Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this issue is really quite simple. It is unfortunate that it has been confused by lots of statements, which are somewhat true but not entirely true. The goal here is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Remember, there is nothing in the code that we enacted to create the penalty. It was not an intentional act. It is just a consequence of the way the code has worked. It is a necessary consequence if we want to have progressive tax rates and also have the same taxation for American citizens with the same income. We also have to remind ourselves that there is a bonus in the Tax Code; that is, certain people who get married get a bonus. In fact, there are more taxpayers receiving a bonus than there are taxpayers who receive a penalty. That is indisputable. That is a solid fact. But we are here to try to find a way to help eliminate the marriage tax penalty for those who get a penalty as a consequence of getting married. There are two approaches here. One is the approach by the majority, and one is the approach by the Democratic side of the aisle. The majority eliminates only 3 of the 65 provisions in this code that create a penalty--only 3. The Democratic proposal eliminates them all, all 65. There is a big difference between the two. In the Democratic alternative, taxpayers have the right to choose. They can choose which way to file their taxes so it benefits them. On the majority side, the taxpayer does not have a choice. That is just the way it is. I might also say, if we say we are going to pass marriage tax penalty relief, we should pass marriage tax penalty relief. That is what the Democrats have tried to do. The Republicans are doing some of that-- albeit only 3 out of the 65--but they are also giving a tax cut, irrespective of marriage, which widens the disparity between married couples and singles. A lot of single people in this country, when they see what is passed by the majority party, are going to wonder what in the world is happening. Why are we giving the 60 percent of married people who don't even have a marriage penalty such a big tax break and not giving a tax break to them simply because they are single? That is not fair at all. Again, the Democratic proposal says, we will give a break, a true break for marriage, but not widen the discrepancy between marrieds and singles. The long and short is, we have a conference report. The battle has been waged and the battle is over.

Mr. BAUCUS. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that has happened under this Republican majority. To sum it up, Mr. President, we on this side are definitely for tax cuts, very significant tax cuts. We are for eliminating entirely the marriage tax penalty. We want to reduce the Federal estate tax dramatically. But it is unfortunate that the conference report before us goes way too far. It is unbalanced. It is unfair. If the American people truly see all the components of it, compare it to all the other tax provisions going through here, I think they will say: Wait a minute, this is kind of a funny thing the Congress is doing. It is not what they say it is. Why don't they fess up and be honest and say what is really in the conference report. That is sometimes the way this place operates. It is up to us on this side of the aisle to get the facts out, to allow more sun to shine on the conference report so that more married American people will know exactly what is in it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. That sometimes happens. Conferees on our side of the aisle hear of a conference, but they are never asked to attend.

Mr. BAUCUS. I heard there was, but I don't know who was there.

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my good friend from New York, no, I have not. I have heard there is one, but I have not seen one.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two amendments, one of which I am not going to offer. I have an amendment which establishes the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 2000. This measure is identical to my bill, S. 2709, which enjoys wide bipartisan support by my fellow members of Senate Beef Caucus and has already been referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a Beef Industry Compensation Trust Fund to help the United States cattle industry withstand the European Union's illegal ban on beef treated with hormones. Over a year ago, the World Trade Organization endorsed retaliation when the EU refused to open to American beef. Since that time, the EU has continued to stall in its compliance which is frankly, outrageous. For over a decade we've fought the beef battle. Now its time to try something new to help producers who continue to be injured by the ban. The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using the tariffs imposed on the EU to directly aid U.S. beef producers. Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund so that the affected industry will receive those revenues as compensation for its injury. Mr. President, my amendment creates a fund which provides assistance to United States beef producers to improve the quality of beef produced in the United States; and provides assistance to United States beef producers in market development, consumer education, and promotion of the beef industry in overseas markets. The Secretary of the Treasury shall cease the transfer of funds equivalent to the duties on the beef retaliation list only when the European Union complies with the World Trade Organization ruling allowing United States beef producers access to the European market. In a perfect world we would not need this amendment because the European Union would abide by its international trade commitments. And it is still my hope that the European Union simply comply with the WTO Dispute Settlement rulings and allow our beef to enter its borders. Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow. We all recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of my colleagues, are working on ways to fix it. We must bring credibility and compliance to the system. The Trade Injury Compensation Act will give some relief to our producers as we strive toward this endeavor. Mr. President, I realize that we still have work to do in perfecting this amendment. That is why I appreciate my colleague Senator Lugar's commitment to allow an Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on this bill in September. In light of that impending hearing, I will not offer the amendment at this time. Time is of the essence for our producers who have been injured by the European Union. I look forward to this hearing and further expeditious action in this matter. Amendment No. 3981

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Cochran, for your support. Montana's hungry families appreciate your efforts.

Mr. BAUCUS. Finally, I underline my appreciation for the hard work of both Senators from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, as well as Mr. Edwards. This has been a very contentious issue. But as a consequence of the mutual hard work, this amendment can be accepted by voice vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to by my good friend, the ever gracious senior Senator from North Carolina. The amendment strikes the provision in the bill that transfers portions of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge from the Department of the Interior to the Army Corps of Engineers. It also requires the Army Corps to conduct a study within 180 days of alternatives, including nonstructural alternatives, to the currently authorized inlet stabilization project at Oregon Inlet. This study would have to take into account objectives in addition to navigation, such as the policies of the State of North Carolina regarding construction of structural measures along the coast and minimizing adverse impacts to the national seashore and the wildlife refuge. Most importantly, the study would have to develop recommendations to meet those objectives. I hope this study will provide a sound basis on which Congress can resolve this issue. I believe this amendment will be fair to the people of North Carolina and also to the American taxpayers. The senior Senator from North Carolina has been very helpful in working out this amendment. I appreciate his efforts. Mr. President, to reiterate, my amendment would replace section 3104 of the bill, which transfers land from the Interior Department of the Corps of Engineers in order to circumvent environmental rules and promote the construction of a system of jetties at Oregon Inlet in North Carolina. Some background about the Oregon Inlet project. At the outset, let me acknowledge the obvious. I'm no expert about Oregon Inlet. Senator Helms is. He has been working on this issue for at least 30 years. I am simply trying to react to an appropriations rider by mustering the facts as well as I can. Oregon Inlet is on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, near Roanoke Island. It is the only inlet between Cape Henry, Virginia, 45 miles to the north and Cape Hatteras, 85 miles to the south. Like much of the Outer Banks, the Inlet is a dynamic ecosystem, with high waves, swift currents, and a rapidly shifting sandbar at the mouth of the Inlet. Make no mistake. It is treacherous water. Between 1965 and 1995, more than 20 ships sank or ran aground, with the loss of 22 lives. I should not, though, that all but one of the deaths occurred before the early 1980s, when the Corps began a dredging program. In 1970, at the urging of Senator Helms, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the Corps of Engineers to construct a jetty system at Oregon Inlet. Specifically, the Corps was directed to deepen the navigation channel through the Inlet from 14 feet to 20 feet and to maintain that channel with two jetties. It gets more complicated. And much has changed since 1970. The jetties would prevent the natural flow of sand from north to south. That flow is what replenishes Pea Island, a national wildlife refuge which otherwise would erode. To counteract this effect, the system includes a system of pipes and pumps that will transport 2 million cubic feet of sand each year. All told the project will cost American taxpayers $108 million to construct and about $6 million a year to maintain. We all know it will cost more than that. The project would be built on: The northern part, on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore; and the southern part on the Pea Island Wildlife Refuge. Therefore, before the Corps can build the project, it must get permits from the Interior Department, confirming that the project will be compatible with the Seashore and the Refuge. The provision that has been included in the Agriculture appropriations bill, as section 3104, effectively eliminates this permit requirement. It transfers the land from the Interior Department to the Corps, so that permits no longer are necessary. Those are the basic facts. Now, some of you listening may be scratching your head, wondering what's going on here. After all, the project was authorized in 1970. Thirty years later, it still hasn't been built. That, you might be thinking, is unacceptable. It's probably because of Government red tape. Maybe it's high time we cut through all the red tape and move this project along, as the bill would do. An understandable reaction, if you just look at this on the surface. But, as is often the case, if you dig a little deeper, and get past the surface, it's not that simple. The principal reason that the project has not been built is that the project is very questionable and very controversial. Many have argued that the project will cause great environmental harm and waste more than one hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money. Time after time, Interior Secretaries have refused to grant the necessary permits. Including I should note, President Reagan's Interior Secretary, James Watt. The only exception was when Secretary Lujan granted a permit towards the end of the Bush Administration. Soon after taking office, Secretary Babbitt reversed the decision. Also time after time, the environmental impact statements developed by the Corps have been found to be inadequate, and the Corps has been sent back to the drawing board. As we speak, the process continues. The Corps has been asked to revise its latest Environmental Impact Statement, to address what the National Marine Fisheries Service called ``significant errors and inadequacies.'' As I understand it, the revised EIS will be submitted to Corps headquarters around the end of this month and issued in August. After that, the Corps can move ahead and again seek permits from the Interior Department. If there is a dispute, it will be resolved by the White House. Section 3104 of the bill circumvents this process by transferring the land and therefore eliminating the need for any permits. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of Senator Helms and others who support this project. I know that they're frustrated that this project has drawn on too long. But I believe that the approach taken in the bill has four main faults. The first goes to process. The provision in the bill is, simply put, a rider. It is authorizing legislation, properly within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is a controversial issue; it has been debated, back and forth, for thirty years. It should be resolved on the merits, with input from the committee of jurisdiction. It should not be resolved as a rider on an unrelated appropriations bill. The second fault is that the bill may cause serious environmental harm. This is, again, a dynamic ecosystem. Always shifting. Always changing. As this chart shows, there have been major changes in the geography of Oregon Inlet over the years. The Inlet itself has shifted south by about 80 feet a year, which amounts to more than two miles since the Inlet opened in 1848. In the middle of this dynamic, shifting system, the project would construct a pair of rock jetties that are a total of more than 3 miles long. That poses two big risks. In the first place, we'll be altering the natural system by which the ocean erodes and then replenishes the barrier islands along the coast. As it now stands, each year, tons of sand shift, mostly from north to south, replenishing Pea Island. The jetties will block most of that sand from shifting naturally. To compensate, the Corps plans to pump about 2 million cubic feet of sand each year, that will be trapped above the north jetty, through a large pipeline, and unload it below the south jetty. Maybe it will work. But what if it doesn't? Consider what happened on Assateague Island. 60 years ago, we constructed a jetty. It blocked the sand from replenishing the southern part of the island. Since then, the coastline has eroded about one-half mile. Another thing. We'll alter the natural flow of water through what is now a broad, relatively shallow inlet leading to Albermarle and Pamlico Sounds. The Sounds contain important and productive habitats for several species of fish, including Spanish mackerel, Atlantic croaker, and gray trout. These fish spawn at sea. The larval fish then migrate into the calm waters of the sounds where they grow until they're strong enough to return to the ocean. It is not at all clear that these fish will be able to make it through the jetties. The fishery biologists just aren't sure. So we are taking major environmental risks. The third major fault is that the economics don't add up. True, the Corps projects an economic benefit, of about $37 million over a 50 year period. However, as we all know, the Corps' economic analysis has come under heavy criticism lately. In any event, many people have questioned the Corps' estimate of the cost and benefits of this project I am not talking about environmental groups, which, it might be argued, have their own agenda. I am talking about Taxpayers for Common Sense, and several distinguished economists who have studied the project. For example, Professor Richard Seldon, who I understand is a distinguished professor emiritus at the University of Virginia, said this: My extremely conservative analysis of the Corps' data found that rather than the almost $37 million of net benefits claimed for the project by the Corps . . . this project will have negative benefits of [more than $4 million]. In fact, I believe the project is very likely to have a much worse return on investment based on many costs thus far not accounted for by the Corps. In a letter sent to Senator Helms a few days ago, Professor Emeritus Seldon said. I am convinced that these jetties should not be built--not for environmental reasons but simply because the benefits claimed by the Corps are nowhere near as large as the likely cost to taxpayers. This is a bad economic deal, even if we forget about the environment. The fourth fault is that I believe there's a better way. Let me say again that I understand the frustration that Senator Helms and others in North Carolina feel about this project. They have serious concerns. One is safety. Again, these are treacherous waters. Another is economic development. As I understand it, this is an area that could use the economic boost that increased fish landings might provide. I'm not going to stand here and say that environmental concerns should prevail over safety and economic development. Not a all. I don't buy that, whether we're talking about Montana, North Carolina, or anyplace else. We have to strike a balance. But here is the rub. There may be a better way. We may be able to achieve all the benefits that would be achieved by constructing the jetties, and do it much more cheaply and without the environmental risks. Here is how. By dredging a better channel. We could direct the Corps to dredge the Inlet deeper and more often. But there is a problem. In the most recent EIs the Corps has studied only one non-structural alternative. One that would have more than doubled this width of the channel. It's no surprise that the costs out- weighed the benefits. So, for at least 30 years, we haven't fully considered whether there's a better alternative to the jetty system. In addition there are many more factors to consider--environmental, recreational, and so forth--then there were in 1970. That brings me to my amendment. It deletes the provision in the bill that transfers the land, thereby circumventing the permitting process. Instead, the amendment requires that, within 180 days the Corps, must evaluate alternatives to the jetty project, including dredging. In doing so, the Corps must consider the views of affected interests, must consider how various alternatives accord with North Carolina's shoreline protection laws, and must minimize adverse environmental effects. Mr. President, pulling this all together, we need to do more to improve safety at Oregon Inlet. But the jetty system that we authorized in 1970 is an idea whose time has probably gone. We do not need 3 miles of granite rock jetties. We don't need 2 miles of pipeline, to pump 2 million cubic feet of sand every year. We do not need huge environmental risks. We don't need to ask taxpayers to fork over $108 million. Instead, we should step back, take stock, and see whether we can solve the problems at Oregon Inlet in a way that avoids big environmental risks and saves taxpayers' money. Therefore, I urge colleagues to support my amendment. I ask unanimous consent a statement of administration policy by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget listing the Administration's strong objection to the underlying provision in the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two amendments.

Mr. BAUCUS. In addition, I ask that a letter from the organization Taxpayers For Common Sense be printed in the Record. It is very much opposed to the underlying provision and in favor of this amendment, as well as a statement by Dr. Seldon, a very respected economist who studied this issue extensively.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that Senator Burns and I were working with the Committee on in this Agriculture Appropriations bill that would help Montana's senior citizens and low-income citizens. In particular, this measure would provide an additional $500,000 to enable the State of Montana continue its food stamp program standard utility allowance (``SUA'') waiver. Montana is currently operating under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue extending the waiver. Montana has approximately 25,000 households using food stamps. Of this number, over 19,000 would be tragically affected by the loss of this waiver. For example, many elderly food stamp recipients who live on fixed incomes and/or reside in public housing would be hard hit be the loss of the Standard Utility Allowance waiver. In many such cases, records from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services indicate that the loss could be higher than fifty percent of the benefit. Second, the state of Montana is currently serving 952 ``able-bodied adults without dependents.'' Many of these are either homeless or at risk of losing their housing. Decreasing their current food stamp benefit would only exacerbate their difficult situations. Finally, many of these food stamp recipients live in Montana's 634 group homes for the disabled. The loss of the Standard Utility Allowance would decrease food stamps for these individuals with disabilities creating further hardship for group homes which already operate with very little budget flexibility. The entire Montana delegation has worked hard over the past two years in conjunction with our Montana Department of Public Health and Human Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget to maintain this critical program. I am pleased that Senator Cochran is willing to work with Senator Burns and myself to address this issue within the context of this Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I want to echo his comments about the importance of this provision. PNP irrigators provide a valuable service to communities in many western states and their continued fair treatment under FEMA policies is the right thing to do. I extend my thanks to Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Smith, and Senator Graham in working to address this matter, both in Committee and here today. As this measure makes its way through the legislative process, I hope we can count on the Senator's continued assistance in protecting the interests of PNP irrigators. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues to pay tribute to Paul Coverdell. I have listened to a lot of tributes today. There have been so many themes, including cheerfulness, optimism, a welcome hand, no rancor, no bitterness. We all know that to be Paul Coverdell. I want that to mention one incident which, for me, encapsulates it all. It is going to be the incident that is defining for me. Whenever I think of Paul, I will always think of this incident, and I always will. This outfit--the Senate--tends to be a little partisan. Over the years, it has become too partisan, almost as two armed camps, one over there and one over here. It is regrettable, but that is something that has occurred and evolved up here in the Senate. Not too many years ago, I was in Atlanta, GA, speaking at an event. I neglected, as is a common courtesy, to tell Senator Coverdell I was there. Sam Nunn was a Senator at the time. I didn't tell Paul I was having an event in Georgia, his home State. I felt kind of bad about it. But like a lot of us, I kind of pushed it to the side and rationalized that it was not that important. Lo and behold, at that same hotel, Paul was speaking about three or four rooms away, and I heard about it. I said to myself: Oh, my gosh, Max, how stupid you are; why didn't you tell him? How guilty I felt. Oh, my gosh, here I am in Paul's home State and he doesn't even know I am here. I am in his State and he is just down the hall. I thought: You blew it, Max. When I finished, I was walking out in the hall and Paul happened to be coming up. He bounced up to me and said, ``Hey, Max, how are you? Welcome to Georgia. I hope you're having a good time.'' That was Paul--positive, upbeat, cheerful, with a smile and a good attitude and a gleam in his eye. That made me feel even smaller and more guilty, but it made me feel even better about Paul. That is the Paul Coverdell I will always remember. Mr. President, Wanda and I send our deepest sympathies to Nancy and the family. Life is fickle, unpredictable. There but for the grace of God go any of us. People with the personal qualities of Paul Coverdell are the ones we will treasure here. I know the people of Georgia will treasure the same qualities in Paul Coverdell. He was a great man. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment both leaders. This is incredibly complex, all of the scheduling. We have had lots of conversations. Every Senator in this body has had conversations with both of them, and I know they are trying to do their very best to work all this out. Not getting into any specific item, I am appreciative of the tone and nature of the conversation I have just heard and of the items mentioned. As one Senator, I wanted to tell them how much I appreciate their working together to get these things up along the lines they have outlined.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Smith and others to introduce the ``National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commemoration Act of 2000.'' First established by that great conservation leader, President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, the National Wildlife Refuge System has grown today to be the premier system of reserves for the conservation of wildlife habitat and biological diversity in the world. There are more than 500 refuges today, supporting over 1500 vertebrate species and thousands of species of plants. Open to the public, these refuges are the focal point of thousands of visitors each year that participate in wildlife viewing, photography, hunting, fishing or biking. They are places where families go to introduce youngsters to nature and to teach them the meaning of stewardship. In some cases, refuges provide the last habitats for endangered species. In all cases, the nearly 93 million acres in the National Wildlife Refuge system provide special places for wildlife, fish, plants and people. These lands provide a buffer against ever-increasing development and are reserved for future generations to enjoy and learn from. In Montana, we have seven National Wildlife Refuges including the 2,800 acre Lee Metcalf Refuge, the 15,500 acre Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge in the Central Flyway, and the National Bison Range, originally set aside to protect the last of the great bison herds. Mr. President, the bill that we are introducing today will celebrate the last 100 years of the National Wildlife Refuge System on Mary 14, 2003. In addition, the bill establishes a commission to look ahead and plan for the future, including a review of the backlog of maintenance needs at our refuges. It is my hope that this bill will increase public awareness and understanding of these national treasures. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment on the issue of snowmobiling in Yellowstone. It is pretty clear to anyone who has visited Yellowstone during the winter that changes need to be made to protect the park. I have met with folks on all sides of this issue, and I think that most people agree that the noise, air pollution and wildlife impacts are unacceptable and have to be addressed. Yellowstone is the engine for local economies and is part of our national heritage. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make sure that we don't harm the park and its wildlife. That having been said, I don't think we need an outright ban. I believe that we can protect the park and its wildlife in other ways. Already, people have put forth a number of creative alternatives to meet these goals, including limiting the number of snowmobiles allowed in the park, requiring clean and quiet machines, and using guided tours. I think we need to explore all these alternatives and work together to strike a common-sense balance that best serves Yellowstone and Montana. A balance that protects the Park, the local economies and involves people on all sides of this issue. As my colleagues in this body know, I am not in favor of legislating on appropriations bills. I am pleased that the Senate has decided to not pursue that route for the time being. It is my hope that the current administrative process that is underway for Yellowstone will produce an administrative compromise that protects Yellowstone National Park and provides for a broad range of visitor uses of the Park.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Smith and others to introduce the ``National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commemoration Act of 2000.'' First established by that great conservation leader, President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, the National Wildlife Refuge System has grown today to be the premier system of reserves for the conservation of wildlife habitat and biological diversity in the world. There are more than 500 refuges today, supporting over 1500 vertebrate species and thousands of species of plants. Open to the public, these refuges are the focal point of thousands of visitors each year that participate in wildlife viewing, photography, hunting, fishing or biking. They are places where families go to introduce youngsters to nature and to teach them the meaning of stewardship. In some cases, refuges provide the last habitats for endangered species. In all cases, the nearly 93 million acres in the National Wildlife Refuge system provide special places for wildlife, fish, plants and people. These lands provide a buffer against ever-increasing development and are reserved for future generations to enjoy and learn from. In Montana, we have seven National Wildlife Refuges including the 2,800 acre Lee Metcalf Refuge, the 15,500 acre Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge in the Central Flyway, and the National Bison Range, originally set aside to protect the last of the great bison herds. Mr. President, the bill that we are introducing today will celebrate the last 100 years of the National Wildlife Refuge System on Mary 14, 2003. In addition, the bill establishes a commission to look ahead and plan for the future, including a review of the backlog of maintenance needs at our refuges. It is my hope that this bill will increase public awareness and understanding of these national treasures. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Paul Hatfield. Last week, Montana lost not only a great man, but a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of our state and our nation. A native Montanan, Paul Hatfield was born and raised in Great Falls, where he graduated from the local high school in 1947 and pursued pre- law studies at the College of Great Falls. His education was interrupted by two years of service in the U.S. Army, including overseas duty with the Signal Corps during the Korean conflict. In 1953, Paul returned home and entered the University of Montana Law school, After several years in private practice, he was appointed Chief Deputy Attorney for Cascade County, serving until his election as 8th Judicial District judge in 1960. He held this post with honor and distinction for the next sixteen years. Heeding the call for public service, he was elected Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, moving to Helena to assume his new duties in January 1977. When Senator Lee Metcalf passed away on January 12, 1978, Judge Hatfield was the Governor's choice to complete the remaining year of that term. During his tenure in the Senate, Hatfield served on the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. In 1978, Judge Hatfield and I both ran for the Democratic nomination for the opportunity to represent Montana in the United States Senate. Paul campaigned as a man of integrity. He was always gracious and principled. Following the election, we remained friends and I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for him. While already having a distinguished career, Judge Hatfield was not yet done with public service. In 1979, he was appointed to serve on the Federal District bench by President Carter. Although Hatfield took senior status in 1995, he continued to serve actively in the courtroom until the time of his death. Mr. President, as I have said, Paul Hatfield was an incredibly gracious man. His dedication was apparent through his long career as a public servant and his commitment to his faith. He was full of charisma as everyone who came into contact with him would attest to. Paul Hatfield was a treasure to our state and to this nation and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Moynihan amendment, which provides an alternative form of marriage penalty relief. I do so for two main reasons. First, unlike the bill, the Democratic alternative completely eliminates the marriage penalty, by giving taxpayers the choice whether to file their taxes individually or jointly. Second, unlike the bill, the Democratic alternative only addresses the marriage penalty, rather than providing a more general tax cut that benefits some people but not others. In that sense, it's a replay of yesterday's debate, about estate taxes. By concentrating on the real problem, the Democratic alternative leaves resources available for other pressing national needs. Before going into these arguments in more detail, I'd provide a little background. From some of the debate that we've heard over the past months, you'd think that the proponents of committee bill are only ones in favor of marriage. But as is usually the case, it's not that simple. In fact, the taxation of married couples presents some complex issues, requiring careful thought. After all, the so-called ``marriage penalty'' is not some devilish concoction designed to discourage marriage and reward sinners. It is, instead, a reflection of some difficult choices that have been made. We have to decide how to tax married couples compared to individuals, and we have to decide whether couples that earn the same amount of income, but in different proportions between the husband and wife, should be taxed differently. These are not easy issues. They don't have pat, obvious answers. And, when you try to solve one problem, you often create another. Congress has wrestled with these questions before. Up until 1948, married people filed taxes individually. That created problems. Among other things, the Supreme Court held that the IRS must give effect to state community property laws. As a result, couples were taxes differently depending on how different state community property laws allocated income between spouses. If a couple lived in a common law state, they may have had to pay higher taxes than a couple with the same income between spouses. If a couple lived in a common law state, they may have had to pay higher taxes than a couple with the same income who lived in a community property state. In 1948, Congress addressed this by allowing all married couples to file joint returns. Congress set the personal exemption, standard deduction, and ``rate breaks'' for couples at twice those for individuals. For some couples, that created the so-called ``marriage bonus''. For example, if one spouse earned 100 percent of the income, the couple would probably pay lower taxes after marriage, because the income would be split evenly between the two spouses, and they would benefit from lower tax rates. In 1969, Congress decided that this system treated individuals unfairly. The Senate Finance Committee report said that ``the tax rates imposed on single persons are too heavy relative to those imposed on married couples at the same income level . . . While some difference between the rate of tax paid by single persons and joint returns is appropriate to reflect the additional living expenses of married taxpayers, the existing differential of as much as 41 percent which results from income splitting cannot be justified.'' So in 1969, Congress adjusted the rate schedules, setting the rate breaks for individuals at about 60 percent of those for couples, rather than 50 percent. That addressed the perceived unfairness to individuals. But it resulted in some couples paying higher taxes after they marry--the marriage penalty. We've pretty much stuck with that system ever since, through Democratic and Republican Administrations, when Democrats were in the Senate majority and when Republicans were in the Senate majority. In recent years, however, some things have changes, that have made the taxation of married couples a bigger issue. First of all, as we've added more credits, deductions, and exclusions to the Tax Code, each has included it's own ``marriage penalty,'' because there's a separate rate schedule for individuals and married couples. For example, the 1997 tax bill, sponsored primarily by Republicans, made two noteworthy additions to the marriage penalty. The first is the child tax credit. The phase out for this credit begins a $110,000 of adjusted gross income for joint return filers, but at $75,000 for unmarried parents, creating both a marriage bonus for sole earner couples and a marriage penalty for dual earner couples. The second is the phaseouts of the deduction for interest on student loans. The phaseout for this deduction begins at $40,000 for unmarried individuals and at $60,000 for joint return filers. Like the child credit phaseout, it creates a marriage bonus for one earner couples and a marriage penalty for two earner couples. So the issue has become compounded by all of our tinkering with the Code. In addition, there's been a demographic shift. More couples today are two earner couples than there were three decades ago. So more couples today face a marriage penalty than a bonus. Pulling this together, the marriage penalty is not intentional. It's not designed to penalize marriage. It's a natural consequence of some rational decisions. But it's still a problem, both in fact and in the eyes of the American people. And it's a problem that we should do something about. But we should all understand that there is no ``magic bullet'' that will solve the problem without potentially creating others. We must make some tough choices. That brings me to the committee bill. It has some good features, including the provisions regarding the standard deduction and the earned income tax credit. But is also has several flaws. Most important of these, the bill isn't a ``marriage penalty'' proposal at all. Let's have a little truth in advertising. Let's tell people what's really going on. This isn't a marriage penalty bill. It's a tax cut, disguised as a marriage penalty bill. More than half of the tax cut goes to couples who don't face a marriage penalty, or to individuals who pay the alternative minimum tax. It's really more like a broad-based tax cut, at least for married couples and some individuals. That kind of a tax cut may or may not be a good idea, compared to other priorities. But let's be clear. The Chairman's bill is not simply a bill to reduce the marriage penalty. Viewed not as a marriage penalty bill, but as a tax cut, it's arbitrary--there's no particular rhyme or reason to it. If you're married and pay a marriage penalty, you get a tax cut. If you're married and don't pay a marriage penalty, you also get a tax cut. And if you're married and get a tax bonus, you still get a tax cut. If you're single, you get no tax cut. In fact, the disparity between married and single taxpayers widens, to where is was before 1969. Think about it. If you're married, with no kids, and you're already receiving the so-called marriage bonus, you get a tax cut. If, on the other hand, you're a single mom with three kids, struggling to make end meet, you get no tax cut. Zero The Democratic alternative, on the other hand, is more fair and more logical. You only get a tax cut if you have a marriage penalty. And if you have a marriage penalty, the Democratic alternative completely eliminates it. Not partial relief. Complete elimination. You won't have to worry about the marriage penalty in the student loan deduction, or in Social Security benefits, or in any of the 65 separate marriage penalties that have crept into the Tax Code over the years. The Democratic alternative eliminates all of them at one time. And it does so in a way most taxpayers can understand--if they save more in taxes by filing as individuals, that is what they're allowed to do. It's their choice how they file their returns. Taxpayers in a number of states, including my own home state of Montana, already have this option and it saves them millions of dollars in taxes. Mr. President, let's eliminate the marriage penalty, not just provide some relief from it. And let's do it by empowering taxpayers to make the choice about how they file their taxes. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative. Amendment No. 3864