us to confirm the judges that had been sitting in the pipeline since 2001. The President of the United States has a constitutional responsibility to appoint judges, and he has the constitutional right to have those judges acted on by the Senate. Yet we have people whose lives have been disrupted because they have been appointed to the Federal bench, sitting there for 1 year, 2 years with their lives interrupted. They are unable to have Senate confirmation or turndown. The Senate has the absolute right to make the decision, but it has the responsibility to go forward and let these people know if the President is going to get his appointment through or if these people can go on with their lives. I hope the President gets all of his appointments. He has been very careful in making his appointments. But all of them have a right to action, and the President, most of all, has a right for the Senate to take the very serious responsibility of confirming nominees. We have appropriations bills. We have Departments of Government that have no specific authorizations because we have only acted in a general way, saying whatever you had in 2002, you may keep until we can exercise our responsibility to pass the appropriations bills, which we have not done since the end of the fiscal year October 1, 2002. These agencies deserve to know what Congress intends for them to do this year and how much money they have to spend. This is not the way to run the Government. It is not responsible for us to be talking to an empty Chamber since January 7 when the people have spoken and we are here to do business. I do hope we will come to an agreement. It should be very simple. The elections were held. The majority has been elected. It is time to let the majority take control of the Senate, organize the Senate, have the committees appointed, and start to do business. I hope we will go forward and do that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just like to ask a question. We are sitting here talking about percentages and funding of committees. Why can't we just agree to set up the committees, appoint the chairmen, let them function, and decide on the percentages later? The people of America deserve for us to do their business. We have been organized for a week, but we don't have committees functioning and we don't have chairmen. The idea that we would sit here and hold the entire Senate, all the employees here, when we cannot have committee meetings and begin to do the work, just doesn't pass the smell test. I mean it is just ridiculous. So I would ask the distinguished leaders on the Democratic side if they would allow us to draw up a resolution tonight--we could do it in 30 minutes-- organize the committees, let us appoint the chairmen, and we can talk about the funding later. We can agree that we will go forward. Since the appropriations bills have not been passed and the legislative branch is operating on the 2002 budget, let's go forward and organize, and we can deal with the money later. That is what I ask. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

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. Today, millions of couples across America are penalized by our tax code simply because they are married. The Treasury Department estimates that 48 percent of married couples pay this additional tax, and, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the average penalty paid is $1,400 per couple. Fortunately, the 107th Congress took a step in the right direction. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 will provide marriage penalty relief to millions of couples by increasing the size of the standard deduction and the width of the 15 percent tax bracket, so those applied to a married couple will be twice the size of those for an individual. In addition, the phase-out levels for the earned income tax credit will be adjusted so as to reduce the penalty on married couples. But once again, we face the infamous ``sunset provision'' that will wipe away these reforms in 2011. Another problem is that relief does not begin to be phased in until 2005, with the full impact not taking effect until 2009. President Bush has called for making marriage penalty relief effective immediately as part of his economic stimulus package. I agree that this is an important step. Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families are having in making ends meet, we cannot wait any longer to give young couples the break they deserve. The bi-partisan bill I am offering with Senator Bayh and others would make the 2001 reforms effective immediately and permanently. People will no longer have to decide between love and money. The benefits for couples are significant. A couple earning $30,000 could keep $800 they now pay in taxes, while a couple earning $80,000 could save more than $1,300. 35 million couples will benefit from enacting marriage penalty relief in 2003, including 2.4 million Texas families. The tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to take marriage vows. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. The benefits of marriage are well established. 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. At the very least, 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.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing today with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and 26 other senators, the National AMBER Network Act. This legislation will establish a National Amber Network and improve the current system of AMBER Alert plans that exist in various states. Our legislation recognizes the tremendous work that those involved in AMBER alerts are doing and seeks to build on their efforts. In 1996, 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was abducted and brutally murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community that local law enforcement and area broadcasters developed what is now known as AMBER Alert, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. An AMBER Alert is activated by law enforcement to find a child, when a child has been abducted. An Alert triggers highway notification and broadcast messages throughout the area where the abduction occurred. As we have seen, AMBER plans in different communities have worked to bring children home safely. To date, AMBER Alert has helped recover 42 children nationwide. Many communities and States have outstanding AMBER plans. However, the vast majority of States do not yet have comprehensive, statewide coverage and lack the ability to effectively communicate. This is a critical issue particularly when an abducted child is taken across State lines. The bill I am introducing today establishes an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist states with their AMBER plans. Last year, President Bush ordered the Attorney General to establish an AMBER Alert Coordinator, and this bill will codify that position for future Administrations. While we have witnessed successful stories of AMBER alerts helping to recover a child within a region, huge gaps exist among the AMBER plans around the country. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will facilitate appropriate regional coordination of AMBER alerts, particularly with interstate travel situations, and will assist states, broadcasters, and law enforcement in establishing additional AMBER plans. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will set minimum, voluntary standards to help states work together, and will help to reconcile the different standards and criteria for issuing an AMBER Alert. In doing so, the Coordinator will work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, local and State law enforcement and broadcasters to define minimum standards. Overall, the AMBER Alert Coordinator's efforts will set safeguards to make sure the AMBER alert system is used to meet it intended purpose. In addition, the bill provides for matching grants to states with AMBER programs. The grant program will help localities and States build or further enhance their efforts to disseminate AMBER alerts. To this end, Federal matching grants will fund road signs and electronic message boards along highways, broadcasts of information on abducted children, education and training, and related equipment. Our bill has the strong support of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters, who play essential roles in the AMBER Alert system. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on this legislation to protect America's children.

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. Today, millions of couples across America are penalized by our tax code simply because they are married. The Treasury Department estimates that 48 percent of married couples pay this additional tax, and, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the average penalty paid is $1,400 per couple. Fortunately, the 107th Congress took a step in the right direction. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 will provide marriage penalty relief to millions of couples by increasing the size of the standard deduction and the width of the 15 percent tax bracket, so those applied to a married couple will be twice the size of those for an individual. In addition, the phase-out levels for the earned income tax credit will be adjusted so as to reduce the penalty on married couples. But once again, we face the infamous ``sunset provision'' that will wipe away these reforms in 2011. Another problem is that relief does not begin to be phased in until 2005, with the full impact not taking effect until 2009. President Bush has called for making marriage penalty relief effective immediately as part of his economic stimulus package. I agree that this is an important step. Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families are having in making ends meet, we cannot wait any longer to give young couples the break they deserve. The bi-partisan bill I am offering with Senator Bayh and others would make the 2001 reforms effective immediately and permanently. People will no longer have to decide between love and money. The benefits for couples are significant. A couple earning $30,000 could keep $800 they now pay in taxes, while a couple earning $80,000 could save more than $1,300. 35 million couples will benefit from enacting marriage penalty relief in 2003, including 2.4 million Texas families. The tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to take marriage vows. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. The benefits of marriage are well established. 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. At the very least, 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.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing today with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and 26 other senators, the National AMBER Network Act. This legislation will establish a National Amber Network and improve the current system of AMBER Alert plans that exist in various states. Our legislation recognizes the tremendous work that those involved in AMBER alerts are doing and seeks to build on their efforts. In 1996, 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was abducted and brutally murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community that local law enforcement and area broadcasters developed what is now known as AMBER Alert, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. An AMBER Alert is activated by law enforcement to find a child, when a child has been abducted. An Alert triggers highway notification and broadcast messages throughout the area where the abduction occurred. As we have seen, AMBER plans in different communities have worked to bring children home safely. To date, AMBER Alert has helped recover 42 children nationwide. Many communities and States have outstanding AMBER plans. However, the vast majority of States do not yet have comprehensive, statewide coverage and lack the ability to effectively communicate. This is a critical issue particularly when an abducted child is taken across State lines. The bill I am introducing today establishes an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist states with their AMBER plans. Last year, President Bush ordered the Attorney General to establish an AMBER Alert Coordinator, and this bill will codify that position for future Administrations. While we have witnessed successful stories of AMBER alerts helping to recover a child within a region, huge gaps exist among the AMBER plans around the country. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will facilitate appropriate regional coordination of AMBER alerts, particularly with interstate travel situations, and will assist states, broadcasters, and law enforcement in establishing additional AMBER plans. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will set minimum, voluntary standards to help states work together, and will help to reconcile the different standards and criteria for issuing an AMBER Alert. In doing so, the Coordinator will work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, local and State law enforcement and broadcasters to define minimum standards. Overall, the AMBER Alert Coordinator's efforts will set safeguards to make sure the AMBER alert system is used to meet it intended purpose. In addition, the bill provides for matching grants to states with AMBER programs. The grant program will help localities and States build or further enhance their efforts to disseminate AMBER alerts. To this end, Federal matching grants will fund road signs and electronic message boards along highways, broadcasts of information on abducted children, education and training, and related equipment. Our bill has the strong support of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters, who play essential roles in the AMBER Alert system. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on this legislation to protect America's children.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a package of three bills I hope will be the starting point for a long overdue discussion on reducing taxes on investment income, particularly dividends. The first bill would completely eliminate taxes on dividends. The second bill would reduce the tax on dividends to the capital gains rate. The third bill would lower the tax to the capital gains rate on dividends and interest income. These bills would not only stimulate the economy, but also correct long-term problems with the tax code. The economy is currently on the way to recovery but faces significant bottlenecks along the way. Following a mild recession, we are experiencing moderate growth. Many believe we will continue on a slow yet steady pace, but we are not yet in the clear. We must take aggressive steps to create jobs and ensure the economy gets moving again. The most effective tool government has for promoting growth is the tax code. By lowering taxes we allow people to keep more of their money and spend it more effectively than the government ever could. Lowering the taxes on investment income would stimulate the economy on several levels. First, we would leave more money in the pockets of families to spend. Second, lowering taxes on dividends would encourage investors to re-enter the stock market and realize higher returns since the government would be taking less. The increased demand for stocks would stabilize the market and encourage economic growth. Third, these tax cuts would ultimately help to reduce the deficit as tax revenues increase from higher economic growth and increased capital gains revenue. A tax cut on investment income would particularly help the elderly and others who rely on fixed incomes. A third of seniors received dividend income and more than half of dividends go to seniors. With such pressures as the rising cost of healthcare, it is critical that we let them keep as much of their money as possible. Also, these tax cuts would help a broad cross-section of Americans. For example, almost half of those who receive dividends have income of less than $50,000. One of the problems with our tax code is the double taxation of dividends. People have already paid taxes on the money they use to invest. Then they must pay taxes on their investment income. This is not fair and discourages savings. Also, companies must use after-tax dollars to pay dividends. Investors then have to pay taxes on their dividend income at the ordinary income tax rates. This leads to two unintended consequences. First, it encourages investors to focus on returns through stock price appreciation, which are taxed at the lower capital gains rate. People are encouraged to invest in higher growth, but often in riskier companies, rather than more stable, dividend-paying companies. As anyone can see from the collapse of stock prices in high-growth sectors over the past two years, the current incentives in the tax code may not lead to the best decisions for investors. Second, the double taxation of dividends encourages companies to raise capital by loading up on debt rather than issuing stock, because interest expense on debt can lower a company's taxes while dividend payments do not. This leads to an increase in highly leveraged companies that are at greater financial risk when the economy slows. Whether investors should invest in growth stocks is a decision that must be left to individuals. Likewise, the issuance of debt is best decided by the company in question. By lowering the tax rates on dividends and interest income, we would reduce the influence of taxes on these decisions. Increasingly, America is a Nation of investors. Today, half of U.S. households own stock. The number of shareholders has increased more than 60 percent since 1989. Thus, it is critical to ensure our tax laws lead to rational decisionmaking; decisions based on the best investment choices, not guided by tax inequities. Let's take tax rates out of the capital allocation decision process. People should make investment decisions based on what is the best investment. I call on the Senate to bolster the economy, help senior citizens meet their financial needs, and level the way we tax investment gains by lowering taxes on investment income. Today, I offer three alternatives I hope will lead to a constructive discussion and action to achieve these goals. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is an honor to pay tribute today to my dear fried and colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, Phil Gramm. Perhaps more than anyone in the Senate, I will miss Phil's leadership. In the Senate there are three kinds of relationships between Senators from the same State: One, they do not like each other. Two, a professional relationship: they get along OK, work hard together for their State, but are not really close. Three, they are good friends who have a great partnership for their State. Phil and I have No. 3. I recently noted that his retirement is like sending an older sibling off to college: Your best friend will not be upstairs anymore, and there is nobody to stick up for you when you get in a fight. But then again, you'll get the big room, and you will not have to share the spotlight anymore. When I first came to the Senate after a special election, I walked into an office with no staff, but Phil had sent his own staff to start answering the phones, and detailed one of his senior staff to help set up my office. That support was invaluable in those early days. Phil's story is one of those ``only in America'' success stories. Born at Ft. Benning, GA, the son of a soldier, his father died when Phil was a young teenager. He and his two brothers were raised by their mother in a modest neighborhood in Columbus, Georgia. His mother worked at two jobs to take care of the family, as a practical nurse and also in a cotton mill for $28 a week. Phil has often said his mother had decided before he was born that he would go to college. But after failing the 3rd, 7th and 9th grades, his mother recognized it was time for drastic action for her dream to be realized. She pooled the family's limited resources and sent Phil off to the Georgia Military Academy near Atlanta. Mrs. Gramm knew Phil had a good mind but needed encouragement and direction His life has been a testament to his mother's sacrifice ever since. A PhD in Economics from the University of Georgia led him to another life-changing experience when he accepted a teaching position at Texas A&M. If the Georgia Military Academy gave him the academic foundation to achieve, Texas A&M nurtured his natural talent to teach and to entertain. He was a sensation at A&M. Phil managed to make even the most complex economics courses exciting. It was also at A&M that Phil met and married a fellow economics professor, Wendy, who has been a partner and inspiration to Phil throughout his career. While it is one thing to test your economic principles and convictions in the classroom, it is quite another to have the courage to place your views in front of the voters. After a losing campaign for the Senate in 1976, he ran for Congress 2 years later and won. His campaign theme--``common sense; uncommon courage''--described him perfectly. Particularly after he decided to switch parties, from Democrat to Republican. He resigned from his seat, to give his constituents a choice to vote on his switch. He won back his seat, becoming the only member of Congress in the 20th century to do this. And after serving three terms in the House, Phil set his sights on the Senate again, and won this time in 1984. He has one of the sharpest minds in Congress. His Southern drawl and easy-going nature may fool some, but we know behind that accent is a razor-sharp mind. Phil has become one of the Senate's most important leaders. He has mastered the Senate, and is one of our body's intellectual and philosophical giants. He is a man of great character. He does not stand on ceremony; he stands on conviction. He is never been swayed by popular opinion, in fact, he has often stood his ground despite popular opinion. His tenacity and his passion are unrivaled. And even in his last days in the Senate, he's not taking a rest from the trenches, he has been leading the debate on the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most important decisions of our time. If there is a tough fight to be had, you can be sure Phil Gramm will lead the charge. If there is something difficult that needs to be done, you can be sure Phil will find a way to do it. Of course, in addition to his brilliant mind, Phil will be remembered for his colorful sense of humor and witty anecdotes. For example, who could get away with saying things like: During Gramm's bid for the Presidency, Larry King asked Phil if he would ever run with a woman? ``Sophia Loren is not a U.S. citizen,'' answered Gramm. ``People of New Hampshire talk funny and therefore they think I talk funny.'' On campaign reform, ``Our problem is not bad money corrupting good men; our problem is bad men corrupting good money.'' ``It's always dangerous to send your wife ahead in your place, because then no one cares if you show up.'' While he will certainly be remembered for his originality and humor, he is second to none as an effective legislator. Phil has always maintained his focus on fiscal responsibility, helping us get back to a balanced budget. He is the first person to actually do something to eliminate the national debt, so that our children and grandchildren will not be saddled with our bills. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act was a masterpiece. Phil thought of it and engineered its passage, proving it is possible to be both smart and effective. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Phil crafted the Financial Services Modernization Act, one of the most important pieces of financial legislation in modern years. When you are in a fight for survival, the most important decision you make is who you want in the foxhole with you. When I have ever had a tough fight, Phil was my first call. For two reasons: I want him on my side, and I sure do not want him on the other side. I can say without reservation that Phil Gramm is truly irreplaceable. What I admire most about him is his courage. Phil and Wendy have been good friends to Ray and me. We are friends in the Senate, and friends at home. Phil, I will miss you. I wish you well and look forward to having you as a constituent.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is an honor to pay tribute today to my dear fried and colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, Phil Gramm. Perhaps more than anyone in the Senate, I will miss Phil's leadership. In the Senate there are three kinds of relationships between Senators from the same State: One, they do not like each other. Two, a professional relationship: they get along OK, work hard together for their State, but are not really close. Three, they are good friends who have a great partnership for their State. Phil and I have No. 3. I recently noted that his retirement is like sending an older sibling off to college: Your best friend will not be upstairs anymore, and there is nobody to stick up for you when you get in a fight. But then again, you'll get the big room, and you will not have to share the spotlight anymore. When I first came to the Senate after a special election, I walked into an office with no staff, but Phil had sent his own staff to start answering the phones, and detailed one of his senior staff to help set up my office. That support was invaluable in those early days. Phil's story is one of those ``only in America'' success stories. Born at Ft. Benning, GA, the son of a soldier, his father died when Phil was a young teenager. He and his two brothers were raised by their mother in a modest neighborhood in Columbus, Georgia. His mother worked at two jobs to take care of the family, as a practical nurse and also in a cotton mill for $28 a week. Phil has often said his mother had decided before he was born that he would go to college. But after failing the 3rd, 7th and 9th grades, his mother recognized it was time for drastic action for her dream to be realized. She pooled the family's limited resources and sent Phil off to the Georgia Military Academy near Atlanta. Mrs. Gramm knew Phil had a good mind but needed encouragement and direction His life has been a testament to his mother's sacrifice ever since. A PhD in Economics from the University of Georgia led him to another life-changing experience when he accepted a teaching position at Texas A&M. If the Georgia Military Academy gave him the academic foundation to achieve, Texas A&M nurtured his natural talent to teach and to entertain. He was a sensation at A&M. Phil managed to make even the most complex economics courses exciting. It was also at A&M that Phil met and married a fellow economics professor, Wendy, who has been a partner and inspiration to Phil throughout his career. While it is one thing to test your economic principles and convictions in the classroom, it is quite another to have the courage to place your views in front of the voters. After a losing campaign for the Senate in 1976, he ran for Congress 2 years later and won. His campaign theme--``common sense; uncommon courage''--described him perfectly. Particularly after he decided to switch parties, from Democrat to Republican. He resigned from his seat, to give his constituents a choice to vote on his switch. He won back his seat, becoming the only member of Congress in the 20th century to do this. And after serving three terms in the House, Phil set his sights on the Senate again, and won this time in 1984. He has one of the sharpest minds in Congress. His Southern drawl and easy-going nature may fool some, but we know behind that accent is a razor-sharp mind. Phil has become one of the Senate's most important leaders. He has mastered the Senate, and is one of our body's intellectual and philosophical giants. He is a man of great character. He does not stand on ceremony; he stands on conviction. He is never been swayed by popular opinion, in fact, he has often stood his ground despite popular opinion. His tenacity and his passion are unrivaled. And even in his last days in the Senate, he's not taking a rest from the trenches, he has been leading the debate on the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most important decisions of our time. If there is a tough fight to be had, you can be sure Phil Gramm will lead the charge. If there is something difficult that needs to be done, you can be sure Phil will find a way to do it. Of course, in addition to his brilliant mind, Phil will be remembered for his colorful sense of humor and witty anecdotes. For example, who could get away with saying things like: During Gramm's bid for the Presidency, Larry King asked Phil if he would ever run with a woman? ``Sophia Loren is not a U.S. citizen,'' answered Gramm. ``People of New Hampshire talk funny and therefore they think I talk funny.'' On campaign reform, ``Our problem is not bad money corrupting good men; our problem is bad men corrupting good money.'' ``It's always dangerous to send your wife ahead in your place, because then no one cares if you show up.'' While he will certainly be remembered for his originality and humor, he is second to none as an effective legislator. Phil has always maintained his focus on fiscal responsibility, helping us get back to a balanced budget. He is the first person to actually do something to eliminate the national debt, so that our children and grandchildren will not be saddled with our bills. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act was a masterpiece. Phil thought of it and engineered its passage, proving it is possible to be both smart and effective. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Phil crafted the Financial Services Modernization Act, one of the most important pieces of financial legislation in modern years. When you are in a fight for survival, the most important decision you make is who you want in the foxhole with you. When I have ever had a tough fight, Phil was my first call. For two reasons: I want him on my side, and I sure do not want him on the other side. I can say without reservation that Phil Gramm is truly irreplaceable. What I admire most about him is his courage. Phil and Wendy have been good friends to Ray and me. We are friends in the Senate, and friends at home. Phil, I will miss you. I wish you well and look forward to having you as a constituent.