William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I do.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000, which overwhelmingly passed in the House by a vote of 279-136. I point out that it was a bipartisan vote. It included 65 Democrats. So this legislation that we are about to proceed to has significant bipartisan support. This is an historic opportunity to repeal the onerous estate and gift taxes which currently have rates as high as 60 percent. In an age of surpluses where taxpayers are, indeed, paying too much, it is time to repeal the estate and gift taxes. Families who toil all their lives to build a business and diligently save and invest should not be penalized for their hard work when they die. Their assets were already taxed at least once--and it is unconscionable that their estates are taxed again at rates as high as 60 percent on the value of their assets at the time of their death. This bill would address this problem. I point out, we have held hearings on estate taxes in the Finance Committee as of the last Congress. It is the Finance Committee that is the committee of jurisdiction. I also point out, this bill is substantially similar to the estate tax provisions in the tax bill that was vetoed by the President last year. Some may ask why this House bill did not come through the Finance Committee. The reason is that the bill holds to the estate tax provisions the House and Senate agreed to last year. Since the Finance Committee has already debated and approved these provisions and we have negotiated these provisions with the House, I saw no need to delay the bill in the committee and perhaps kill the chance of repealing the tax. Now, I would like to briefly go through the bill before us. I point out, there are really two time periods to which the bill applies. In the first period, generally from 2001 to 2009, estate tax relief is provided on several fronts. In the second period, beginning in 2010, the entire estate and gift tax regime is repealed. During the first part, from 2001 to 2009, the estate and gift tax rates are reduced on both the high end and low end. On the low end, currently, there is a unified credit that applies to the first $675,000 of an estate. That amount is scheduled to rise to $1 million in 2006. While current law provides some relief for the smallest estates, for modest estates, those above the credit amount, a high tax rate applies. For example, now a decedent's estate of $750,000 faces a tax rate of 37 percent on each dollar over the credit amount. Keep in mind that is where the rate starts. For larger estates, the rates can be as high as 60 percent. For the lower end estates, the bill converts the unified credit to an exemption. What this means is that estates right above the unified credit amount will face tax rates starting at 18 percent rather than 37 percent. In other words, for modest size estates, this bill cuts the tax rate in half. For the larger estates, some now facing marginal rates as high as 60 percent, the bill includes a phased in rate cut. The rates are reduced from the current regime, with its highest rate of 60 percent, down to a top rate of 40.5 percent for the highest end estates. Please keep in mind that the base of the tax is property, not income, and the rate is still above the highest income tax rate of 39.6 percent. Prior to full repeal in 2010, the bill would also expand the estate tax rules for conservation easements to encourage conservation. In addition, the bill provides simplification measures for the generation skipping transfer tax. In 2010, the whole estate and gift tax regime is repealed. At the same time, a carryover basis regime is put in place instead of the current law step up in basis. This means that all taxable estates--and I emphasize we are only talking about taxable estates--that now enjoy a step up in basis will be subject to a carryover basis. Carryover basis simply means that the beneficiary of the estate's property receives the same basis as the decedent. For example, if a decedent purchased a farm for $100,000, and the farm was worth $2 million at death, the tax basis in the hands of the heirs would be $100,000. The step in basis is retained for all transfers in an amount up to $1.3 million per estate. In addition, transfers to a surviving spouse receive an additional step up of $3 million. As I have already pointed out, the House passed the bill on a bipartisan basis with 65 Democrats voting in favor of repeal of the estate and gift taxes. Now is the Senate's opportunity to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis and send it to the President. It is my understanding this will be the only chance this year that we will have to pass this bill and repeal estate and gift taxes. If we fail, the bill dies. If we come together and vote in favor of the house bill-- estate tax repeal that the Congress passed last year--it will go directly to the President for his signature. Our family-owned businesses and farms must not be denied this relief. This should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, the White House has indicated its opposition to repeal of estate and gift taxes and has promised to veto this bill. With roughly $2 trillion of estimated non-social security surpluses over the next 10 years, I believe the approximately $105 billion cost of repealing estate and gift taxes to be well within reason--it is only about 5 percent of the projected budget surplus. Other than being a money grab--estate and gift taxes do not serve any legitimate purpose. Taxpayers are taxed on their earnings during their lives at least once. Our Nation has been built on the notion that anyone who works hard has the opportunity to succeed and create wealth. The estate and gift taxes are a disincentive to succeed and should be eliminated.

Mr. ROTH. In Delaware.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I believe in full disclosure of who is funding political campaigns. The public has a right to know who is paying for the political advertisements and direct mail that they see. While I think this bill may not go far enough in requiring disclosure of these groups, it is a first step and that is why I support H.R. 4762. H.R. 4762 requires disclosure for political organizations which are tax exempt under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. 527 organizations which directly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate for federal office are subject to federal election campaign law disclosure obligations. However, 527 organizations that do not directly advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate are not subject to these federal election campaign laws and are not obligated to disclose the names of their contributors nor how they send the contributions they receive. This bill correctly adds disclosure requirements to these 527 organizations so that the activities performed and identity of contributors to these previously undisclosed will be available for public scrutiny, much like those 527 organizations that have to disclose under the federal election laws. I am also glad that this bill follows the constitutional requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives. If the revenue measure did not originate in the House, then any member could subject the bill to a ``blue slip,'' thereby voiding the entire bill, not just the part of the bill that is a revenue measure. I opposed an amendment similar to this bill a few weeks ago when it was offered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill because adoption of that amendment would have subjected the Defense Authorization bill to such a ``blue slip'' challenge. Since we are taking up a House-originated revenue measure, I do not have the concerns which forced me to vote against the previous amendment. However, I do have some concerns with this bill. First, this bill is a tax measure and tax measures should first be addressed by this committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee. This we have not done. In fact, the Fiance Committee was scheduled to have a hearing on July 12, 2000 to review this and other similar legislation dealing with disclosure of political activity by tax-exempt and other organizations. This hearing will not happen now and we will not be able to have the Finance Committee review how effective this legislation will be. My second concern is that this bill may not do enough. By only focusing on disclosure in one type of tax-exempt organization and not on others, we leave open the use of the other type of tax-exempt organizations by those who want to hide their contributions and activity behind the cloak of anonymity that these tax-exempt organizations provide. This view is shared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Finally, I am concerned that this legislation requires the Internal Revenue Service to do things that it is not prepared to do with regard to disclosure. For example, under the bill reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, the IRS could partner with another agency--most likely the Federal Election Commission--to provide that the results of the 527 disclosure to the public. Unfortunately, this and other technical matters that were addressed in the Ways and Means Committee bill were not incorporated in this bill. I fear that we will have to address these technical issues in the future in order to make the disclosure provisions work to effectively provide this information to the public. Because this bill is a first step and that some disclosure is better than no disclosure, I will vote for H.R. 4762. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Brennan Center for Justice expressing the view that this bill requiring disclosure by 527 organizations is constitutionally sound be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and based on his assurances of these provisions' removal in conference, I withdraw my opposition to this bill. I believe that this is the best way to proceed: We not only protect the programs that I came to the floor to protect, but we also allow this funding bill for many other important programs to forward as well. I thank the Senator from Alaska for working with me to resolve this impasse.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I had originally planned to come to the floor to voice my opposition to this bill and to offer a point of order that it violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I intended to do so because of two serious failings in it. First, this bill cuts the program that Congress passed in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act to help States provide health insurance to low- income children and could cost up to 2 million of them their health insurance. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, known by its acronym as S-CHIP, was designed to make health insurance coverage available, at State option, to lower-income, uninsured children. More than 2 million children have been enrolled in S-CHIP--children who would otherwise lack access to the health insurance coverage that helps them grow and thrive. When we designed S-CHIP in 1997, States were given specific allotments to cover eligible uninsured children. We designed the program so that those allotments were to be available to individual States for a period of 3 years. This was done to ensure that allotments didn't sit unused. At the end of 3 years, unspent allotments are to be reallocated to other States that have spent their full allotments. The basic idea is to effectively direct available S-CHIP dollars to States willing and able to use them to cover uninsured kids. We are now coming up upon the first opportunity to reallocate unspent S-CHIP funds. Three years have elapsed since the program was first implemented. But, instead of thinking through the ramifications of reallocation, today we confront an unexpected and far more fundamental challenge to the future of the S-CHIP program. The appropriations bill before us would cut $1.9 billion in S-CHIP funds from the program, with an unenforceable promise to restore the funds in 2003--a promise which is itself subject to a Budget Act point of order. This cut represents a dramatic retreat from the commitment the Federal Government extended to uninsured children, their families, and to the States in 1997. S-CHIP was designed to be a stable, guaranteed source of funding to States to cover lower-income, uninsured children. If States cannot count on the federal government to stand by its commitment, there will inevitably be an erosion of State support for participation in the program and aggressive enrollment strategies. As a result, fewer children will receive health insurance coverage. We have to be very clear that what we are talking about today isn't a technical accounting gimmick that simply moves funds forward. We are talking about a concrete cut in a very real program upon which millions of children depend. The consequences will be no less real. If the provision in the appropriations bill is not removed, the National Governors' Association estimates that as many as 2 million children will be denied access to health insurance coverage. For that reason, the National Governors' Association strongly and unambiguously opposes the S-CHIP cut included in this appropriations bill. NGA is not alone in its opposition to the appropriations cut. The community of advocates who work on behalf of children strongly opposes it as well. In fact, all Senators should have received a letter signed by over 80 groups opposing the cut, including the Children's Defense Fund, Families USA, the American Hospital Association, and the American Medical Association. In addition, the Health Insurance Association of America has also written to express its opposition to S-CHIP cuts. Second, this bill cuts three welfare programs by $1.4 billion. The title XX social services block grant is cut by a whopping 65 percent-- from $1.7 billion in funding to $600 million. This is just a quarter of the level we promised to Governors during welfare reform in 1996. The title XX block grant was enacted in 1981, during the Reagan administration, to provide States with a flexible source of social services funding. Today, title XX funds services to almost 6 million Americans, principally children, people with disabilities, and seniors. In Delaware, we use these funds for a broad range of programs-- including helping abused and neglected children and for people who are blind, and for Meals-on-Wheels. These funds go to programs without adequate sources of support and to fill the gaps for the neediest citizens. These title XX funds are essential. These funds cannot be easily replaced--by States or local governments, or by private charity. The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill would cut these supplemental welfare grants to States by $240 million. In the 1996 welfare reform legislation States took a big, big risk. States exchanged an open-ended Federal entitlement--that is, guaranteed dollars for each person who qualified for welfare--for a fixed block grant. To provide States with some modest protection, welfare reform contained a provision to provide States with a big population increase and high poverty rates with supplemental welfare grants. The Labor-HHS bill would cut these grants and break that promise. These welfare program cuts violate the fundamental deal Congress made with the Governors during welfare reform. With these cuts, Congress reneges on its word. Next year Congress will begin reauthorization of welfare reform. If Congress shows that it is not a dependable partner now, how can we expect States to have confidence in us next year? Altogether this bill cuts a children's health program and welfare programs by $3.3 billion. This is unquestionably a violation of sound policy. In the interest of sound policy, in the interest of uninsured children, in the interest of welfare recipients, and in the interest of the States who are working with us to serve these vulnerable individuals, I had no choice but to oppose this bill. I am not alone in recognizing these problems, Senator Moynihan, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Grassley, and Senator Graham all joined me in a letter to our colleagues warning them against supporting this bill because of its inclusion of the provisions I oppose and have just outlined. I know that other Senators opposed them as well and I thank all of them for their support. However, Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has assured me that these cuts--specifically: (1) The $1.9 billion cut to the State Children's Health Insurance Program located in section 217 on pages 53 and 54 of the bill; (2) the $1.1 billion cut to the title XX social services block grant located in title 2, page 40 of the bill; (3) the $240 million cut to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, program, located in section 216, pages 52 to 53 of the bill; and (4) the $50 million cut to the Welfare-to-Work performance bonus program, located in section 104, pages 21 to 23 of the bill--will be eliminated in their entirety in this bill when it returns from conference.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Virginia may proceed.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ROTH. In 5 years, it is estimated it would cost something like $75 billion. Under the budget resolution, we are allowed to spend $20 billion in 5 years, if we have no reform. If we have reform, our program can consume up to $40 billion. This piece of legislation would cost something like $75 billion. The last thing we need to do is move ahead on legislation that would put our Medicare program at greater risk. Its solvency is already estimated to last only until 2025. In adopting what will be admittedly an expensive new program, we want to make sure that it is fiscally sound. I urge and hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will reject this legislation and give the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction, the opportunity to develop a bill that will serve the needs of our senior generation.

Mr. ROTH. I yield myself 1 more minute.

Mr. ROTH. I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the so-called Robb amendment, not because I necessarily oppose its terms but because it affects, in an adverse manner, the possibility of getting legislation on prescription drugs enacted this year. Prescription drugs is a matter before the Finance Committee. It is undoubtedly the most important domestic legislation that will be considered this year. Nothing will happen if we permit this legislation to become partisan. We do not need a Democratic bill. We do not need a Republican bill. We need legislation that represents a bipartisan consensus on both sides of the aisle. We have worked very hard in the committee to develop the kind of information that is essential to design a bill that will meet the needs of the American people. We have spent something like 15 days on hearings, bringing before us experts as to what we should do to, frankly, modernize our Medicare legislation. The last 2 weeks have been spent in meeting with Republicans and Democrats alike on the various proposals that have been made both by Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate. We just completed that process this afternoon. I am very happy to say that I think the end results of these meetings give us a good chance to develop a bill that can be supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I know there are people who want to make this a partisan issue. I know there are people who want to have a Republican issue on this matter, and the same is true on the Democratic side. But I say that this matter is too important--too important to our senior citizens--to try to rush it through in a political way rather than working together. During our hearings, we had representatives of the AARP and other advocate groups. The one message they gave that came through loud and clear was: Do not rush something through. Make sure that whatever you do will meet the needs of the American people. They urged, time and again, that it is essential that we act with care. Let me point out, to those who want to have a vote all of a sudden on a piece of legislation that has not been studied, that in 1987, the Congress voted for--and it was signed into law--catastrophic legislation. That was passed in 1987. In 1988, it was revoked because the legislation did not do what the people thought it would do. We must not make that mistake again. It is critically important that as we move ahead, we move ahead with care and understanding. Let me say, I understand full well the importance of this legislation and want to get it done. But it does not help the process or the development of a good piece of legislation if it is handled in a partisan way. This bill was only introduced 2 days ago on June 20. The text of the bill has not even been printed in the Congressional Record. Are we going to act on that today without an understanding of what it includes and what it means? It is estimated this legislation would cost, over 10 years, something like $200 to $300 billion.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to follow-up on what my colleague from Delaware has just mentioned. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for accepting my amendment No. 3352, which was co-sponsored by Senator Biden. This amendment restores full funding ($92.5 million) for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds for C-5 modernization programs, including the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program. This amendment, in addition to the Committee recommendation of $95.4 million requested by the Pentagon in procurement funds for C-5 modernization programs, will allow the current C-5 Galaxy modernization programs to continue for the upcoming Fiscal Year. I would like to point out the only question that we are discussing now is which C-5 Galaxies will be modernized. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for clarifying the committee's position on the C-5 High Pressure Turbine modernization. I also thank the Chairman for agreeing to consider allowing the expenditure of procurement funds for the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) on the C-5A models. Just yesterday, I was at Dover Air Force Base, home to 26 C-5Bs and 10 C-5As. Each year, the community leaders, the base leadership, and the Delaware congressional delegation meet to discuss issues important to the Air Base. During a presentation by Colonel S. Taco Gilbert III, the commander of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover, he mentioned the importance of this program for safely and efficiently operating the Galaxy. The AMP will allow the C-5 to operate safely, effectively and more reliably. Features like the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and the Terrain Awareness and Warning System are important safety measures for the crews flying our C-5s. Bringing the C-5 into compliance with the Global Air Traffic Management standards will allow the C-5 to use advantageous flight paths and reduce fuel consumption and other costs. Finally, the new equipment will increase the reliability rates for the C-5 Galaxy and allow off-the-shelf replacements for hard to replace parts.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware, Senator Joe Biden, and myself. This amendment deals with the vital importance of the C-5 Galaxy to our nation's strategic airlift capability. No other aircraft has the capabilities of this proven workhorse, and as we look to prepare our military for the future we must not overlook the need to ensure the Galaxy has the parts necessary to perform safely and effectively. I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for accepting this very important amendment, which requires the Secretary of the Air Force to report on ``the overall status of the spare and repair parts program of the Air Force for the C-5 aircraft.'' The C-5 is the largest cargo transport plane in our Air Force. It is proven, and we depend on it to perform a vital role in our nation's Strategic Airlift. Currently, spare parts shortages have resulted in the grounding of nearly one quarter of the C-5 fleet. Needless to say, this is a serious problem. The report required by this amendment will detail the funds currently allocated to parts for the C-5, the adequacy of those funds to meet future requirements for the C-5, the descriptions of current efforts to address short-term and long-term shortfalls in parts, an assessment of the effects of the shortfalls on C-5 readiness and reliability ratings, a description on cannibalization rates for the C-5 aircraft and man hours devoted to cannibalizations, and the effects of these shortfalls on readiness and retention. I believe this report will shed light on a problem of which my colleague from Delaware and I are painfully aware. Dover Air Force Base, in my state of Delaware, is home to 36 C-5 Galaxies. At Dover, the spare parts shortage has truly hit home. ``Cann Birds'', or C-5 Galaxies that have been cannibalized for their parts, is an unfortunate sight on the base. Men and women at Dover must spend long hours cannibalizing aircraft to find parts necessary for other C-5s. These long hours have led to increased frustration and lowered morale among some of the hardest working and most valuable people in our Air Force and civilian personnel. We are losing expertise in this area due to this decreased morale. The lack of spare parts is not the only issue. Often, when the need for a part is recognized, there is a long lag-time between requests for parts and delivery. I hope that this amendment, by shining light on these problems and requiring the Air Force to examine the issues, will result in greater understanding of how to reach a solution.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for this grant of time. I rise today to make two announcements about the proposed amendment. The first announcement is that the Department of Defense authorization bill is not the proper vehicle for the issue raised by raised by this amendment. The second announcement is that there will be a proper vehicle for the issue. Let's explore my first point, that is, whether this defense bill is an appropriate vehicle for this amendment. This amendment increases the amount of disclosure that certain tax exempt organizations that are organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code have to make if they are not subject to the disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act. To do this, the amendment will subject these tax exempt organizations to tax on the contributions they receive if they do not follow disclosure requirements similar to the disclosure requirements set out in the Federal Election Campaign Act. While the objective of the amendment is increased campaign finance disclosure, the amendment is framed in the context of a Tax Code change, which is a revenue measure. Under the Constitution, all revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. If the revenue measure did not originate in the House, then any member could subject the bill to a ``blue slip,'' thereby voiding the entire bill, not just the part of the bill that is a revenue measure. Make no mistake, regardless of its merits, this amendment will kill this bill. If adopted, this amendment would mean that the Senate would be originating a piece of tax legislation. This is in direct violation of the Constitution. Rest assured, the House will not accept it and will refuse the bill when we seek to send it to them. Hence, the adoption of this amendment will kill this Defense bill just as assuredly as if we voted it down. We must not lose sight of the fact that there is no higher priority than our nation's defense. This bill provides much-needed funds for it. It gives a deserved pay raise to our armed forces--allowing them to enlist and retain the all-volunteer force that stands on perpetual watch over our nation. It provides for spare parts that will keep our Armed Services in service. Now, I'd like to move to my second point, provision of the proper vehicle. The House has passed a tax bill that deals with taxpayer rights and disclosure of information for tax-exempt organizations. That bill, known as the ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2000,'' is in the Finance Committee. The taxpayer rights legislation will be the vehicle for proposals to curtail corporate tax shelters, which both the majority and the minority staffs of the Finance Committee have been working to draft. The taxpayer rights legislation will be the appropriate vehicles for this amendment. I support increased disclosure. Section 527 needs to be amended. It is my intention to move such legislation later this year.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and Senator Kennedy, and Senator Thurmond to sponsor an amendment whose intent is to redress a grave injustice that haunts us from the tribulations of World War II. On May 25 of last year, this body held an historically important vote requesting the long-overdue, posthumous advancement of two fine World War II officers, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short. The Senate voted in support of including the Kimmel-Short resolution as part of the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000, but the provision was not included in the final legislation. This year, the House of Representatives had included the exact language of the Senate amendment adopted last year, and so we are again seeking the Senate to support inclusion of this important resolution. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were the two senior commanders of U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, they were unfairly and publicly charged with dereliction of duty and blamed as singularly responsible for the success of that attack. Less than 6 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, in a hastily prepared report to the President, the Roberts Commission--perhaps the most flawed and unfortunately most influential investigation of the disaster--levelled the dereliction of duty charge against Kimmel and Short--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized. Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of this Commission, later disavowed its report, stating that these two officers were ``martyred'' and ``if they had been brought to trial, they would have been cleared of the charge.'' Later, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who was Admiral Kimmel's predecessor as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet wrote: ``In the impression that the Roberts Commission created in the minds of the American people, and in the way it was drawn up for that specific purpose, I believe that the report of the Roberts Commission was the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office.'' After the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a painfully enduring veneer when Admiral Kimmel and General Short were not advanced on the retired lists to their highest ranks of war-time command--an honor that was given to every other senior commander who served in war-time positions above his regular grade. Admiral Kimmel, a two star admiral, served in four star command. General Short, a two star general, served in a three star command. Let me repeat, advancement on the on retired lists was granted to every other flag rank officer who served in World War II in a post above their grade. That decision against Kimmel and Short was made despite the fact that war-time investigations had exonerated these commanders of the dereliction of duty charge and criticized their higher commands for significant failings that contributed to the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. More than six studies and investigations conducted after the war, including one Department of Defense report completed in 1995 at Senator Thurmond's request, reconfirmed these findings. Our amendment is a rewrite of Senate Joint Resolution 19, the Kimmel- Short Resolution, that I, Senator Biden, Senator Thurmond, Senator Helms, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator Kennedy, Senator Domenici, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator Abraham, Senator Craig, Senator Durbin, Senator John Kerry, Senator Kyl, Senator Hollings, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu, Senator Voinovich, Senator DeWine, and Senator Feinstein--a total of 23 co-sponsors--introduced last April. It is the same amendment this body adopted by a rollcall vote last May. It is the same amendment accepted by the House Armed Services Committee as part of their version of the Department of Defense authorization bill. The amendment calls upon the President of the United States to advance posthumously on the retirement lists Admiral Kimmel and General Short to the grades of their highest war-time commands. Its passage would communicate the Senate's recognition of the injustice done to them and call upon the President to take corrective action. Such a statement by the Senate would do much to remove the stigma of blame that so unfairly burdens the reputations of these two officers. It is a correction consistent with our military's tradition of honor. Mr. President, the investigations providing clear evidence that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame include a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, the 1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional Committee, and a 1991 Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. The findings of these official reports can be summarized as four principal points. First, there is ample evidence that the Hawaiian commanders were not provided vital intelligence that they needed, and that was available in Washington prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were proper and consistent with the information made available to Admiral Kimmel and General Short. In my review of this fundamental point, I was most struck by the honor and integrity demonstrated by General George Marshall who was Army Chief of Staff at the time of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. On November 27 of that year, General Short interpreted a vaguely written war warning message sent from the high command in Washington as suggesting the need to defend against sabotage. Consequently, he concentrated his aircraft away from perimeter roads to protect them, thus inadvertently increasing their vulnerability to air attack. When he reported his preparations to the General Staff in Washington, the General Staff took no steps to clarify the reality of the situation. In 1946 before a Joint Congressional Committee on the Pearl Harbor disaster General Marshall testified that he was responsible for ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's forces. He acknowledged that he must have received General Short's report, which would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective message, and that he failed to do so. Mr. President, General Marshall's integrity and sense of responsibility is a model for all of us. I only wish it had been able to have greater influence over the case of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. A third theme of these investigations concerned the failure of the Department of War and the Department of the Navy to properly manage the flow of intelligence. The 1995 Department of Defense report stated that the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by, among other faults, ineptitude, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and follow-up. The fourth and most important theme that permeates the aforementioned reports is that blame for the disaster at Pearl Harbor cannot be placed only upon the Hawaiian commanders. They all underscored significant failures and shortcomings of the senior authorities in Washington that contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The 1995 Department of Defense report put it best, stating that ``responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be broadly shared.'' This is an important quote. It shows that the Department of Defense recognizes that these two commanders should not be singled out for blame. Yet, still today on this issue, our government's words do not match its actions. Kimmel and Short remain the only two officials who have been forced to pay a price for the disaster at Pearl harbor. Let me add one poignant fact about the two wartime investigations. Their conclusions--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been properly disposed according to the information available to them and that their superiors had failed to share important intelligence--were kept secret on the grounds that making them public would have been detrimental to the war effort. Be that as it may, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the cruel myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Spruance, one of our great naval commanders of World War II, shares this view. He put it this way: ``I have always felt that Kimmel and Short were held responsible for Pearl Harbor in order that the American people might have no reason to lose confidence in their government in Washington. This was probably justifiable under the circumstances at that time, but it does not justify forever damning those two fine officers.'' Mr. President, this is a matter of justice and fairness that goes to the core of our military tradition and our nation's sense of military honor. That, above, all should relieve us of any inhibition to doing what is right and just. Mr. President, this sense of the Senate has been endorsed by countless military officers, including those who have served at the highest levels of command. These include former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer and Admiral William J. Crowe, and former Chiefs of Naval Operations Admiral J.L. Holloway III, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt and Admiral Carlisle A.H. Trost. Moreover a number of public organizations have called for posthumous advancement of Kimmel and Short. The VFW passed a resolution calling for the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Let me add that Senator Robert Dole, one of our most distinguished colleagues and a veteran who served heroically in World War II, has also endorsed this sense of the Senate resolution. Yesterday, June 6, is a day that shall forever be remembered as a date of great sacrifice and great accomplishment for the men who took part of Operation Overload. D-Day marked the turning of the tide in the allied war effort in Europe, and led to our victory in the Second World War. December 7, 1941, is also a date that will forever be remembered. That day will continue to be ``a date which will live in infamy.'' It will serve as a constant reminder that the United States must remain vigilant to outside threats and to always be prepared. However, this amendment is about justice, equity, and honor. Its purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that Admiral Kimmel and General Short are treated with the dignity and honor they deserve, and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate the memory and the important lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. As we commemorate another anniversary of the success of D-Day, it is a most appropriate time to redress this injustice. After 50 years, this correction is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on May 11, eight new members were inducted into the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame. I congratulate all the honorees. They truly deserve to be recognized for their unique, individual contributions to athletics and to the state of Delaware. The inductees are: Dale Farmer, former executive director of the Delaware Secondary Schools Athletic Association; Robert ``Clyde'' Farmer, a stand-out pitcher in the local fast-pitch softball leagues of the 1940s and 50s; C. Walter Kadel, who coached and taught physical education to Wilmington's children for more than three decades; Ron Luddington, a bronze medal winner in the 1960 Olympics, who now coaches future skating champions at the University of Delaware ice rink; Betty Richardson, who coached championship field hockey teams at Tower Hill High School, and won championships of her own on the golf course; G. Henry White, a star rusher on the gridiron at Cape Henlopen High School and at Colgate University; Matt Zabitka, who has covered sports in the Delaware Valley for nearly half a century; and Howard ``Tootsie'' Ferrell, a Delawarean who played with some of the greatest baseball talent of all-time in the Negro League. An editorial in The News Journal newspaper called this group ``a very diverse group of honorees--one of the most varied in its history. The Sports Hall of Fame now represents all sorts of sports greats--white people, minorities, women * * *.'' And it is in that spirit that I want to talk about one of those inductees right now. Howard ``Tootsie'' Ferrell was a pitcher in the Negro League who once barnstormed with Jackie Robinson who went on the break the color barrier, and integrate major league baseball. Ferrell got his start with the Newark Eagles in 1947. For the next two seasons, he played with the Baltimore Elite Giants. Following in the footsteps of the great Jackie Robinson, Ferrel's contract was purchased by the Brooklyn Dodgers, where he spent 3 seasons in the Dodgers' farm system. A nagging injury cut Ferrell's baseball career short. But the real reason ``Tootsie'' Ferrell never got his chance to play in the majors was because of the prejudice that kept America's pastime segregated for so many years. It may be hard for younger Americans to imagine a world where the best African-American players were not allowed to play on the same field with the best white players. The first appearance of an official color barrier in baseball came in 1868, when the National Association of Baseball Players voted to bar any club that had non-white members. Professional baseball eventually followed suit. Sadly, by the turn of the century there were no black players in organized, professional baseball. But exclusion from the ``white'' leagues did not stop African- Americans from playing the game of baseball. Instead, they formed teams and leagues of their own. In 1920, an African-American businessman named Rube Foster organized a collection of independent all-black ball clubs into the Negro National League. In 1923, the competing Eastern Colored League was formed. These two leagues operated successfully for years--delighting crowds, showcasing the talent of African-American athletes, and inspiring future generations of baseball players. A new Negro National League was organized in 1933, and the Negro American League was chartered four years later. These leagues thrived until the color barrier was finally shattered by Jackie Robinson. And although all-black teams continued to play for several years, integrated major league baseball eventually put the Negro Leagues out of business. The history of the white major leagues has been well documented. Unfortunately, the same is not true of the Negro Leagues. While it is easy to look up how many home runs Babe Ruth hit or how many batters the great Walter Johnston struck out, the same cannot be done for Negro League greats like Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige. As time goes by, there are fewer and fewer men left who played ``the other'' game of baseball before the color barrier was broken. That is why it is so important we honor men like ``Tootsie'' Ferrell. He began his baseball career in a league that was separate but unequal. He saw this ugly and unfair color barrier disappear, just as it eventually would in other aspects of American society. I congratulate Howard ``Tootsie'' Ferrell for his achievement, and I commend the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame for his induction.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am going to vote for the Levin amendment to the military construction appropriations bill, which would strike the Byrd-Warner amendment concerning Kosovo. As a strong supporter of NATO, I have long advocated efforts to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance. The air war in Kosovo highlighted a great technical disparity in U.S. and European capabilities, and reopened long-standing debates of burden sharing within the Alliance. I fully understand and support the motivation behind the authors and supporters of this provision. While it is true the Europeans are contributing over 80 percent of the peacekeeping forces that make up K- For, they have yet to fully live up to their commitments to NATO Peacekeeping, UNMIK, and the funds that make up the civilian and military dimensions of the peace effort. However, this provision undercuts our incentives to the Europeans to meet those goals because it contains a ``de facto'' withdrawal date of July 1, 2001. It signals to our allies that the United States will withdraw regardless of any improved European efforts to meet their commitments. This bill will effectively constitute a decision to withdraw forces at a given date. That is not the authors' stated intent, but that is how this amendment will be viewed. That is a message that will embolden Milosevic. That is a message that we will communicate an absence of commitment to our NATO allies. American General Wes Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the former highest ranking military officer in NATO, has warned, These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto pull-out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our Allies in NATO, undercut US leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans. Furthermore, they would, if enacted, invalidate the dedication and commitment of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, disregarding the sacrifices they and their families have made to help bring peace to the Balkans. In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our allies in NATO, undercut US leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans. While I, and many others, have had concerns about how the Kosovo operation has been conducted by the current administration, the solution to these concerns are not a withdrawal, or another debate on whether or not to withdraw. The solution is to establish a definition of goals we hoe to achieve with regard to Kosovo, how we intend to accomplish our goals, and work more effectively with our European allies in achieving those goals. When our next President takes office in January, under the Byrd-Warner provision he would be burdened not only with addressing the current administration's shortcomings in establishing a Kosovo policy, but also with a congressionally-imposed fixed date for United States withdrawal from Kosovo. So for these reasons, while I support the goals of this provision, I cannot support the means used to achieve that goal and I will vote for the Levin amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the conference agreement on H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 2000. Senate passage of the conference agreement would mark the first significant trade legislation to pass both Houses of Congress in close to a decade, other than the implementation of trade agreements under special fast track procedures. As such, the bill represents a powerful statement regarding America's leadership on trade. The conference agreement--and the House's 309-110 vote--vindicates the approach that we took in the Finance Committee and here in the Senate this past November. Our goal was to create a ``win-win'' approach to the Africa and Caribbean trade preference programs that would ensure benefits to American firms and workers as well as to our trading partners in those two regions. The conference report does just that. The conference report retains those provisions of the bill that the textile industry's own analysis suggested would produce an additional $8 billion in sales of American fiber and fabric and create an additional 120,000 jobs. Those provisions--commonly known as ``807A'' and ``809''--were adopted without revision by the conferees. Those provisions require that all textile components assembled into apparel articles benefiting from those provisions must be made from U.S. fabric, unless subject to certain de minimis exceptions specified in the conference agreement. Where the conference agreement broadens the benefits available to our trading partners beyond those included in the Senate-passed legislation, the provisions create discrete categories of apparel that may benefit from the use of regionally-produced fabric, and in certain limited instances, fabric from third countries used by the least developed countries in Africa. That said, where the conference agreement does expand those benefits for Africa and the Caribbean, it also creates new opportunities for U.S. interests as well. For example, the conference agreement's rules of origin expressly provide for the use of American yarn, which relies on American cotton, for regionally- made knit fabric that can be used in apparel articles destined for the U.S. markets under the benefits provided by the conference agreement. The conference agreement deserves the Senate's support. The conference agreement represents an attempt to reach out and provide not just a helping hand, but an opportunity--an opportunity for millions around the world to seize their own economic destiny. Africa has for too long suffered from our neglect. The continent faces daunting political, economic and social challenges. Yet, African leaders are seizing the opportunity to press for political and economic change. The same holds true in the Caribbean and Central America. The changes in the region since the original CBI legislation passed in 1983 have been dramatic. Our goal must be to support those changes. The goal of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 is to meet Africa's leaders and those in the Caribbean and Central America half way. It is not a panacea for problems they face; rather, it is a small downpayment--an investment--in a partnership that I hope we can foster through our actions here. This is a measure that is supported by every African and Caribbean government. It represents a commitment by leaders in both regions to a stronger economic relationship with the United States, and that street runs both ways. Our exports to the Sub-Saharan region of Africa, for example, already exceed by 20 percent our exports to all the states of the former Soviet Union combined. We furthermore run a regular surplus in our trade with the Caribbean and Central America. In other words, in helping Africa and the Caribbean, we are also helping ourselves. The conference agreement will also serve as an agent of positive change.. The eligibility criteria in both the Africa and CBI provisions are expressly designed to foster economic opportunity and political freedom. That includes the criterion added here in the Senate by a vote of 96-0 obliging beneficiaries of these two programs, as well as the Generalized System of Preferences, to implement their international obligations with respect to the elimination of the worst forms of child labor, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and prostitution. For those who would argue that the bill creates incentives to transship third country fabric through either Africa or the Caribbean, the conference agreement has a response that was worked out in close consultation with the Customs Service and all other interested parties. To protect against customs fraud designed to gain access to the program illegally (commonly referred to as ``transshipment''), the conference agreement contains unprecedented protections. They include requirements that the beneficiary countries, with U.S. technical assistance, develop their own effective enforcement infrastructure to combat transshipment and cooperate fully with the U.S. Customs Service in its investigation of alleged customs fraud. In addition, with respect to any individual exporter found fraudulently to have claimed the trade benefits extended under the conference agreement, the conference agreement would expel the exporter from eligibility for the program's benefits. The conference agreement would also authorize the appropriation of funds necessary to improve the U.S. Customs Service's investigation of transshipment generally, in order to contribute to the success of the program's benefits. For those who have expressed their concern that the new programs will lead to a flood of new imports at a time when the U.S. industry is already under economic pressure to adjust due to agreements reached in the Uruguay Round, the conference agreement has a response as well. First, the rules of origin under the conference agreement largely reflect the approach we adopted in the Senate, one that favors the use of American fabric. That means that any increase in imports will necessarily imply an increase in sales of American textiles. Second, the conference agreement also provides a mechanism by which domestic producers of apparel articles competing with those imported under these program can obtain temporary relief from unexpected surges in particular categories that threaten serious injury to the competing domestic industry. The conference agreement would add certain other provisions that I believe will strengthen the prospects for success. For example, with respect to Africa, the conference agreement encourages the negotiation of new trade-liberalizing agreements with interested Sub-Saharan Africa trading partners that would build on the foundation that the conference agreement establishes, and toward that end the conference agreement makes permanent the position of Assistant United States Trade Representative for African Affairs. The conference agreement also includes a variety of other measures that address other aspects of the challenges facing Africa and other aspects of our economic relationship with the continent. Those include a sense of the Congress resolution regarding the need for comprehensive debt relief for the world's poorest countries (most of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa); the targeting of U.S. technical assistance to foster the goals of the conference agreement with respect to Sub- Saharan Africa; encouraging the development of a special equity fund for fostering investment in Africa at the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation; directing the expansion of U.S. Commerce Department initiatives designed to foster the development of African markets for U.S. exports; the donation of air traffic control equipment no longer in use in the United States to eligible Sub-Saharan Africa countries; a sense of the Congress relating to efforts to combat desertification; and authorization of a study regarding potential improvements in Sub-Saharan agricultural practices. With respect to the Caribbean and Central America, the conference agreement adds provisions designed to foster the success of the initiative as well. Those include encouragement to enter into negotiations with interested trading partners on trade agreements that would liberalize two-way trade further and directions to the President to organize regular meetings of the U.S. Trade Representative with trade ministers from the region to eliminate obstacles to a stronger economic relationship between the United States and our trading partners in the region. The conference agreement contains a number of other trade-related provisions that are worth noting. Those includes the permanent establishment of a special representative on agricultural trade at USTR and a statement of agricultural trade negotiating objectives that we hope will shape the agenda for the ongoing trade talks in the World Trade Organization on agriculture. The conference agreement also provides a boost to our review of trade adjustment assistance programs to ensure that they are operating effectively. While the conference agreement does not include the Senate amendment expanding our farmers' access to TAA programs, it does highlight the need to review our current TAA programs with a view toward to ensuring that those programs do provide benefits to farmers as those programs were originally intended to do when established in 1962. That review is already under way within the Finance Committee. The conference agreement would also extend permanent normal trade relations to Kyrgyzstan and Albania. Kyrgyzstan deserves special mention because it is the first of the former Soviet republics, apart from two Baltic countries, to join the World Trade Organization. It has also made considerable progress toward a market economy and political pluralism. Establishing stronger trade links with the Kyrgyz republic is designed to foster a stronger relationship on a broader front, both economically and politically. I would also like to express my support for those provisions of the conference report designed to address the tariff inversion affecting the suit-making and fabric industries in this country. I have worked with a number of Senators for the past six months to forge this compromise that would address the concerns of both the domestic suit- makers, fabric-makers, and wool growers. I am particularly proud that the compromise was reached on the basis of tariff cuts that benefit all of the parties. The conference agreement resolves a difficult problem that has undermined the competitiveness of all sides of the U.S. industry and I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement that should foster both stronger suit-makers and stronger fabric- makers, as well as assist our sheep industry in developing new markets for its wool fiber. I would also like to note my disappointment that we were unable to agree on a way to make further progress in addressing the scourge of AIDS affecting so many African countries. I worked for several months to reach a compromise with both sides of the debate regarding the supply of patented drugs to combat AIDS-related disease, but that effort went unrewarded. I would have hoped that the conference report would have gone further, particularly where we had worked on what I thought were constructive potential compromises, but I am certain that there will be other opportunities in this Congress to rejoin those discussions. Any conference agreement is, by its nature a compromise. In this instance, I am convinced that the conference agreement is the stronger for it. While we did not accomplish all that I hoped, this conference agreement represents an incredible accomplishment. For that, I particularly want to thank the majority leader for his commitment to this process. I want to convey my special thanks to my esteemed colleague, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his leadership throughout this process, to Senator Grassley, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, for his sustained contribution, and to the other Senate conferees. I also want to applaud the efforts of our counterparts on the House side, from the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressmen Archer and Rangel, to the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, Congressmen Crane and Levin, and to the Speaker of the House, Congressman Hastert. They made this conference agreement a reality.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I would say 10 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I have a parliamentary question. It was my understanding that Senator Inhofe was speaking as if in morning business. Does that time count?

Mr. ROTH. Parliamentary inquiry: I didn't think there was any time limit.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his courtesy.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, finally, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 tries to make sure that families can continue to receive the family tax credits that Congress has enacted over the past several years. Each year, an increasing number of American families are finding that their family tax credits--such as the child credit and the Hope Scholarship education credit--are being cut back or eliminated because of the alternative minimum tax. Last year, Congress made a small down- payment on this problem, temporarily carving out these family tax credits from the minimum tax calculations. This year, we are building on that bipartisan approach, by permanently extending the preservation of the family tax credits. Because of this provision, millions of taxpayers will no longer face the burden of calculating the alternative minimum tax. In making the changes that I have just described--whether it is the change in the rate brackets or the change in the earned income credit-- we have tried to meet an important objective. That goal, which I talked about earlier, is to treat all married couples with the same amount of income equally. It is a principle that is ignored by using a combined return with separate schedules or by using a second earner deduction. With the Senate Finance Committee bill, we do not create a new, so-called ``homemaker penalty.'' Our bill ensures that simply because a family has only one wage earner, it is not treated any differently than a family where both spouses work. Many people have argued that tax policy should not discourage one parent from staying at home and raising the family. It is a laudable goal and one that I support. How much does this marriage tax penalty relief help? It helps a lot. Over forty million families will get marriage tax relief under this legislation. In my state of Delaware, over 100,000 families will benefit. Every family earning over $10,000 per year will see their tax bill fall at least one percent--except those at high income levels. The key to this legislation is that it helps the middle class. Sixty percent of this bill's tax relief goes to those families making $100,000 or less. Who are these people? They're two married civil engineers, or a pharmacist who is married to a school teacher. They're the policeman and his wife who runs a small gift shop in Dover. They are the firefighter who is married to a social worker, or a librarian who is married to an accountant. These are the families who will benefit. And they will benefit even more, as you examine the impact this tax relief will have over time. Consider the effect if these tax savings were put away for their children's education and retirement. If a couple with two children making just $30,000 took their tax savings from this bill and put it into an education savings account like the one recently passed by the Senate, they would have $40,000 for those children's college education. Based on the stock market's historical rate of return, that's $40,000 if they did not set aside another penny! If the family was that of two elementary school teachers with two children and earning average salaries of $70,000 combined, they would have $65,000 after 18 years. If those two married school teachers then started to put their tax savings from this bill into a Roth IRA after 18 years, this same couple would have $224,100 when they retired 27 years later. By transforming these tax savings into personal savings, we see that these real tax savings translate into real opportunities for these families. And consider the effect on the economy. According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, when fully phased-in this marriage tax penalty relief legislation will result in 820,000 additional jobs. It will increase the personal savings rate by three-tenths of a percent, which in turn will lower interest rates. It also increase investment by $20 billion and gross domestic product by $54 billion. So not only do married families gain, not only do their children gain, but the entire country gains. They gain more jobs, better jobs, and higher wages because of this marriage tax relief legislation. Mr. President, the marriage tax relief legislation I bring to the floor today amounts to just five percent of the total budget surplus over the next five years. It amounts to just 17.6 percent of the non- Social Security surplus over the next five years. It amounts to just 42 percent of the new spending provided for in this year's budget over the next five years. Finally, it amounts to less than half of the tax cut that has been allotted to the Finance Committee for tax cuts over the next five years in this year's budget. By any comparison or estimation, this marriage tax penalty relief is fiscally responsible. This bill does all these things for America's working families while preserving every cent of Social Security's surplus. These tax cuts do not have to pit America's families against America's seniors. Nor does it extend a tax cut in a fiscally irresponsible manner. These tax cuts fit in this year's budget, along with the other Republican priorities that we have already passed for education, health care, and small businesses. Our priorities add up to what's good for America, and our numbers add up to what's fiscally responsible. It is time we divorce the marriage penalty from the tax code once and for all. I urge all my colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000.