William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This legislation imposes a temporary moratorium on taxes relating to the Internet and establishes a Commission to study and make recommendations for international, Federal, state, and local government taxes of the Internet and other comparable sales. This legislation reflects the exciting times in which we live--a time when commerce between two individuals located a thousand miles apart can take place at the speed of light. Today, names like Netscape, Amazon.com, Yahoo, and America On-Line are household names--each a successful company in a new and exciting global business community. And they are only a few of literally thousands who provide their goods and services over the Internet. They compete in a world where technological revolutions take place on a daily basis, and they benefit the lives of families everywhere. Even in America's most remote communities, our children have access to the seven wonders of the world, to metropolitan art museums, electronic encyclopedias, and the world's great music and literature. These companies--and the countless companies like them--are pioneers. And the new frontier is exciting, indeed. In the new realm of cyberspace, government has three choices: lead, follow, or get out of the way. The legislation we introduce today is a clear indication that government is prepared to lead. It demonstrates that Congress is not going to allow haphazard tax policies, and a lack of foresight to get in the way of the growth and potential of this new and promising medium. It makes it clear that government's interaction with Internet commerce will be well-considered and constructive-- beneficial to future prospects of Internet business and the individuals they service. From the introduction of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, in early 1997, members of the Finance Committee expressed keen interest in considering this legislation. The Finance Committee has clear jurisdiction over state and local taxes--it's also the place for trade issues. And this July, we received a referral of the bill. We conducted a hearing on the issues and listened to witnesses detail the growth and potential of the Internet. Witnesses also articulated the many sides and concerns associated with the tax implications of Internet commerce. Following our hearing, the Finance Committee held a markup, where we approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the original bill reported out of the Commerce Committee. The Finance Committee made significant improvements to the original legislation. We beefed up the trade component of the bill. We directed the USTR to examine and disclose the barriers to electronic commerce in its annual report. And we declared that it is the sense of Congress that international agreements provide that the Internet remain free from tariffs and discriminatory taxation. The Finance Committee's substitute also shortened the moratorium period on State and local taxes relating to the Internet. We did this with an understanding that the advisory commission, set up in the legislation, would not need the five year period that was set out in the original Commerce bill. At the same time, we streamlined the Advisory Committee and focused its study responsibilities. We took out any grandfather provision, feeling that as a policy matter, there should not be any taxes on the Internet during the moratorium period--regardless of whether some States had jumped the gun and applied existing taxes to Internet access. The Finance Committee also felt that this bill should be an example to our international negotiating partners--that if we wanted to keep grandfather provisions out of the international agreements, that we should remove them from our domestic taxation. I recognize that there have been various floor amendments that have changed some of the things we did in the Finance Committee. Despite those amendments, the central thrust of the legislation, which is to call a time-out while a commission assesses the Internet and makes some recommendations about how we should tax electronic commerce, remains. Important international provisions--relating to trade and tariff issues--also remain unchanged. Mr. President, I support the Internet Tax Freedom Act. It is a demonstration of Congress' understanding of the exciting potential and the opportunities that will be realized in cyberspace. It is a thoughtful approach to a very important issue. It meets current needs, and allows continued growth in this new frontier. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Privilege of the Floor

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, that is correct; that is the intent of the amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment contains the necessary conforming changes to the Tax Code required by this reauthorization bill. This amendment does not affect Federal revenues. Therefore, this bill remains a nonrevenue bill. This amendment will allow expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to occur as authorized by the underlying legislation relating to airport construction, maintenance and technology. It will also help ensure our air traffic control system continues to provide safe and efficient services. It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to both sides of the political aisle. At the appropriate moment, I will urge its adoption.

Mr. ROTH. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would amend section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit to biomass energy facilities that use chicken manure as fuel. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators Biden, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Jeffords, Harkin, Helms, Huchinson, and Bumpers. Mr. President, I am bullish on poultry's future in America. It is hard not to be with world-wide poultry consumption growing at double- digit rates. In the United States, poultry production has tripled since 1975. We now produce almost 8 billion chickens a year to feed the growing world- wide demand for poultry. In particular, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia produce some of the world's finest poultry. Just last year Delmarva poultry farmers produced over 600 million chickens. Our poultry farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. As the amount of chickens we produce as a nation has grown, so too has the amount of manure. Due to environmental pressures, spreading manure on land is no longer an option in some areas for our rapidly growing poultry industry. In the United Kingdom, several companies have been able to do what medieval alchemists dreamed of--turning a base element into gold--in this case an agricultural waste product into electricity. The UK has two utility plants that use poultry manure to generate electricity. These two poultry power plants will, when combined with a third scheduled to open this fall, burn 50 percent of the UK's total volume of chicken manure. The electricity generated by these plants will supply enough power for 100,000 homes. These plants have the support of both the poultry industry and the international environmental community. The way this system works is simple. Power stations buy poultry manure from surrounding poultry farmers and transport it to the power station. At the station the manure is burned in a furnace at high temperatures, heating water in a boiler to produce steam which drives a turbine linked to a generator. The electricity is then transfered to the local electricity grid. It is then used to supply electricity to commercial and residential customers. There are no waste products created through this process. Instead, a valuable by-product emerges in the form of a nitrogen-free ash, which is marketed as an environmentally friendly fertilizer. The legislation I am introducing today will provide a tax credit to energy facilities that use poultry manure as a fuel to generate electricity. It will build on concepts in the tax code that provide incentives for environmentally friendly energy production. I am introducing this legislation in an effort to encourage the development of another environmentally-friendly method of producing electricity, while at the same time tackling a thorny animal waste disposal problem. This legislation will provide incentives to build an energy plant that will not only dispose of poultry manure and create clean electricity, but will also supply our nation's farmers with a clean fertilizer free of nitrates. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my bill, the Poultry Electric Energy Power Act, affectionately known as the PEEP Act. It is important for future generations that we continue to explore green technologies that will protect our environment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would amend section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit to biomass energy facilities that use chicken manure as fuel. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators Biden, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Jeffords, Harkin, Helms, Huchinson, and Bumpers. Mr. President, I am bullish on poultry's future in America. It is hard not to be with world-wide poultry consumption growing at double- digit rates. In the United States, poultry production has tripled since 1975. We now produce almost 8 billion chickens a year to feed the growing world- wide demand for poultry. In particular, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia produce some of the world's finest poultry. Just last year Delmarva poultry farmers produced over 600 million chickens. Our poultry farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. As the amount of chickens we produce as a nation has grown, so too has the amount of manure. Due to environmental pressures, spreading manure on land is no longer an option in some areas for our rapidly growing poultry industry. In the United Kingdom, several companies have been able to do what medieval alchemists dreamed of--turning a base element into gold--in this case an agricultural waste product into electricity. The UK has two utility plants that use poultry manure to generate electricity. These two poultry power plants will, when combined with a third scheduled to open this fall, burn 50 percent of the UK's total volume of chicken manure. The electricity generated by these plants will supply enough power for 100,000 homes. These plants have the support of both the poultry industry and the international environmental community. The way this system works is simple. Power stations buy poultry manure from surrounding poultry farmers and transport it to the power station. At the station the manure is burned in a furnace at high temperatures, heating water in a boiler to produce steam which drives a turbine linked to a generator. The electricity is then transfered to the local electricity grid. It is then used to supply electricity to commercial and residential customers. There are no waste products created through this process. Instead, a valuable by-product emerges in the form of a nitrogen-free ash, which is marketed as an environmentally friendly fertilizer. The legislation I am introducing today will provide a tax credit to energy facilities that use poultry manure as a fuel to generate electricity. It will build on concepts in the tax code that provide incentives for environmentally friendly energy production. I am introducing this legislation in an effort to encourage the development of another environmentally-friendly method of producing electricity, while at the same time tackling a thorny animal waste disposal problem. This legislation will provide incentives to build an energy plant that will not only dispose of poultry manure and create clean electricity, but will also supply our nation's farmers with a clean fertilizer free of nitrates. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my bill, the Poultry Electric Energy Power Act, affectionately known as the PEEP Act. It is important for future generations that we continue to explore green technologies that will protect our environment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 2453 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 2, 1998 the U.S.S. Missouri, arguably our nation's most famous battleship, will be permanently berthed at Pearl Harbor. The Missouri, with its remarkable and gallant history of naval combat in the United States Navy, will serve as a fitting monument to those Americans who fought and died in the name of freedom, liberty, and justice. However, I must confess that the remembrance of the events surrounding the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor also rekindles a painful memory of one of the great injustices that occurred within our own ranks during World War II, an injustice that still remains, an injustice that continues to tarnish our nation's military honor. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were the two senior commanders of U.S. military forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, these two commanders were unfairly held singularly responsible for the success of the attack. They were scapegoated. First, they were publicly accused of dereliction of duty by a hastily conducted investigation. Then, when subsequent investigations conducted during World War II exonerated these officers, those findings were kept secret on the grounds that they undercut the war effort. But, what is most unforgivable is that after the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a near permanent veneer when the President of the United States declined to advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list 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 their grade. As Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific and United States Fleets, Admiral Kimmel, a two star, served as a four star commander. Major General Short, also a two star, served as a three star commander when he was the Commanding General of the Army's Hawaiian Department. Today, this singular exclusion from advancement on the military's retired list only perpetuates the myth that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were derelict in their duty and singularly responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. This is a distinct and unacceptable expression of dishonor toward two of the finest officers who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is clearly inconsistent with the most basic notion of fairness and justice. Such scapegoating is inconsistent with this great nation's unmatched military honor. It is high time that this injustice suffered by General Short and Admiral Kimmel be rectified. Toward that end, I introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Biden, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Chairman of the Veterans Committee and Senators Inouye, Cochran, Hollings, Faircloth and Durbin, a joint resolution intended to right this longstanding injustice. The joint resolution calls upon the President to posthumously advance on the retirement list Major General Short's grade to Lieutenant General--his rank of command as Commanding General of the Army's Hawaiian Department and Rear Admiral Kimmel's grade to Admiral--his rank of command as Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet. The facts that constitute the case of Admiral Kimmel and General Short have been remarkably documented over time--which is one the reasons that I am disappointed that after fifty-seven years this injustice has not been rectified. Since the attack on Pearl Harbor back in December of 1941, there have been numerous investigations and histories on the job performance of Kimmel and Short. These include nine official governmental investigations and reports and one inquiry conducted by a special Joint Congressional Committee. Findings of six of these inquiries are noted in the resolution. Perhaps the most flawed, and unfortunately most influential investigation, was that of the Roberts Commission. Less than 6 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, it presented a hastily prepared report to the President accusing Kimmel and Short of dereliction of duty--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized. Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of the Roberts Commission later and disavowed its report, stated that Admiral Kimmel and General Short 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. The highly publicized accusation of that infamous investigation contributed to the inaccurate myth that these two officers were singularly responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Since 1941 a number of official investigations provided clear evidence that these two commanders were unfairly singled out for blame that should have been widely shared with their senior commanders. These reports include, among others, a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, a 1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional Committee Report, and more recently a 1991 Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. The findings of these official reports are described in the Resolution and can be summarized as four principal points. First, the investigations provide 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. Their senior commanders had critical information about Japanese intentions, plans, and actions, but neither passed this on nor took issue or attempted to correct the disposition of forces under Kimmel's and Short's commands. Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were consistent with the information that was made available to Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Based on the information available to the Hawaiian commanders, the forces under their command at Pearl Harbor were properly disposed. In my review of this case, 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 attack. General Short interpreted a vaguely written war warning message sent from the high command in Washington on November 27, 1941 as suggesting the need to defend against sabotage. Consequently, when he concentrated his aircraft away from perimeter roads to protect them, he inadvertently increased their vulnerability to air attack. When he reported his preparations to the General Staff in Washington, the General Staff never took steps to clarify the reality of the situation. The Report of the Joint Congressional Committee of 1946 is testament to General Marshall's sense of honor and integrity. General Marshall testified that as Chief of Staff, he was responsible for ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's forces. He acknowledged that he must have seen General Short's report, which would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective message, and that he failed to do so. Mr. President, I only wish that the force of General Marshall's integrity and sense of responsibility had greater influence over the management of 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 Dorn Report completed in 1995 for the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the request of Senator Thurmond stated that the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by ``ineptitude * * * limited coordination * * * ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and follow-up,'' among other serious faults. The bottom line is that poor command decisions and inefficient management structures and procedures blocked the flow of essential intelligence from Washington to the Hawaiian commanders. 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. Some of these reports completely absolved these two officers. While others found them to have made errors in judgement, all the reports subsequent to the Roberts Commission cleared them of the charge of dereliction of duty. And, Mr. President, all those reports identified significant failures and shortcomings of the senior commanders in Washington that contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The Dorn Report put it best, stating that ``responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it should be broadly shared.'' Mr. President, I would like to emphasize two points about these investigations. First, these two officers were repeatedly denied their requests--their requests--for courts martial. Second, the conclusions of the 1944 Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been properly disposed according to the information available to them and that criticized their superior officers for not sharing important intelligence--were kept secret on the grounds that they were detrimental to the war effort. For reasons unexplainable to me, the scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short has survived the cleansing tides of history. It is an unambiguous fact that responsibility for the success of the Pearl Harbor attack lies with the failure of their superiors situated in Washington to provide them the intelligence that was available. One can make the case that back in the midst of World War II, allowing blame to fall and remain solely on Admiral Kimmel and General Short helped prevent the American people from losing confidence in their national leadership. But perpetuating the cruel myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor is not only unfair, it blemishes the military honor of our nation. This issue of fairness and justice has been raised not only by General Short and Admiral Kimmel and their surviving families today, but also by numerous senior officers and public organizations around the country. Mr. President, allow me to submit for the Record a letter endorsing our resolution from five living former naval officers who served at the very pinnacle of military responsibility. They are 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. The efforts of these and other officers have been complemented by the initiatives of many public organizations who have called for posthumous advancement of Kimmel and Short. At various times down through the years, they have included the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Retired Officers Association, the Naval Academy Alumni Association, the Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee, the Admiral Nimitz Foundation, and the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. I submit for the Record a moving resolution passed by the Delaware Chapter of the VFW last June calling for the posthumous advancement of General Short and Admiral Kimmel and a letter from the President of the VFW to the President of the United States making the same request. Mr. President, Admiral Kimmel and General Short have been unjustly stigmatized by our nation's failure to treat them in the same manner with which we treated their peers. To redress this wrong would be fully consistent with this nation's sense of justice. The message of our joint resolution is about justice, equity, and honor. Its purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that these two officers are treated fairly and with the dignity and honor they deserve, and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate the memory and lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. The President should advance the ranks of Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list to their highest war-time ranks, as was done for all their peers. After 57 years, this correction is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution, the VFW resolution, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 2, 1998 the U.S.S. Missouri, arguably our nation's most famous battleship, will be permanently berthed at Pearl Harbor. The Missouri, with its remarkable and gallant history of naval combat in the United States Navy, will serve as a fitting monument to those Americans who fought and died in the name of freedom, liberty, and justice. However, I must confess that the remembrance of the events surrounding the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor also rekindles a painful memory of one of the great injustices that occurred within our own ranks during World War II, an injustice that still remains, an injustice that continues to tarnish our nation's military honor. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were the two senior commanders of U.S. military forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, these two commanders were unfairly held singularly responsible for the success of the attack. They were scapegoated. First, they were publicly accused of dereliction of duty by a hastily conducted investigation. Then, when subsequent investigations conducted during World War II exonerated these officers, those findings were kept secret on the grounds that they undercut the war effort. But, what is most unforgivable is that after the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a near permanent veneer when the President of the United States declined to advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list 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 their grade. As Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific and United States Fleets, Admiral Kimmel, a two star, served as a four star commander. Major General Short, also a two star, served as a three star commander when he was the Commanding General of the Army's Hawaiian Department. Today, this singular exclusion from advancement on the military's retired list only perpetuates the myth that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were derelict in their duty and singularly responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. This is a distinct and unacceptable expression of dishonor toward two of the finest officers who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is clearly inconsistent with the most basic notion of fairness and justice. Such scapegoating is inconsistent with this great nation's unmatched military honor. It is high time that this injustice suffered by General Short and Admiral Kimmel be rectified. Toward that end, I introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Biden, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Chairman of the Veterans Committee and Senators Inouye, Cochran, Hollings, Faircloth and Durbin, a joint resolution intended to right this longstanding injustice. The joint resolution calls upon the President to posthumously advance on the retirement list Major General Short's grade to Lieutenant General--his rank of command as Commanding General of the Army's Hawaiian Department and Rear Admiral Kimmel's grade to Admiral--his rank of command as Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet. The facts that constitute the case of Admiral Kimmel and General Short have been remarkably documented over time--which is one the reasons that I am disappointed that after fifty-seven years this injustice has not been rectified. Since the attack on Pearl Harbor back in December of 1941, there have been numerous investigations and histories on the job performance of Kimmel and Short. These include nine official governmental investigations and reports and one inquiry conducted by a special Joint Congressional Committee. Findings of six of these inquiries are noted in the resolution. Perhaps the most flawed, and unfortunately most influential investigation, was that of the Roberts Commission. Less than 6 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, it presented a hastily prepared report to the President accusing Kimmel and Short of dereliction of duty--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized. Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of the Roberts Commission later and disavowed its report, stated that Admiral Kimmel and General Short 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. The highly publicized accusation of that infamous investigation contributed to the inaccurate myth that these two officers were singularly responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Since 1941 a number of official investigations provided clear evidence that these two commanders were unfairly singled out for blame that should have been widely shared with their senior commanders. These reports include, among others, a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, a 1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional Committee Report, and more recently a 1991 Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. The findings of these official reports are described in the Resolution and can be summarized as four principal points. First, the investigations provide 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. Their senior commanders had critical information about Japanese intentions, plans, and actions, but neither passed this on nor took issue or attempted to correct the disposition of forces under Kimmel's and Short's commands. Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were consistent with the information that was made available to Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Based on the information available to the Hawaiian commanders, the forces under their command at Pearl Harbor were properly disposed. In my review of this case, 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 attack. General Short interpreted a vaguely written war warning message sent from the high command in Washington on November 27, 1941 as suggesting the need to defend against sabotage. Consequently, when he concentrated his aircraft away from perimeter roads to protect them, he inadvertently increased their vulnerability to air attack. When he reported his preparations to the General Staff in Washington, the General Staff never took steps to clarify the reality of the situation. The Report of the Joint Congressional Committee of 1946 is testament to General Marshall's sense of honor and integrity. General Marshall testified that as Chief of Staff, he was responsible for ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's forces. He acknowledged that he must have seen General Short's report, which would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective message, and that he failed to do so. Mr. President, I only wish that the force of General Marshall's integrity and sense of responsibility had greater influence over the management of 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 Dorn Report completed in 1995 for the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the request of Senator Thurmond stated that the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by ``ineptitude * * * limited coordination * * * ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and follow-up,'' among other serious faults. The bottom line is that poor command decisions and inefficient management structures and procedures blocked the flow of essential intelligence from Washington to the Hawaiian commanders. 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. Some of these reports completely absolved these two officers. While others found them to have made errors in judgement, all the reports subsequent to the Roberts Commission cleared them of the charge of dereliction of duty. And, Mr. President, all those reports identified significant failures and shortcomings of the senior commanders in Washington that contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The Dorn Report put it best, stating that ``responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it should be broadly shared.'' Mr. President, I would like to emphasize two points about these investigations. First, these two officers were repeatedly denied their requests--their requests--for courts martial. Second, the conclusions of the 1944 Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been properly disposed according to the information available to them and that criticized their superior officers for not sharing important intelligence--were kept secret on the grounds that they were detrimental to the war effort. For reasons unexplainable to me, the scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short has survived the cleansing tides of history. It is an unambiguous fact that responsibility for the success of the Pearl Harbor attack lies with the failure of their superiors situated in Washington to provide them the intelligence that was available. One can make the case that back in the midst of World War II, allowing blame to fall and remain solely on Admiral Kimmel and General Short helped prevent the American people from losing confidence in their national leadership. But perpetuating the cruel myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor is not only unfair, it blemishes the military honor of our nation. This issue of fairness and justice has been raised not only by General Short and Admiral Kimmel and their surviving families today, but also by numerous senior officers and public organizations around the country. Mr. President, allow me to submit for the Record a letter endorsing our resolution from five living former naval officers who served at the very pinnacle of military responsibility. They are 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. The efforts of these and other officers have been complemented by the initiatives of many public organizations who have called for posthumous advancement of Kimmel and Short. At various times down through the years, they have included the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Retired Officers Association, the Naval Academy Alumni Association, the Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee, the Admiral Nimitz Foundation, and the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. I submit for the Record a moving resolution passed by the Delaware Chapter of the VFW last June calling for the posthumous advancement of General Short and Admiral Kimmel and a letter from the President of the VFW to the President of the United States making the same request. Mr. President, Admiral Kimmel and General Short have been unjustly stigmatized by our nation's failure to treat them in the same manner with which we treated their peers. To redress this wrong would be fully consistent with this nation's sense of justice. The message of our joint resolution is about justice, equity, and honor. Its purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that these two officers are treated fairly and with the dignity and honor they deserve, and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate the memory and lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. The President should advance the ranks of Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list to their highest war-time ranks, as was done for all their peers. After 57 years, this correction is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution, the VFW resolution, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Mr. Bingaman to submit a resolution to state the sense of the Senate that the Governments of the United States and Japan should place priority on formulating a comprehensive and strategic policy of advancing science and technology for the benefit of both nations as well as the rest of the world. As this body is well aware, Japan is facing a number of economic and financial challenges that are of vital importance to the bilateral relationship. I have spoken about these challenges at length in other fora including through a hearing recently held by the Finance Committee. While our priority in bilateral relations should remain Japan's rapid economic recovery, we must not lose sight of other aspects of the relationship that are important to our shared future. For example, Japan is a major source of leading-edge science and technology. Two years ago, the Government of Japan released its Basic Plan for Science and Technology. That plan called for substantial funding increases and important policy reforms to further innovation in the country's science and technology programs and processes. This year, the Government of Japan will increase its investment in science and technology by more than 21 percent. With these new resources, Japan--already at the forefront in many areas of science and technology--will be poised to make further important advances. For decades, the U.S. has shared the fruit of its own basic research with Japan and the rest of the world in an effort to enhance global prosperity and the lives of average people around the world. With its increased resources devoted to science and technology, Japan has a more important opportunity to join the United States in taking a similar approach toward sharing advances in science and technology. The potential for greater benefits for both countries and for the rest of the world are enormous. For example, opportunities are emerging to improve human health by jointly addressing the problems posed by infectious diseases; sustaining the quality of the environment through research on global climate change; reducing the risks posed by earthquakes and hurricanes; furthering the fundamental understanding of matter so important for advances in new materials, telecommunications, and new medical treatments; and better ensuring mutual security. Partly because Japan was engaged in catching up with other leaders in science and technology for much of the postwar period, Tokyo tended to emphasize the accumulation--rather than the sharing--of information. Now that Japan is a global leader in science and technology, however, I believe Tokyo should move toward greater emphasis on cooperation. Similarly, I believe it important that Japan pay more attention to basic research that advances general knowledge as opposed to Tokyo's traditional emphasis on applied research. The potential for a greater bilateral partnership in science and technology is growing, and both the U.S. and Japanese governments should work toward turning that potential into reality. That is the purpose of this resolution and I urge my colleagues to support its early passage.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, as I stated earlier today, I am a strong proponent of fixing the marriage penalty. it is a top priority of the Finance Committee in our efforts to reform the Tax Code. But it must be done properly. And such is not the case with this amendment--nor with the amendment proposed this morning. As I said this morning, the bill on which my colleagues are trying to attach marriage penalty legislation is an appropriations bill. It is not a tax bill. As this Treasury-Postal appropriations bill is not a revenue measure--and as all revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives--this one amendment could subject the entire bill to a blue slip. In other words, Madam President, adding a revenue measure that originates in the Senate to a nonrevenue bill, will sink the entire bill. Under the rules, any member in the House can raise an objection and kill this appropriations bill. And that is in no one's interest. So while I agree in principle with the objective of reforming the marriage penalty--I would be remiss in my duties if I did not make it clear that passing this amendment at this time is inappropriate. Whether the marriage penalty fix is paid for, or not, it must be handled in Congress as the Constitution requires. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Until I complete my statement, which will be roughly 10 to 15 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we stay in session until I complete my statement, which will be roughly 10 to 15 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am in the contradictory position of agreeing in substance with this amendment. There is no question in my mind that it is wrong to penalize married couples who pay more taxes than if they were single. As I have said, it is a matter that must be corrected. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I shall work mightily to see that this is accomplished. But the fact is that this is a revenue measure. If this amendment is adopted, it subjects the entire Treasury-Postal appropriations to a blue slip from the House of Representatives. Under our Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. If not, any Member--and, again, I emphasize any Member--of the House can raise an objection. The result would be that this appropriations bill dies. I do not think that is in anyone's interest. For that reason, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personal Retirement Accounts Act of 1998. This legislation has a simple but powerful purpose--to establish personal retirement accounts for working Americans. In my view, these accounts promise to give working Americans not only a more secure retirement future but a new stake in the Nation's economic growth. And, as I will describe, these accounts may provide the model for future Social Security reform. A few years ago personal retirement accounts were an exotic and even controversial concept. But no longer! In 1996, a majority of a Clinton Administration task force on Social Security reform endorsed the concept. Today, personal retirement accounts are a bipartisan, even mainstream, idea. In March, Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kerrey introduced legislation that would create retirement accounts as part of an overhaul of Social Security. And earlier this month, bipartisan, bicameral Social Security reform legislation that included personal retirement accounts was introduced by Senators Gregg and Breaux in the Senate, and by Congressmen Kolbe and Stenholm in the House. Their bill is based on the unanimous recommendations of a privately sponsored National Commission on Retirement Policy--comprised of 24 lawmakers, economists, pension experts, and businessmen. Yesterday, at a Social Security town hall meeting in Albquqerque, NM, the President said he had an ``open mind'' on personal retirement accounts. And in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last week, a top Clinton Administration official offered several guidelines for designing such accounts, including efficiency, such as low administrative costs, and protection of the progressive benefits. My bill meets these guidelines. Mr. President, let me explain why retirement accounts find so much support--not only in Congress but among the American people. With even conservative investment, such accounts have the potential to provide Americans with a substantial retirement nest egg, and an estate they can leave to their children and grandchildren. Creating these accounts would also give the majority of Americans who do not own any investment assets a new stake in America's economic growth--because that growth will be returned directly to their benefit. More Americans will be the owners of capital--not just workers. Creating these accounts may encourage Americans to save more. Today, Americans save less than people in almost every other country. But personal retirement accounts will demonstrate to all Americans the magic of compound interest as even small savings grow significantly over time. Lastly, creating these accounts will help Americans to better prepare for retirement. According to the CRS, 60 percent of Americans are not actively participating in a retirement program other than Social Security. A recent survey by the Employee Benefits Research Institute found that only about 45 percent of working Americans have tried to calculate how much they will need for retirement. It is my belief that retirement accounts will prompt Americans--particularly baby boomers-- to think more about retirement planning. Mr. President, let me describe a few of the features of my bill. First, the program would run for 5 years, from 1999 to 2003, utilizing half the budget surplus projected by CBO earlier this month. Each year, every working American who earned a minimum of 4 quarters of Social Security coverage--about $2,900 in 1999--would receive a deposit in his or her personal retirement account. About 127 million Americans would receive a deposit in 1999. The formula for sharing the surplus among the accounts is progressive. Each eligible individual would receive a minimum amount of $250 per year, plus an additional amount based on how much they paid in payroll taxes. Over the life of the program, a minimum wage earner--someone earning $12,400 this year--would receive about $1,720. That amount is equal to a 34-percent rebate of his or her payroll taxes. An average wage earner--earning $27,600--would receive about $2,300-- equal to a 20-percent rebate of payroll taxes. And an individual who paid the maximum Social Security tax would get $3,840, a 14-percent rebate of payroll taxes. These figures do not include any investment income or deductions for the costs of running the program. Account holders would have three investment choices--prudent choices that balance risk and return. The three choices are a stock index fund--a mutual fund that reflects the overall performance of the stock market; a fund that invests in corporate bonds and other fixed income securities; and a fund that invests in U.S. Treasury bonds. However, my legislation also provides for a study of additional investment options--of other types of investment funds and investment managers. An account holder would become eligible for benefits when he or she signs up for Social Security. An individual could choose between an annuity or annual payments based on life expectancy. The bill also provides a number of features to ensure the program is properly run. First, the program would be neither on budget nor off budget. Instead, the program would be outside the Federal budget. The money in the program could be used for no other purpose than retirement benefits and the program's operating expenses. Second, the program would be supervised by a new, independent Personal Retirement Board, with members appointed by the President and Congressional leaders and subject to Senate confirmation. Board officials would be fiduciaries, and required by law to act only in the best financial interests of beneficiaries. Lastly, the stock funds would be managed by private sector investment managers. To insulate companies represented in the stock funds from politics, no board official or other government employee would be eligible to vote company proxies--only the investment managers. Mr. President, the design of this personal retirement accounts plan follows a proven model--the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Back in 1983, when I was Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the retirement program for Federal employees needed to be revamped. One of the new elements we added was the Federal Thrift Savings Plan--a defined contribution employee benefit plan--that has been a great success. Mr. President, many Americans will undoubtedly ask, ``What size nest egg might grow in my personal retirement account?'' According to an analysis done by Social Security's actuaries, someone earning the minimum wage would have an account worth about $2,150 in 2004, assuming a 7.5 percent interest rate. For the average wage earner, the account would be worth about $2,870, and for the individual paying the maximum Social Security tax, about $4,770. Of course, over the long term, accounts can grow significantly. For the minimum wage person, after 40 years--in 2039--his or her account would be worth about $27,000; the average wage earner would have $36,000; and the person paying the maximum payroll tax, $60,000. Mr. President, some might ask, ``Why start with personal retirement accounts rather than proposing comprehensive Social Security reform?'' Indeed, my bill will not affect the current Social Security program. Personal retirement accounts are an exciting concept, but still a big job, requiring careful work by the Finance Committee. And unlike many other Social Security reform proposals, retirement accounts have broad support. So let's get these accounts up and running, proven and tested, while Congress considers carefully protecting and preserving Social Security for the long term. Mr. President, in closing, let me add that personal retirement accounts have another big promise. Such accounts--if later made a part of Social Security--may help restore the confidence of the American people in Social Security. Polls show that Social Security is among the most popular of government programs, deservedly so. But many Americans--particularly young Americans--appear to have lost confidence in the program. They believe that there will be no benefits for them when they retire. Personal retirement accounts will provide the accountability and assurances that Americans are asking for. I encourage my colleagues to take a careful look at my bill, and I invite members to co-sponsor it. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personal Retirement Accounts Act of 1998. This legislation has a simple but powerful purpose--to establish personal retirement accounts for working Americans. In my view, these accounts promise to give working Americans not only a more secure retirement future but a new stake in the Nation's economic growth. And, as I will describe, these accounts may provide the model for future Social Security reform. A few years ago personal retirement accounts were an exotic and even controversial concept. But no longer! In 1996, a majority of a Clinton Administration task force on Social Security reform endorsed the concept. Today, personal retirement accounts are a bipartisan, even mainstream, idea. In March, Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kerrey introduced legislation that would create retirement accounts as part of an overhaul of Social Security. And earlier this month, bipartisan, bicameral Social Security reform legislation that included personal retirement accounts was introduced by Senators Gregg and Breaux in the Senate, and by Congressmen Kolbe and Stenholm in the House. Their bill is based on the unanimous recommendations of a privately sponsored National Commission on Retirement Policy--comprised of 24 lawmakers, economists, pension experts, and businessmen. Yesterday, at a Social Security town hall meeting in Albquqerque, NM, the President said he had an ``open mind'' on personal retirement accounts. And in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last week, a top Clinton Administration official offered several guidelines for designing such accounts, including efficiency, such as low administrative costs, and protection of the progressive benefits. My bill meets these guidelines. Mr. President, let me explain why retirement accounts find so much support--not only in Congress but among the American people. With even conservative investment, such accounts have the potential to provide Americans with a substantial retirement nest egg, and an estate they can leave to their children and grandchildren. Creating these accounts would also give the majority of Americans who do not own any investment assets a new stake in America's economic growth--because that growth will be returned directly to their benefit. More Americans will be the owners of capital--not just workers. Creating these accounts may encourage Americans to save more. Today, Americans save less than people in almost every other country. But personal retirement accounts will demonstrate to all Americans the magic of compound interest as even small savings grow significantly over time. Lastly, creating these accounts will help Americans to better prepare for retirement. According to the CRS, 60 percent of Americans are not actively participating in a retirement program other than Social Security. A recent survey by the Employee Benefits Research Institute found that only about 45 percent of working Americans have tried to calculate how much they will need for retirement. It is my belief that retirement accounts will prompt Americans--particularly baby boomers-- to think more about retirement planning. Mr. President, let me describe a few of the features of my bill. First, the program would run for 5 years, from 1999 to 2003, utilizing half the budget surplus projected by CBO earlier this month. Each year, every working American who earned a minimum of 4 quarters of Social Security coverage--about $2,900 in 1999--would receive a deposit in his or her personal retirement account. About 127 million Americans would receive a deposit in 1999. The formula for sharing the surplus among the accounts is progressive. Each eligible individual would receive a minimum amount of $250 per year, plus an additional amount based on how much they paid in payroll taxes. Over the life of the program, a minimum wage earner--someone earning $12,400 this year--would receive about $1,720. That amount is equal to a 34-percent rebate of his or her payroll taxes. An average wage earner--earning $27,600--would receive about $2,300-- equal to a 20-percent rebate of payroll taxes. And an individual who paid the maximum Social Security tax would get $3,840, a 14-percent rebate of payroll taxes. These figures do not include any investment income or deductions for the costs of running the program. Account holders would have three investment choices--prudent choices that balance risk and return. The three choices are a stock index fund--a mutual fund that reflects the overall performance of the stock market; a fund that invests in corporate bonds and other fixed income securities; and a fund that invests in U.S. Treasury bonds. However, my legislation also provides for a study of additional investment options--of other types of investment funds and investment managers. An account holder would become eligible for benefits when he or she signs up for Social Security. An individual could choose between an annuity or annual payments based on life expectancy. The bill also provides a number of features to ensure the program is properly run. First, the program would be neither on budget nor off budget. Instead, the program would be outside the Federal budget. The money in the program could be used for no other purpose than retirement benefits and the program's operating expenses. Second, the program would be supervised by a new, independent Personal Retirement Board, with members appointed by the President and Congressional leaders and subject to Senate confirmation. Board officials would be fiduciaries, and required by law to act only in the best financial interests of beneficiaries. Lastly, the stock funds would be managed by private sector investment managers. To insulate companies represented in the stock funds from politics, no board official or other government employee would be eligible to vote company proxies--only the investment managers. Mr. President, the design of this personal retirement accounts plan follows a proven model--the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Back in 1983, when I was Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the retirement program for Federal employees needed to be revamped. One of the new elements we added was the Federal Thrift Savings Plan--a defined contribution employee benefit plan--that has been a great success. Mr. President, many Americans will undoubtedly ask, ``What size nest egg might grow in my personal retirement account?'' According to an analysis done by Social Security's actuaries, someone earning the minimum wage would have an account worth about $2,150 in 2004, assuming a 7.5 percent interest rate. For the average wage earner, the account would be worth about $2,870, and for the individual paying the maximum Social Security tax, about $4,770. Of course, over the long term, accounts can grow significantly. For the minimum wage person, after 40 years--in 2039--his or her account would be worth about $27,000; the average wage earner would have $36,000; and the person paying the maximum payroll tax, $60,000. Mr. President, some might ask, ``Why start with personal retirement accounts rather than proposing comprehensive Social Security reform?'' Indeed, my bill will not affect the current Social Security program. Personal retirement accounts are an exciting concept, but still a big job, requiring careful work by the Finance Committee. And unlike many other Social Security reform proposals, retirement accounts have broad support. So let's get these accounts up and running, proven and tested, while Congress considers carefully protecting and preserving Social Security for the long term. Mr. President, in closing, let me add that personal retirement accounts have another big promise. Such accounts--if later made a part of Social Security--may help restore the confidence of the American people in Social Security. Polls show that Social Security is among the most popular of government programs, deservedly so. But many Americans--particularly young Americans--appear to have lost confidence in the program. They believe that there will be no benefits for them when they retire. Personal retirement accounts will provide the accountability and assurances that Americans are asking for. I encourage my colleagues to take a careful look at my bill, and I invite members to co-sponsor it. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed into the Record.