Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware, the distinguished former Governor, who obviously has another example of how these big barriers have hurt our ability to allow students to get the best education for their particular needs. So I just close by saying, now it is up to the Department of Education. What we are saying in this Chamber today is: Drop the barriers. Open the options for public schools. Give parents a chance to have their child in public school have all the options that would fit the needs of that particular child. I again thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins who have been with me on this amendment from the very beginning, and I thank our new cosponsors, Senator Clinton, Senator Carper, and Senator Kennedy, for working with me to form this compromise. The bottom line is that the Department of Education must step up to the plate. I have discussed this with Secretary Rod Paige. He agrees. He has committed to me that he will open the spigot, open the floodgates, to allow this to be one of the options that will be available to the parents of public schoolchildren in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Delaware be yielded 1 minute, and then that I be recognized for 30 seconds to close.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do want to say we would not have gotten to this point without Senator Collins' leadership and help. We adopted this amendment before. We are now back adopting it again because the bill that we passed before did not end up with a Presidential signature. So I thank her for being with us because of her experiences in Maine and appreciate her support very much. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to my colleague and cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Collins.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that several of us have worked on for quite a while trying to come up with the right formula. I thank Senator Kennedy, and I especially thank the cosponsors of my amendment, Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Clinton, for trying to come up with a solution to a problem that we have seen over many years; that is, obstacles put in place against public schools being able to offer single-sex classrooms and single-sex schools. We are trying to open more options to public school than are available in private school because we want public schools to be able to tailor their programs to what best fits the needs of students in that particular area. Most of the time coeducational classes in schools are going to be the answer. But sometimes in some circumstances we find that girls do better in a single-sex atmosphere and boys do better in a single-sex atmosphere. We want parents who might not be able to afford private school or might not have the option of parochial school to be able to go to their school board and say: We would like to offer a single-sex eighth grade math class for girls or we would like to offer a single- sex chemistry lab for boys or we might want a whole single-sex school, such as some that have had wonderful results. I imagine my colleague, the Senator from New York, will mention this because one of the great success stories in single-sex public schools is the Young Women's Leadership Academy in East Harlem, NY, which just saw its first high school graduation and schools such as Western High School in Baltimore that has been in place since the 1800s. These are the kinds of schools that have weathered all the storms, faced the lawsuits, and have gotten over it. We don't want those kinds of barriers. If people want that kind of option, and parents come to the school boards wanting that option, that is easily obtain. Our amendment simply says, under applicable law, schools can offer, under title VI, which is the creativity title--the title that we hope will open more options for public schools, single-sex schools and classrooms--we want to particularly have the Department of Education, which is provided in this amendment, to have 120 days to issue guidelines so the public schools that are interested in offering this kind of option will have clear guidelines on how they must structure the program to meet applicable law. That is simply what the amendment does. It has been agreed to by all of the entities that have been working on this issue. I think this is very exciting. It is something I have worked on since Senator Danforth of Missouri left the Senate; he tried to get an amendment passed when he was here that would have allowed single-sex schools and classrooms and made it easier to do that. But the Department of Education, frankly, has been the barrier. They have put the roadblocks in front of the people who want to try to do this around the country. Most people have been persuaded. Ones such as the East Harlem Young Women's Leadership Academy have prevailed, and they have done very well. However, we shouldn't have to overcome hurdles. We want public schools to meet all of the tests and all of the individual needs of students without having to go through a lot of redtape, a lot of bureaucracy, and many barriers. That is what this amendment will do. I call on my colleague from New York, who has worked with me on this amendment. I talked to her about my observations of the leadership school in Harlem when we first put this amendment forward. She has been a real leader in helping me work through the amendment and getting everyone to agree on what we could do to go forward. I appreciate that help. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from New York.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to amendment No. 540, a modification to be substituted for the text of the amendment.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 540.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take about 7 minutes, and the Senator from New York would be speaking on the amendment as well for about 5 minutes. Could we have, perhaps, 15 minutes? Because Senator Collins from Maine is going to try to come down. After 15 minutes, then we would go back to the Wellstone amendment, close that, and our amendment would be voted on afterwards.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some of the activities that are going on right now. We have had a momentous week in the Senate. We passed a tax relief bill so that every working American would get relief from the burden of taxation. We passed a budget that is responsible stewardship of the people's money. I stress people's money because one of the things I think is very important is that we remember the money people work so hard to earn is not the Government's money. It is what people send to the Government to do the functions of Government and that we have the responsibility to assure it is wisely spent and what isn't necessary for the functions of Government is sent back to the people who earn the money. We believe that people can choose how to spend their money better than a big Government program can do. So we have passed the budget resolution that provides for tax relief for hard-working Americans. It would be $1.35 trillion over a 10-year period. It would pay down the debt to the maximum extent possible without paying a premium for early payment of outstanding Treasury issues. And I think that is a very important component because paying down the debt frees up more money that is going to go to interest payments, and that is money that can either go into the spending that is necessary to cover the costs of Government or more can be sent back to the people who earn the money. We also do provide in the budget that was passed at least a $500 billion cushion--a rainy day fund--which we think is very important for meeting the emergencies we might face in the next 10 years. It is also important for the added spending that we know we are going to face. We have set a 5-percent limit on the increase in spending for the next year. A 5-percent increase is more than most families are going to increase their spending in the next year, so I certainly think it is the most we should go beyond this year's spending of the Government money. With that 5-percent increase and the $500 billion rainy day fund, we will be able to spend more in the priority areas such as national defense. We know we have fallen behind in the last few years in keeping up our strong national defense. We also know we are going to have to meet some future technology tests in order to maintain our superiority and security. So that means we are going to be looking at the next generation of airplane, the next generation of ship, the next generation of land-based vehicle, and the next generation of missile defense. We must perfect our theater missile defense, so that when our troops are in any theater in the world, they will have the protection of a missile defense system, such as the PAC 3, which is a hit-to-kill missile--a missile that can hit a missile. That has been tested and it works. It is going to be the most successful theater defense system we have ever had in our country. We are also looking at a longer range missile defense system, possibly a sea-based system and, later down the road, an intercontinental ballistic missile defense system. This is because we want to make sure that our shores are totally secure from any kind of incoming ballistic missile and that our people, wherever they may be in the world defending our interests, will also be secure. So that is going to take more money and we are going to put more money into it. In addition to more defense spending, we are going to have to deal with prescription drug options in Medicare and prescription drug benefits for people who are facing true hardships in meeting their medical needs. That will take more money. I hope we can reform the Medicare system so that it does meet the test that all of us want it to meet for quality health care for our senior citizens, and that we can add a prescription drug component. So that will be another area of added spending. I hope we will be able to have a Social Security reform bill, and all of the money that is now in Social Security surplus will be held for Social Security reform. It will be held for the integrity of the Social Security System that is done in the budget we have passed because we want to reform Social Security to make sure it is secure, not only today and 10 years from now but in the year 2030 when it will go into deficit if we don't do something to make sure it remains solid. So we passed a very good budget. In that budget, we also allocated $1.35 trillion for tax relief. I am very proud that our conferees are trying to work that out between the two Houses. The two Houses passed very different bills. The Senate bill was passed this week; the House bill was passed earlier. They are different bills. The rate reduction is different in the two bills, so we are trying to reconcile those rate reductions. We are trying to make some of the reductions earlier in the process, over a 10-year period. Some of the rate reductions take effect later in the 10-year period. We would like to bring all of the reduction into 2002 so that every working American would start feeling some relief by January 1 of this year. We are trying to give relief from the marriage penalty. When two single people are working--for instance, a policeman and a schoolteacher--when they get married today, they will pay approximately $1,400 more in taxes just because they got married. You may say, why would they have to pay $1,400 more in taxes? Why would our Tax Code do that? Well, it is because when they get married, they go into the next bracket; whereas, if they make $30,000 and $25,000, respectively, and they are in the 15-percent bracket, when they get married they go into the 28-percent bracket. That is a $1,400 hit. So we are going to try to relieve that penalty. In the Senate bill, there was very solid relief--double the standard deduction, double the 15-percent bracket. That is solid relief. It will take place over the 10-year period. Many of us hoped it would take place sooner than the 10-year period, but at least if we can get that relief on the books, we will begin to change our Tax Code so that it does not discriminate against people who get married. We want people not to think of taxes as a factor when they decide to tie the knot and start their family. So anything in the Tax Code that will have the effect of cutting back on the ability of people to get married and start their families, buy their first home, buy the extra car, whatever it is, we want them to be able to do it without regard to the Tax Code. So we are looking at significant rate reductions that will affect every working American. We are talking about significant marriage penalty relief. We are also talking about relief from the death tax. We are talking about trying to keep a family-owned farm or business in the family. I don't want to continue to see family businesses in our country sold to big businesses and take away the family nature of the business which is important to that family and important to every employee of that family business. I want those family businesses to stay together. I don't want every farm in America to be part of an international conglomerate. I want family farms to make it in America, and I want family ranches and family small businesses. That is the economic engine of this country, and it has been our tradition for over 200 years, valuing family-owned businesses. If we can pass them through the generations without taxing them and causing them to have to be sold to pay inheritance taxes, then I think we will have maintained one of the very important economic engines of America, and we will have maintained a very strong tradition and a very strong part of the entrepreneurial spirit that has helped build this country. So we address that death tax, and we eliminate it over the 11- year period, and we significantly increase the exemption through the 10-year period. The fourth area of major tax reduction that we hope will come out of the conference report and was a component of both the House and Senate bills is the child tax credit. We are trying to double the child tax credit over a 10-year period. Today, it is $500. We hope to increase that to $1,000. So the four major parts of our tax relief bill will be a major tax reduction through rate reduction, marriage penalty relief, death tax relief, and the $500-per-child tax credit doubles for every family. There are many other important elements; there are many other important tax relief measures I would like to see pass. If we can keep those four strong elements so that everyone will realize relief in a big way, I will be happy. Hopefully, we will lower the capital gains rate and will increase the IRAs and the pension capabilities. The more people can save, the better off our country will be and the more stability our country will have. Those are all worthy. I hope we can do those at a later time. There are some very important education deductions in the Senate bill. I hope we can keep some of them. Trying to help people with their education expenses is the most important thing we can do to increase the number of young people who get a solid education, K-12 and college. It will be a great stepping stone to go into the next year if we can pass the tax cut bill. Right now the conference committee is working. I believe Senators are willing to stay. We thought we would be out for Memorial Day right now. We thought we would be gone. I thought I might be home with my family last night, but I am not. I am here and so is every Senator. We hope to pass this tax reduction package. If we cannot do it today, we are willing to stay until tomorrow. We will pass it tomorrow if we can get out the tax cut package and certainly we hope we can finish this business because there will be some major changes that are dependent on our passing that tax cut legislation. There are major changes in the Senate. They are not my first choice for changes, but nevertheless the decision has been made, so we ought to go forward and let people start making concrete plans about how the Senate is going to be organized. It is in everyone's best interest to do that. The Senate is staying in session. We are going to make every effort to finish this tax relief bill for the American people if we have to work today, tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, Tuesday--whatever. If we can come to an agreement on a tax cut bill that has the general principles I have outlined that were passed in the House and Senate bills, then we will be in very good stead with the American people that we have done our job to the best of our ability in a bipartisan way, and we will then come back and start the business of reorganizing the Senate and continuing to do the people's work. When we come back from Memorial Day and visiting with our people at home, we are going to start talking about the energy crisis. During Memorial Day weekend, we are going to want to start thinking about how we can address the energy crisis in a meaningful way, hopefully with some short-term relief but, more importantly, for the long term. We have three major problems with the energy crisis in this country. We have a production problem. We are importing 56 percent of the energy needs of our country from foreign countries, and that is not a good, stable situation. We have a distribution problem in that we do not have enough refineries and pipelines to distribute the energy even if we increase production, and we have a conservation, a consumption problem. We need to encourage people in every way to conserve heating and air- conditioning in their homes, the gasoline they use in their cars. We can encourage people to conserve. We hope they will do it anyway. With incentives, people will be even more encouraged to conserve. We have a three-pronged energy problem: production, distribution, and consumption. That is going to be our priority when we return. Senator Murkowski has been talking about the energy crisis in this country for the last 4 years. I have been privileged to work with him, along with Senator Breaux, Senator Landrieu, Senator Domenici, and Senator Thomas, on this energy issue in a bipartisan way. We have been saying for the last 4 years we have an energy crisis in this country. We have not been able to get the rest of the Members of Congress to listen. They are going to listen now, and Senator Murkowski, myself, Senator Breaux, Senator Thomas, Senator Domenici, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bingaman--all of us are going to be working on an energy package that will address the three components. It must be balanced, and we must address all three components. I hope we can get tax relief on the table, letting people keep more of the money they earn, and send it to the President. I know he is going to sign it because he asked for it. He campaigned on it. He kept his promise; he asked for it and we are going to give it to him. Now we are going to address energy. We are going to address education reform and try to keep doing the people's business. We have toiled in the fields. We have worked hard. We have a lot to show for that work. We will finish the job the people have asked us to do on tax relief and, hopefully, we will go home, turn a leaf, and start addressing education and energy when we return. I am proud of the job our President is doing, and I am proud of the job the Senate has done. I end by saying on a personal note, I am very proud of our leader, Senator Trent Lott, the majority leader of the Senate. He has worked very hard to push the President's programs he campaigned to do and was elected to do. Senator Lott has the most unfailing sense of humor and optimism of anyone I have ever met. He has been hit with a few blows in the last few weeks. I admire what he has been able to do, working with the Democrats, saying we are going to work in a bipartisan way. Through the filibuster of the tax cut bill, he kept his optimism. He never let down. He let the 50 or so amendments be voted on time after time. He kept his good humor. Now he is facing becoming the Senate Republican leader rather than the Senate majority leader, and he is already reaching out to Senator Daschle, who will be the majority leader in the next couple of weeks. He said: We are going to keep working with you, and we are going to try to work in a bipartisan way to assure the people's business gets done. My hat is off to Senator Lott today. I have seen him up close in the last few weeks, and I can tell you he is a leader who is determined to continue to do his job in the best way he can, in the most sincere way he can, never with acrimony, always trying to do the right thing, working with a 50-50 Senate, which has not been the easiest job he has ever been handed but one he has tried to dispatch in a most fair and equitable way. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this has been a tumultuous week in the Senate. We have had significant legislative accomplishments. I think it is an interesting process to watch the changes that are taking place. It always makes me value our Constitution and the peaceful transitions of power our Constitution has provided. I was watching C-SPAN this morning. The topic was ``The Greatest Generation.'' People were talking about what they consider to be our greatest generation. The debate was about whether the greatest generation was the wonderful heroes who went to battle in World War I and especially World War II, because we are talking to them, and in Tom Brokaw's book ``The Greatest Generation'' being the silent heroes, the people who answered the call of their country and fought bravely and came home and never talked about it, never whined, never complained. They are, indeed, our great heroes. Then people started talking about the greatest generation being our Founding Fathers and their families, and the sacrifices they made when they declared independence and when they crafted our Constitution that set in place the document that has kept us vibrant and alive today. Through all of the things that I, personally, have lived, even in my mere 7 years in the Senate, I have seen our Constitution tested and prevail, tested and come through, tested and show the wisdom of the balance our Founding Fathers put in place so we could have changes in power and have them peacefully. While talking about the greatest generation, it also has come home to me when I have visited foreign countries, foreign countries that have seen the despotism of military rule, of dictatorships, of communism. They are coming out of those totalitarian governments. They are coming into democracy. I thank the Lord, I thank my lucky stars, and I feel so grateful we had Founding Fathers, and families who supported our Founding Fathers, who created a document that is living today, that has given the balance so we have never had a totalitarian government since the democracy we formed in 1776. I feel very proud, and it came home to me today as I started thinking about the greatest generation. I think our Founding Fathers and their families certainly created generations behind them who also were great in that they answered the call of the time. That is what has happened throughout the 17 or so generations since the founding of our country. Sometimes we have not had to answer a crisis. Sometimes the United States has had a period of peace and prosperity. When we have been tested throughout the 17 or 18 generations, we have met the test. We have met the test because we have learned from our Founding Fathers and their families and we have built on their strengths and the Constitution they created. We have been able to answer every test with success. I feel very grateful to live in a society where we can debate which were the greatest generations. I don't think we have had a generation that has ever sunk to the lows we have seen in other countries and other societies where our Government has broken apart or our institutions have broken apart. I think we have perhaps expanded beyond the boundaries, but we have always come back because we have the structure that we do. I appreciate very much the opportunity to serve in the Senate in this great democracy and hope we will always be able to meet the test of the strength of our Founding Fathers and always be grateful for the Constitution that has been so vibrant throughout the generations. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee) ordered.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer legislation on an issue important to many of our military and government families assigned overseas. Currently, if one of these families adopts a child who is a citizen of the United States, that child is not automatically eligible for citizenship. Current law allows U.S. citizens residing in the United States to adopt children from overseas and to automatically confer citizenship on these children who are residing in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent. My bill would allow U.S. military and government employees who are stationed overseas and adopt a child to enjoy the same ability to have citizenship automatically conferred. Today many of our service members and government employees are stationed overseas serving their country. Some of these families want to offer their home and their hearts to children needing a good, loving family. The opportunity is often missed by these families because of this oversight in the current law. This amendment will ensure that those who are serving our nation and our government overseas are not penalized when adopting children during their tour.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer legislation on an issue important to many of our military and government families assigned overseas. Currently, if one of these families adopts a child who is a citizen of the United States, that child is not automatically eligible for citizenship. Current law allows U.S. citizens residing in the United States to adopt children from overseas and to automatically confer citizenship on these children who are residing in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent. My bill would allow U.S. military and government employees who are stationed overseas and adopt a child to enjoy the same ability to have citizenship automatically conferred. Today many of our service members and government employees are stationed overseas serving their country. Some of these families want to offer their home and their hearts to children needing a good, loving family. The opportunity is often missed by these families because of this oversight in the current law. This amendment will ensure that those who are serving our nation and our government overseas are not penalized when adopting children during their tour.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be brief and close on my amendment, after which I understand we can go ahead and have the vote. I understand what the committee did. I understand how the committee had to accommodate so many interests. I do not eliminate the deductions for the education expenses; I just draw them out over a longer period. I had to find someplace to offset the cost of moving the marriage penalty to the top. Phasing in the deductions for the education expenses was the only thing I could find that would be a viable alternative. Because I think the tax rate cuts are so important, I did not want to upset that balance. That is why I cannot support Senator Conrad's amendment. But I certainly intend to try to continue to look for offsets. Frankly, I am going to offer it without offsets if this is not adopted because I think moving the marriage penalty up is every bit as important as rate reduction and death tax relief and doubling the child tax credit. We are trying to give relief to American families. How much more do we need to be told than that the census shows us that 77 percent more people are living together unmarried than there were 10 years ago? I think we should value marriage, and I think we should encourage it. I certainly do not think we should have policies that discourage it. So I am going to do everything I can to move it up and make it the top priority that I think it is. That is what my amendment does. I ask the support of my colleagues. I think this is a warranted priority: Eliminating the marriage penalty in this country. It is essential that we do so. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does my side have remaining?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, first, I respect the distinguished chairman, Senator Grassley, and his ranking member, Senator Baucus, for crafting the tax reduction bill. I know and understand in order to get a complicated and very important bill through a committee that is evenly divided, many compromises must be made. I know Senator Grassley would not have written the bill exactly this way, nor would Senator Baucus, had they been able to write it by themselves. It is with great respect I offer my amendment that somewhat changes the order of the bill, although it is not a huge deviation. Looking at their timetable, I realize how difficult it was for them to say which tax relief comes in the early years and which comes in the later years. When I decided I wanted to try to move the marriage penalty up, it was hard to find something to trade. It was hard to find the offset. Everything in the early years is a very important tax cut and it represents very important tax relief for every American family. I agree with Senator Conrad, we should bring the marriage penalty up earlier, but I disagree with his offset. I think the cut in the tax rates for every working American is the very highest priority. I am going to offer an amendment that would bring the marriage penalty relief up to 2002, rather than beginning in 2006 as in the underlying bill. My offsets are the deductions for some of the education expenses being streamlined over a longer period of time. In the bill before the Senate, the marriage penalty relief starts in 2006 and ends in 2010; my marriage penalty standard deduction doubling starts in 2002 and ends in 2008. It is fully effective in 2008. We have the full doubling of the standard deduction by 2008, starting in 2002. In order to achieve that, it was necessary to streamline the phasing in period of the education IRA and the education expenses that have the added deduction. The deduction maximum for the education expenses under my bill in 2002, would be $1,500; 2003, $2,000; 2004, $3,000; and in 2005, $5,000. Under the underlying bill, all of the deductions end in 2005. My amendment does the same. There would be a phasing in difference and it does chip away at the phase-in of the deduction for education expenses. The tradeoff is we double the standard deduction, starting immediately in the 2002 year. These are tough choices. There is no doubt about it. I understand that. I have been working on marriage penalty relief for the last 4 years. We have passed it in the Senate twice, but it was vetoed by President Clinton. Today we have a chance to finally begin the process of relieving the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty came about as an accident. Congress doesn't mean to tax married people more than two single people living together individually would be taxed. But it did happen that the Tax Code has evolved so that there is not a doubling of the standard deduction when two people who are single get married; there is not a doubling of the 15-percent bracket or the 28-percent bracket or the 33-percent bracket or the 39.6-percent bracket or any other bracket. There is no doubling. In the underlying bill, the relief for the 15-percent bracket, the full doubling, which gives every working American that doubling capability, is there. The doubling of the standard deduction is there. But it doesn't start until 2006. I am trying to double the standard deduction beginning in 2002, to at least start the relief from the marriage penalty tax. Fifty million couples in this country are affected by the marriage penalty. We received a census report in the last 10 years, and we see a dramatic 77-percent rise in the number of single people who are living together, unmarried. I am not trying to tell anybody how to live. But I think the marriage penalty has something to do with that. I have had people tell me they are delaying getting married until we fix the marriage penalty. Whether or not that should be a factor is not for us to judge, but nevertheless we should not have a Tax Code that penalizes people who get married. Generally, people who get married need more help, not less, because their expenses are more. They may have to have a house on which they want to make a downpayment, whereas before they lived in an apartment. They may need another car. There are any number of added expenses. Of course, if the couple starts having children, we know there are more expenses. We want to encourage the family. It is the stability in this country that gives people the infrastructure they need to get through life. We want to encourage that. We certainly don't want to do something in government policy that discourages families. I understand how hard it was for the committee to make the tough choices, but I address the marriage penalty relief earlier in the bill. Although I like all of the education deductions, I phase them in at a slower rate in order to move the doubling of the standard deduction up to the front. I think the significant tax relief that the American people are going to get from this bill is a tribute to those who wrote it and to the President of the United States, who made it his priority. I think it is very important we give tax relief. I am so pleased we are giving tax relief in the form of a tax bracket reduction for every single working American. That is why I could not go along with Senator Conrad's approach to doubling the standard deduction and relieving the marriage penalty in lieu of the rate cuts. Single people get the rate cut and married people get the rate cut and that is the way it should be. Everyone should get the biggest tax relief, and that will come from the rate cuts. So I would not put the marriage penalty in front of the rate cuts. But I do put it right after the rate cuts, which is why I have chosen to go a different route from Senator Conrad. I am very proud that we will be giving a rate reduction to every single working American. I am proud that we are going to take away the onerous burden of the death tax so a family-owned business or a family- owned farm or family-owned ranch will not have to be sold, putting all the people who work for that family-owned business out of work, because passing our family businesses from generation to generation will keep small business strong. It is small business that is the economic engine of America. It is not big international conglomerates that are the economic engine of America. I want to preserve our family-owned businesses and farms and ranches as much as we can. The elimination of the death tax is the best way to preserve family-owned businesses and farms and ranches. All the people who work for those family-owned businesses should have job stability and not worry about being taken over by some big international conglomerate that is going to eliminate their jobs. I certainly favor the elimination of the death tax. Doubling the child tax credit is another facet of this bill that I support fully. Everyone who has children knows how expensive it is to do for them all the things that you want to do, that would give them a better chance: The music lessons, the dancing lessons, the clothes, the soccer uniforms, the baseball uniforms--all the things you want to give them so they learn team spirit and sportsmanship, seeing what talent they might have and nurturing that. All those things cost money. We know that. We want to give relief through the child tax credit. The bottom line is this is really a good bill. It is a good bill because it gives tax relief to every working American: Single, married, parents, not. It gives relief to every working American, and it promotes job stability. That is important. My amendment is not meant to in any way say the committee did not do its job. The committee did a great job. I just want to make it a little better. I hope we can bring the marriage penalty up and streamline the education deductions and thereby add more relief from the marriage penalty and try to increase the capability for those in our country who have chosen not to get married because they really need that extra $1,400 a year that they get. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to ask about the process. I am able to do whatever I need to do, but I am not sure what the previous objection was regarding. So I do not know if it was to the offering of my amendment after Senator Conrad's amendment, and then the votes, or if it was to the 10 minutes for the Senator from West Virginia. But if we could clarify it, then I would be able to plan, if the Senator from Iowa would help me clarify this situation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?