Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for taking time on the Senate floor to discuss an issue which is not before us this very minute, but it is something that requires much more thought, much more long-term debate in the Senate. I commend the leadership of these two distinguished members of the Armed Services Committee on a bipartisan basis. Certainly, both have served in our military quite honorably, and especially Senator Cleland, who has given so much for our country. I say thank you for setting aside this time. I look forward to participating on future occasions that you are setting aside for discussion of the big picture items. I think one of the problems we face today is we haven't truly come to grips with what America's role in the world is in the post-cold-war era. The issues you are bringing forth are exactly what we should be setting out in order to have a policy in the post-cold-war era that allows the United States to take its rightful place and do the very best job we can for America and for our allies around the world. It is an understatement to say that the United States is the world's only superpower. In pure military terms, we are a colossus. Our troops are in Japan, Korea, throughout Europe, and in the Middle East. We guard countless other nations. We keep tyrants in check from Baghdad to Pyongyang to Belgrade. No other nation has ever wielded such military power. Leadership on this scale requires discretion, the confidence to know the right course, and the will to pursue it--the confidence to know when not to engage but to encourage others to do so. True leadership is striking out on a right course of action grounded in a central philosophy of advancing the American national interests. Simply put, both our allies and our enemies must know what to expect from the United States of America. We must always be strong. We must rely upon diplomacy to maintain much of our leadership. But when diplomacy fails, global leadership may require the use of military force. When and how should the United States use our military power? There was a time when the answer was clear. During the cold war, we determined we should only use military force when our vital national interests were clearly threatened. In the cold war, there was a clear military focus on a threat we could easily identify. We knew that if we acted, the Soviets would react. There was a clarity. Today, however, because we are the only superpower, we are often called upon to act when there is a crisis anywhere in the world. Leadership in this instance requires much more discipline than in the past. In our political system, that discipline comes from the checks and balances that have been built into it. The only clear authority our Constitution grants to the President in committing our forces to conflict is in the role of Commander in Chief to deploy troops. But equally clear in the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war, to raise and support an Army, and to provide for the Navy. Our framers couldn't have been more clear on this issue. They did not break with the monarchy in England to establish another monarchy in America. They feared placing in the hands of the President the sole power to commit to war and also implement that war. Yet, especially in the last 50 years, Presidents have sent our troops into conflict without formal declaration of war that would be required by Congress, and not only for emergencies such as repelling sudden attacks that were envisioned by our founders. Congress is being gradually excluded in its constitutional role in foreign policy. The consultation process is broken, and it must be fixed. In a representative democracy such as ours, elected officials must stand up and be counted when the fundamental decisions of war and peace are made. I believe it is important for Congress to reclaim its deliberate role intended by the Constitution. I have proposed limits on the duration and size of a force that can be deployed without congressional approval. I have proposed that the President be required to identify the specific objectives of a mission prior to its approval by Congress. Too often operations such as those we have seen in Bosnia, and now Kosovo, become open ended with no milestone to measure success, no milestone to measure failure, and no exit strategy. It is the hallmark of this administration for the United States to go into regional crises and displace friendly, local powers who share our goal and could act effectively on their own. In Kosovo, we fought and sustained an unsustainable government. We are trying to prevent the realignment of a region where the great powers have tried and failed many times to impose their will on ancient hatred and atrocities. In fact, I am interested in working with others to see if we can address this issue. We must condition future peacekeeping funds on the requirement that the administration reconvene the parties to the Dayton peace accords that ended in the Bosnia conflict, and those involved in the Rambouillet talks that resulted in Kosovo, and other regional interests. We must review the progress we have made and begin developing a long- term settlement based on greater self-determination by the governed and less wishful thinking by outside powers. This will probably involve tailoring the current borders to fit the facts on the ground. But this will create the condition for a genuine stability and reconstruction. When we take up further funding of Bosnia and Kosovo, I am not going to try to determine the outcome of these talks, but it is essential that we reconvene the parties to see where we are. For Heaven's sake, that is a modest proposal from the world's only superpower. Years ago, President Nixon laid out principles on how our military forces should be used overseas. Based upon his principles, I offer the following outline for a rational superpower to try to bridge the ethical question: First, we should acknowledge that bold leadership means war is the last resort--not the first. We cannot let our allies and our enemies suck us into regional quicksand. This is what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. Our allies refused to act on their own, insisting they could not take military action without a commitment of U.S. troops. That was not the case. Our European allies have sophisticated military forces. We should have been ready with backup assistance with heavy air and sea support, intelligence monitoring, supplies, and logistical coordination, but they did not need our combat leadership for a regional conflict that could be contained by their own superb ground forces. Second, we should not get involved in civil conflicts that make us a party to the conflict. We learned this with tragic consequences in Somalia when we got in between warring forces trying to capture one warlord. Yes, Serbia has a terrible leader. And it was tempting to punish him with our military force. But look who pays the price with many innocent civilians in Serbia as well. Often these types of missions are ones in which our allies can do a better job because oftentimes it takes more money and it is less efficient for American troops to do peacekeeping missions. When we commit 10,000 troops, it is not 10,000 troops. It is 10,000 troops on the ground and 25,000 troops in the surrounding perimeter to protect them. This is because American troops are always the target wherever they are, as they were in Somalia and as they have been in Kosovo. You are never going to hear me say we should not have the protection force. Of course, we are going to have the protection force if our troops are involved. I have heard it said by many in our military who come home from overseas that if there is an incident, it is going to be against us. I have heard our military people say if they are walking with other groups of military on parade, that people who are wishing to protest will let the Turks go by, the French go by, and the Brits go by. They wait for the Americans to hurl the epitaphs. We have to have a protection force. But that is not the case for many of our allies. Third, why not help those who are willing to fight for their own freedom? The administration seems to see no option between doing nothing and bombing someone into the stone age. There are, too often, other options. These options that we ignore, and sometimes even oppose, include local forces willing to fight for their own freedom. In Bosnia, for example, since 1991, we have maintained an arms embargo on the Muslim forces who wanted, and begged, to be able to fight for themselves. I met with them many times. I have been to Bosnia and that region seven times. I am going again next week. I am going to have Easter services with the great 49th Division, the reserve unit that is in control of the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Congress voted to lift the arms embargo and allow the Muslims to have arms to defend themselves, but the administration opposed it. For 3 years the Muslims and Croats were routed because they could not fight. They didn't have the arms. But the Croats got the arms, they ignored the arms embargo, and they fought back. When they did, President Milosevic cut a deal. I think we need to look at the option of helping people who are willing to help themselves rather than keep a fight artificially unfair. Fourth, we should not even threaten the use of troops except under clear policies. One clear policy should be if the security of the United States is at risk. When should we deploy our troops? We need a higher standard than we have seen in the last 6 years. Look at the war in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. security interests were at stake. A madman, with suspected nuclear and biological weapons, invaded a neighboring country and threatened the whole Middle East. It could have realigned the region in a way that would have a profound impact on the United States and our allies and subjected the entire territory to chemical, biological, and perhaps nuclear weapons. We, of course, should always honor our commitments to our allies. If North Korea invades the south, we are committed to helping our allies. We also have a responsibility toward a democratic Taiwan, which has been under constant intimidation from Communist China. We have the world's greatest military alliance, NATO, where we are committed to defend any one of those countries that might be under attack from a foreign power. It is in the U.S. interest that we protect ourselves and our allies with a nuclear umbrella. Yes, we would use troops to try to make sure a despot didn't have nuclear capabilities. These are clear areas of U.S. security interests. However, the United States does not have to commit troops on the ground to be a good ally. If our allies believe they must militarily engage in a regional conflict, that should not have to be our fight. The United States does not have to commit troops to be a good ally. If our allies believe they must militarily engage in a regional conflict, that should not have to be our fight. We could even support them in the interest of alliance unity. We could offer intelligence support, ``airlift,'' or protection of noncombatants. We do not have to get directly involved with troops in every regional conflict to be good allies. When violence erupted last year in Indonesia, we got it about right. We stepped aside and let our good ally Australia take lead. We helped with supplies and intelligence, but it wasn't American ground troops facing armed militants. Instead, we should focus our resources where the United States is uniquely capable; in parts of the world where our interests may be greater or where air power is necessary. It is not in the long-term interest of our European allies for U.S. forces to be tied down on a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia or Kosovo while in some parts of the world there is a danger of someone getting a long-range missile tipped with a germ warhead provided by Saddam Hussein and paid for by Osama Bin Laden. A reasonable division of labor--based on each ally's strategic interests and unique strengths--would be more efficient and more logical. What has been the result of our unfocused foreign relations? Qualified personnel are leaving the services in droves. In the past 2 years, half of Air Force pilots eligible for continued service opted to leave when offered a $60,000 bonus. The Army fell 6,000 short of the congressionally authorized troop strength last year. We used up a large part of our weapons inventory in Kosovo. We were down to fewer than 200 cruise missiles worldwide. That may sound like a lot, but it's just a couple of days worth in Desert Storm. So let's be clear that if we do not discriminate about the use of our forces it will weaken our core capabilities. If we had to send our forces into combat, it would be irresponsible to send them without the arms they need, the troop strength they need, and the up-to-date training they must have. It takes 9 months to retrain a unit after a peacekeeping mission into warlike readiness. As a superpower, the United States must draw distinctions between the essential and the important. Otherwise, we could dissipate our resources and be unable to handle either. To maximize our strength, we should focus our efforts where they can best be applied. That is clearly air power and technology. This will be the American responsibility, but troops on the ground where those operations fall short of a full combat necessity can be done much better by allies with our backup rather than us taking the lead every time. Any sophisticated military power can patrol the Balkans, or East Timor, or Somalia. But only the United States can defend NATO, maintain the balance of power in Asia, and keep the Persian Gulf open to international commerce. I thank the distinguished Senators Roberts and Cleland for allowing Members to discuss these issues in a way that will, hopefully, help to solve them in the long term.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Up to 15 minutes, or if someone else is scheduled in, let me know.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for making those points because I think they are very important. The differences between the Democrat alternative and the Republican plan that is on the floor are actually quite extensive. In the first place, the Democrat plan is $100 billion less in tax relief for American families. We are trying to cover more families. Not only are we trying to cover the people who are in the 15-percent bracket and the 28-percent bracket, which takes us through everyone who pays taxes up to $127,000 in joint income, but it also increases the earned-income tax credit for those who don't pay taxes at all. This is what helps a person who has been on welfare who goes to work and actually makes a salary of from $15,000 to $30,000 not have to pay any kind of penalty, even though they don't pay taxes. We want to add to the $2,000 earned-income tax credit $2,500 more to the salaries that would qualify for the earned-income tax credit. This is an incentive for working people who are in the lowest levels of pay to continue working and to realize that it is more important for them to work and to have an incentive to work than to be on welfare. The points made by the Senator from Iowa are very appropriate. The Republican plan not only offers more relief, it offers more relief to more people, $100 billion more. Secondly, the Democrat plan is phased in over a very long period of time. It doesn't become fully effective until 2010. It is very backloaded. Fifty percent of it doesn't even take effect until 2008. We want to try to make that timeframe less, and we want to have significant tax cuts for hard-working American families. Of course, we truly do believe that people will be able to make the decisions with the money they earn better than they will be able to live with decisions made in Washington, DC. In fact, I think it is very important that people realize, as they are writing their checks on April 15--or Monday, April 17, if they can wait until the very end-- that the chances are they are in the 48 percent of the married couples. If they are in that 48 percent that has a penalty, their tax bill next year will be an average of $1,400 less, if we can pass the Republican plan, send it to the President, and if the President will sign it. The President has said he is for tax relief for married couples. We certainly think he should sign the bill. If he doesn't sign the bill, we would really like to know why because this is a better tax cut plan. There is probably just a difference on what is a marriage bonus. For a married couple where one spouse decides to stay home and raise the children and they don't pay as much in tax as the single person doubled, I don't think that is a bonus. I would not want to tell my daughter, who has three children, that she is not working when she is staying home with them. Thank goodness we have people who want to stay home and raise their children. I don't want to make that decision for them, but I certainly want them to have the option and not be penalized in any way. I think everything we can do to encourage families to be able to make that choice we should do. I do not consider it a bonus. What I want is total fairness. What I want is, if a person is single and marries another single working person, when they get married there is no penalty whatsoever. The $1,000 we now make them pay because they got married would be spent instead by them, to start building their nest egg, to have their first home, to buy the second car, whatever it is they need, as newlyweds, who are the ones who struggle the hardest. We want them to have the benefit of not having discrimination in the Tax Code. What we are talking about is tax relief; it is a tax correction. It is saying that we don't want to penalize people for getting married. When 48 percent of the married couples in this country do have that penalty, what we want to do is correct it. I hope the Democrats will work with us to have relevant amendments that could be put forward. This is a good debate. I think we can differ on the way we would give marriage tax penalty relief. But my plea with the Democrats is let us take it up. Don't say that you have to offer extraneous amendments which don't have anything to do with marriage tax penalty, especially when President Clinton has asked us to send him a marriage tax penalty bill. That is what I hope will happen at 5 o'clock. I hope the President will work with the Democrats and tell them he believes in tax relief. I hope we can pass that relief for the hard- working Americans who deserve a break. I urge my colleagues to help us offer these amendments. Let's debate them and let's give Americans tax relief as they are signing those checks to the Federal Government this week. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will stop my remarks and yield to Senator Sessions for 10 minutes from our time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a very important debate. I hope we are going to be able to move to pass this bill before people have to write their checks during the weekend deadline for income taxes this year. Right now, there are negotiations underway between the Republicans and the Democrats about what kind of amendments should be offered. I very much hope that the Democrats will agree to offer some relevant amendments because I think there are surely legitimate disagreements about how we would give marriage tax penalty relief. But I also hope we will not have extraneous amendments offered, no matter how good the cause, which would take away from what President Clinton asked us to do, and that is to send him a marriage tax penalty bill that does not include extraneous legislation. That is what we are attempting to do. So I hope we can move forward into the amendment phase and talk about our differences. I think the distinguished Senator from Indiana wants tax relief for hard-working married couples. I think we may have a few differences, but in the end I suspect that he and I will both vote for the bill that is passed out of this Senate; that is, if we can get to the vote. That is what I hope we can do. I think we need to be very careful in the debate, though, about accuracy and what the different proposals are going to do. I heard a Senator earlier today in debate say that this bill on the floor will break the Treasury. I think the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, perhaps didn't look at the numbers and didn't match it to the budget resolution because, clearly, this not only doesn't break the Treasury, it doesn't even spend half of the allocation in the budget we passed last week for tax relief. In fact, it is $69 billion over 5 years, and the budget we passed last week is $150 billion over 5 years. So this is not even half. We do hope to give tax relief to other people in our country. We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We want to let seniors work if they are between 65 and 70 and not be penalized for it, and that bill has already been passed. We want small business tax cuts to make it easier for our small businesses to create the jobs that keep our economy thriving. We would like to give education tax cuts. Under the leadership of Senator Coverdell, we passed education tax cuts that would help people give their children the education enhancements that would increase their education quality. All of these things fit within the $150 billion tax relief in the budget that we passed last week. I think this is quite responsible and I think it is long overdue. We are talking about a tax correction as much as anything, because it is outrageous to talk about people who are single, working; they get married and they don't get salary increases, but all of a sudden they owe $1,000 more in taxes. It is time to correct this inequity. That is exactly what the bill before us does. It corrects the inequity all the way through the 28-percent tax bracket. It helps people all the way through those income brackets. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague from Alabama if he would like to speak. I don't know if others are waiting to speak, but he was waiting earlier. I am happy to yield to him at this time because he has been a leader in this effort. How much time does the Senator need?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was going to ask the distinguished leader if the comments made are correct that he has approved every amendment that came forward. It seems to me we have voted on a number of amendments that wouldn't have been the choice of the majority leader, but the majority leader has tried to accommodate the minority. I can't think of anything we haven't voted on this year. Frankly, I can't think of one issue that we haven't addressed, whether we wanted to or not. The idea being put forward that somehow the majority leader is running the Senate as if it is under his control, I think, is so far out of bounds it is almost laughable. I hope we could at least have morning business to talk about whatever issues Members want to discuss. I want to talk about the marriage tax penalty. My distinguished colleague from Illinois wants to talk about organ transplants. I can't imagine why the distinguished minority would object to morning business so Members from his side and Members from our side could talk until, hopefully, the majority and minority leader are able to come to an agreement on some kind of reasonable timetable so we can enact marriage tax penalty relief for the 21 million American couples who pay a penalty, who are going to be writing their checks to the U.S. Government this week, realizing they are paying $800, $1,000, $1,400 or more just because they are married and because the Tax Code clearly has an inequity that we have the ability to address. We can have legitimate disagreements on this issue. If we are going to have irrelevant amendments, I ask the American people to look at the issue for what it is. Let Members debate, let Members talk about our differences on the issue. I hope the distinguished minority won't shut down the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was my understanding we would go back and forth, according to the time allotments. Senator Voinovich is on the time of the Senator from West Virginia. I thought the sequence would be back to Senator Murkowski's side after that. If that is not correct, I will be happy to yield whatever time Senator Byrd wants on his side, and then I will control Senator Murkowski's time after Senator Voinovich, Senator Byrd, and Senator Warner. Is that what the Senator from West Virginia is suggesting? It is fine, as long as I know at what point our side will be able to reclaim our time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I can get an understanding, then it will be Senator Voinovich under Senator Byrd's time, then myself under Senator Murkowski's time, then back to Senator Byrd--and Senator Warner for however they are going to allocate their time under Senator Byrd's time allotment?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Following that, I would be recognized on Senator Murkowski's time. Following that, then the Senator would have the ability to yield to the Senator from West Virginia, on your time again. And following that, then----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from West Virginia, what he is proposing now is for Senator Voinovich to go next, and that is under the Senator's time; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I apologize. I did not know the Senator from Maine--I made a huge mistake. I amend my unanimous consent request to suggest that Senator Collins follow the Senator from Florida.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will make an attempt. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized on his time to allocate, as he sees fit, time to Senator Voinovich, himself, and Senator Warner, after which I will be recognized to take control of Senator Murkowski's 37 minutes, after which the Senator from Florida will be recognized for his introduction of legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from West Virginia wants to take all three from his side in answer to Senator Murkowski, I will be happy to do that. Then I will take my time after Senator Voinovich, Senator Byrd, and Senator Warner. Is that to what the Senator from West Virginia was referring?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Kansas for making a very good point. He is saying maybe now it is time for the President to step in and show his commitment on this issue. Maybe he can work with the distinguished Democratic minority in saying, I think this is something we ought to do, such as an emergency. I guarantee Kervin and Marsha Johnson believe it is an emergency, as they are filling out their tax forms this week. Kervin is a D.C. police officer. His wife is a Federal employee. They were married last July. This year they will pay $1,000 more in taxes because they got married 7 months ago. I guarantee that Eric and Ayla Hemeon believe this is an emergency. Eric is a volunteer firefighter and works for a printing company. Ayla works for a small business. They have been married for 2 years and are expecting their first child in about a month. Last year they paid almost $1,100 in a marriage tax penalty just because they got married and that they would not have paid if they were single. They are filling out their tax forms right now, and they would like to see the Congress give them relief from paying that $1,100 next year so they can buy something for their new baby. Lawrence and Brendalyn Garrison believe this is an emergency. He is a corrections officer at Lorton prison. She is a teacher in Fairfax County, VA. Last year we estimate they paid nearly $600 in a marriage tax penalty. They are really upset about it. When I talked to them last week, they said: We have been married 25 years and we think you should pass marriage tax penalty relief and make it retroactive. I think they have a good point. They have been paying the penalty for 25 years. This is an error in the Tax Code that must be corrected. Jerri Dahl of Arlington, TX, believes this is an emergency. He wrote me a letter and said: It is tax time again, and I am not going to let it go by without attempting to do something about what I feel is a terrible injustice to working people. I am not joking when I tell you that my husband and I are seriously contemplating divorce in order not to be penalized financially next year. I think we have a number of people in this country who believe this is an emergency, who, as they are writing the check to the Government, believe the Senate should act on a bill that would give them relief from a payment they should not have to make. Most people in our country believe they owe a fair share of taxes to the Government. They love this country and they want to do their part, but most people don't want to do more than they think is fair. When a single person in an office is sitting next to a married person in an office and they have the same job and make the same salary and the married person has to pay more in taxes than the single person sitting at the next desk making the same salary, that doesn't pass the test of fairness. I commend the majority leader for attempting to bring this bill to the floor. I commend my colleague, the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth. They have been working on this legislation for a long time. Senator Roth brought the bill forward last year. The President vetoed it and said it was too much. Senator Roth came back this year. He originally had a different bill--it was a doubling of the 15-percent bracket--but he listened to many of us who said, let's go to 28 percent so people in that middle-income bracket can get relief. That is the middle-income couple who needs that money to be able to do more for their children or to buy their first house or to pay for the car. The working people of our country deserve better government than they are getting today. They deserve better government than the Democrats shutting down the Senate because they don't want open debate on marriage tax penalty relief. I hope tomorrow they will change. I hope they will change and say it is OK to discuss this issue. It is OK to have disagreements, but let's keep our eye on the ball. Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, and correct the inequity in the Tax Code in this country that says a married person and a single person in the same job making the same salary should pay the same taxes. That is what we are seeking today. I hope the Democrats will come back fresh tomorrow and say: We agree with you. Now is the time to do the responsible thing. Let's correct the Tax Code to say every person working in this country should pay their fair share of taxes but no more. Let's give tax relief to the hard-working married couple who has been paying a penalty for 6 months or a year or 25 years. Let's correct it now because now is the time we can. As the majority leader said about the gas tax reduction that we also tried to give people today: If not now, when? If not this, how? Let us be a little more forthcoming in creativity when it comes to helping the hard-working people of this country have the marriage penalty relief they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas for a question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just say, the distinguished Senator from Kansas is making a very good point. He has raised this point for the last 3 weeks. That is, are the Democrats going to block consideration of a real marriage tax penalty relief bill by requiring that extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with marriage tax penalty relief be offered as a condition for bringing this bill to the floor? I think the distinguished Senator from Kansas is exactly right. I have to stand up for my majority leader. I am so proud of our majority leader for standing on the floor and offering the Democrats every single option that would keep this floor open for debate. He offered them the option of going forward on their prime amendment. He offered them the option of offering any relevant amendment. He offered them the option of just having morning business so that anyone can come to the Senate floor and talk about their issues of concern. That is exactly what our majority leader did. He did exactly what he should be doing to move the business of the Senate along. I have to say, in response to the Senator from Kansas, I think it is very important it be known that the majority leader has allowed any amendment to come before the Senate. Just last week, on the budget, many of us had amendments that were knocked off--just knocked off the budget--by an objection from a distinguished Member on the Democratic side because he did not want to vote on those amendments en bloc. There were many amendments from both sides of the aisle that were just knocked off. The distinguished majority leader did not do that. He allowed them all to come in. I think he has been the most open he could possibly be in allowing every single amendment of every possible conception to be offered on many of the bills we have had before us this year and, most recently, last week on the budget bill. We have taken a position on every single controversial issue that has been brought up in our country since the session started in January. The distinguished majority leader today is asking that we be able to debate marriage tax penalty relief, with any number of amendments that are relevant, because the distinguished majority leader believes we can have differences in approach. We passed a marriage tax penalty relief bill last year to which we all agreed. It was overwhelmingly passed. We sent it to the President, and it was vetoed. The President said: The tax cut is too much. We don't want to give that much money back to the people who worked so hard for it. Send me something smaller. That is exactly what the Finance Committee is doing. The Finance Committee voted a bill out--smaller, but it does give relief to every single married person in this country. It gives total relief to people in the 15-percent bracket and the 28-percent bracket. It increases the earned-income tax credit for the poorest working people in our country. That is what the bill does. So why wouldn't we be able to take the bill to the floor and debate it? I think the Senator from Kansas is on to something. The Senator from Kansas is saying, why would the Democrats want to kill marriage tax penalty relief with extraneous amendments? We have had sense of the Senates.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be happy to answer a question from the Senator from Kansas who, by the way, has been one of the leaders in seeking marriage tax penalty relief. He is a cosponsor of the bill before us today, along with myself. He was a cosponsor of the bill we sent to the President last year. He has talked on the floor about this issue perhaps more than any one of us. I would be happy to answer a question by the Senator from Kansas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for making a wonderful statement about the importance of the marriage tax penalty and tax relief in general for the hard-working people of our country. He is absolutely right; people are paying a higher rate of tax than they have ever paid in peacetime. I am concerned that there seems to be a problem with taking up this bill and debating amendments. I am very concerned about what appears to be an effort to not take up this bill and have relevant amendments considered. We are going to disagree on the merits of the marriage tax penalty. I hope we come to a conclusion that will significantly lower the marriage tax penalty for most of the 21 million American couples who now pay that penalty just because they are married. I hope the distinguished minority will allow us to go forward with the debate. I hope my colleagues will allow us to talk about our differences on this issue. I want to be clear; the questions we have just heard in the last hour appear to be related to offering amendments which are not relevant to the marriage tax penalty and could, in fact, kill the marriage tax penalty bill. If it is the Democrats' strategy to kill the marriage tax penalty bill for 21 million Americans in the name of other amendments they want to offer that are not relevant, I hope they will think about that. We all want to address Medicare and prescription drugs. We have addressed minimum wage. There are many issues on which we can disagree, but I hope we can all agree that those are not relevant to the marriage tax penalty, and that we will not let our disagreements on issues such as minimum wage or the way we want to provide prescription drugs to interfere with a very simple concept, a very clean bill that gives marriage tax penalty relief to 21 million American couples, which is exactly what the bill before us does. In the Finance Committee, Republicans and Democrats of good will debated the marriage tax penalty. They passed a bill out of their committee, and it deals with the marriage tax penalty. It did not deal with extraneous issues because, in fact, the President asked us to send specific bills to him so that he could make his decision on what he would sign and what he would not, one tax cut at a time. We will be able to test the President and his commitment to giving marriage tax penalty relief. We sent him marriage tax penalty relief last year. We sent significant marriage tax penalty relief to the President last year, and the President vetoed the bill. The President said: Oh, you have the marriage tax penalty relief in conjunction with all these other tax cuts. We had across-the-board tax rate cuts that would have helped every American paying taxes. We had significant cuts in the inheritance tax. We had other tax cuts for small businesspeople. The President said: That is too much. In fact, I think he said it was reckless to give people that much of the money they earned back to them. I believe he said it was reckless. The President said: Give me smaller tax cuts. So that is exactly what we are doing. We are trying to give him a significant cut in the marriage tax penalty. We are trying to say to the President: We want marriage tax penalty relief. You have said you are for it. We are going to send you a bill that includes marriage tax penalty relief, that deals just with marriage tax penalty relief. I would think the Senate would be able to come to an agreement on a marriage tax penalty bill--with relevant amendments of any type--and go forward to discuss our differences on the merits on marriage tax penalty relief. That is what the majority leader offered the Democratic minority. He offered them the ability to have relevant amendments and disagreements on the merits of this bill. That is fair. We all understand that. We have a little different approach on marriage tax penalty relief. We can debate those issues--if we have the chance. But it seems the Democrats do not want us to have that chance. It seems they do not want to be required to have relevant amendments so we can discuss this and give it to the President to sign. I hope it is not the Democrats' view that we should put this off. I hope they are not going to require that we not pass marriage tax penalty relief this week before we go into recess for a week to spend Easter with our families. I certainly hope that is not the result we are going to see here. I hope the result will be reached of a good marriage tax penalty relief bill before we leave for a week of recess over the Easter holiday. I think we owe that to the people of this country. I have received some mail from my constituents.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on April 11, 2000, from 10 a.m.-1 p.m., in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 11, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The committee will receive testimony on S. 282, the Transition to Competition in the Electric Industry Act; S. 516, the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999; S. 1047, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act; S. 1284, the Electric Consumer Choice Act; S. 2173, the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1999; S. 1369, the Clean Energy Act of 1999; S. 2071, Electric Reliability 2000 Act; and S. 2098, the Electric Power Market Competition and Reliability Act.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Early Childhood Programs for Low-Income Families: Availability and Impact'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., to hold two hearings.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., on trade relations with China and WTO.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Honorable Bernard D. Rostker to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Mr. Gregory R. Dalhberg to be Under Secretary of the Army and Ms. Madelyn R. Creedon to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department of Energy.