William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 31, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 268--National Parks Overflights.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 1997, to conduct a mark-up of S. 1026, ``The U.S. Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 1997.''

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in SR- 328A to examine food security in Africa.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. As the Senator from Rhode Island knows, I am deeply concerned about the unfair situation faced by railroads. While we were unable to include a solution to this problem in H.R. 2014, it is my hope that we will have the opportunity to pursue such a remedy as quickly as possible, perhaps in the upcoming ISTEA reauthorization legislation.

Mr. ROTH. The legislation is not intended to affect arrangements which do not constitute notional principal contracts under present law. In addition, the legislation is not intended to change the treatment of notional principal contracts entered into as part of a hedging arrangement referred to elsewhere in section 954.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the majority leader.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns expressed by my distinguished colleague, but I feel that a little history will readily help us understand exactly why we have done what we have done with Amtrak. We are in complete agreement that Amtrak is in a serious financial crisis. It may not survive through next year, and according to the GAO, the most important measure Congress can take to help Amtrak through this crisis is to provide a stable capital funding source. In an effort to provide this funding, I introduced legislation that would have created a dedicated trust fund for Amtrak. This fund would have been financed by transferring one half-cent-per- gallon of the excise taxes imposed on all motor fuels currently going to the general fund to a new rail fund for Amtrak. This would have provided $2.3 billion in capital funding over the next 3\1/2\ years. By a vote of 77 to 21, the Senate overwhelmingly approved this funding source. However, during the conference on the tax bill, the House conferees demanded that the secure funding source for Amtrak be contingent on a reform bill being enacted. And the House conferees demanded that the funding must be provided through the Tax Code in place of the reserve fund mechanism contained in the Senate-passed version of the tax bill. This is why the conference agreement now includes a tax refund for Amtrak. And while this is not my first preference in providing capital funding for Amtrak, it provides the necessary capital to keep Amtrak alive. The conference agreement gives Amtrak the benefit of electing no more than $2.3 billion in net operating losses over 2 years. Amtrak must use the benefit for capital expenses and provide a portion of this benefit for non-Amtrak States for their transportation related expenditures. This relief is based on the fact that Amtrak has incurred billions of dollars of losses as a result of inheriting revenue losing passenger rail service since its formation in 1971. The tax provision contained in the conference report merely provides the same type of tax relief that would have been available to its predecessor railroads had Amtrak not been formed in that year. Mr. President, the bottom line is that Amtrak desperately needs this relief. The current path Washington is taking to address our transportation needs is to spend more money on highways and airports. In doing this, we must not overlook the vital importance of passenger rail. Last year Washington spent $20 billion for highways, while capital investment for Amtrak was less than $450 million. In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994, transportation outlays for highways increased 73 percent, aviation increased 170 percent, and transportation outlays for rail went down by 62 percent. In terms of growth, between 1982 and 1992 highway spending grew by 5 percent, aviation by 10 percent, while rail decreased by 9 percent. The time has come to invest in our rail system. The money Amtrak needs to survive is in this tax bill, but it can't be spent until a reform bill is enacted. The bottom line is without a reform bill none of this money will be available to Amtrak. I have done my part, it is now time for all the parties to work together on a reform package. Without reforms, Amtrak won't have the resources it needs to survive. I just want to make it clear that we are about to have the last clear chance to save the American railroad passenger system. I point out that in the legislation there is a requirement that there must be reform. Make no mistake about that. But the fact is I think it would be a serious mistake that the greatest, sole superpower in the world does not have a passenger system. It is bad from the standpoint of transportation, it is bad from the standpoint of environment, and I hope that we are able to get the job done so that we have this modern, clean transportation. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ROTH. As the Senator from Rhode Island knows, I am deeply concerned about the unfair situation faced by railroads. While we were unable to include a solution to this problem in H.R. 2014, it is my hope that we will have the opportunity to pursue such a remedy as quickly as possible, perhaps in the upcoming ISTEA reauthorization legislation.

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 yield such time as he may consume to the junior Senator from Utah.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. President, when the 105th Congress began, a promise was made to the American people. They were concerned about Washington's addiction to spending, and the high deficits that were a consequence of that spending. We promised to give them a balanced budget. They were overburdened by rising taxes. They had been shackled with a record- setting increase in 1992, and were paying more to government than they were for their own food, shelter, and clothing. We promised them relief. Our American families were concerned about the education of their children--about the rising costs of post-secondary schools, and their ability to help their children enter our colleges and universities to learn and to prepare for productive futures. We promised to make education more accessible. Young Americans, just out of school--many of them starting families-- were finding it increasingly more difficult to buy a home. As a proportion of their income, they discovered that a mortgage today is twice as much as it was for their parents. Valiant small businessmen and -women were finding it increasingly more difficult to build successful companies. They had lost their home office deductions, the deductibility of their health insurance, and then--when their company, despite these and other challenges, proved successful--they had to fear losing it to death taxes. Again, we promised relief. We promised peace of mind to senior Americans who were worried about Medicare and its future. We promised to provide future generations the opportunity to become more self-sufficient through enhanced individual retirement accounts, and less dependent on government for their support in the years to come. And we promised that we would do something to increase health care coverage for America's children--for America's future. These, of course, Mr. President, were bold promises. For years, the Republican Party had advocated these measures, but in a city built on promises--the majority of which unfortunately go unfulfilled--it was reasonable that Americans felt that these, too, would remain empty. But today, Mr. President--today, we can say that these promises made, are promises kept. For the first time since 1969, Americans have a balanced budget--a balanced budget that will be realized within 5 years. For the first time in 16 years, Americans have real and meaningful tax relief. For the first time ever, our families will have tax-free education savings accounts, and for the first time in a decade, we are bringing back the student loan interest deduction. And these, Mr. President, are not our only firsts. We are allowing penalty-free withdrawals from IRA plans to make first-time home purchases. We are eliminating the capital gains taxes on $500,000 of gain for a couple that sells their home. We are strengthening and preserving Medicare by introducing choice and competition to that program. We are giving States greater flexibility and authority to administer Medicaid, and we are increasing health care coverage for millions of children. These are all firsts, Mr. President, but there is another first--one that is more philosophic in nature. For the first time since President Johnson's Great Society exploded the size and costs of Federal programs, Americans have a government that is focused on doing more with less. When historians look at what has been accomplished here these past few months, I believe our work will mark the beginning of a new era--an era which the Republicans have long promised and which President Clinton articulated when he said that the days of big government are behind us. This budget reconciliation package is a strong first step toward realizing that promise. It is a bipartisan effort--one that could not have been accomplished without a spirit of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, between the Senate and the House, and between Congress and the President. I'm proud of what we've accomplished. Members in both Houses of Congress, and on both sides of the aisle, have reason to be proud, as does Bill Clinton. Certainly, there are differences between the parties--those differences can be valuable in the battle of ideas. But this package represents a collective effort, an effort that is a far cry from the acrimony, Government shutdowns and the vetoes that attended past budget debates. I believe our work here demonstrates a coming together on fundamental issues. Taxes have been too high. They are still too high. In fact, as a percentage of our GNP, they haven't been higher than they are right now since 1960. Government has grown too big, become too inefficient, too overbearing and costly. Too much power has been taken from our people--from our States--and it's been centralized here in Washington. Yesterday we addressed the changes that will take place in Government programs--especially in entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. We explained how this reconciliation package will deliver greater flexibility to the States for them to administer Medicaid in a more cost-effective, a more efficient manner. Today, we focus on the major tax provisions included in our plan, and how those provisions will provide relief for Americans of all ages--for our youth, going away to college, for our young families looking to buy their first home and raise their children, for older families running small businesses and preparing for retirement, and for those Americans who are already retired and looking to find comfort and security on fixed incomes. This reconciliation package provides relief for all of these. It includes a $500-per-child tax credit for families with children under the age of 17. The credit will be available to the working poor through an enhanced earned income credit. It will cover middle-class families, couples earning up to $110,000 a year. At $110,000 it will begin to phase out. And this tax relief will begin next year with a $400 per child credit in 1998, and the full $500 credit in 1999 and thereafter. We also provide relief to hard-working, middle-class Americans by enhancing the individual retirement account. We raise the income limits on traditional IRA's and create a new back-loaded IRA. In this back- loaded IRA, the contributions are not tax deductible, but the build-up and withdrawals are tax-free if the account is held for 5 years and the account holder is at least 59\1/2\. The income limits for the new back- loaded IRA will be $95,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples. Our new IRA will allow penalty-free withdrawals for first-time home purchases. Another very important change to the IRA is that we allow homemakers--below certain family income--to save a full $2,000 annually in an account, regardless of their spouse's pension plan. Mr. President, I have worked for years to strengthen individual retirement accounts for working Americans. These changes will go a long way toward helping Americans prepare for retirement. They will encourage self-reliance and provide incentive for saving. This is, indeed, an idea whose time has come. It will be a blessing to countless Americans as they prepare for the future. And beyond helping individual families, these expanded IRS's will promote investment, capital formation and economic growth. Another important provision of this reconciliation package--one that will not only provide tax relief, but will, along with our IRA's, promote investment and jobs, is our capital gains tax cut. Here, we drop the top rate to 20 percent on investments that are held for at least 18 months. The rate will drop to 18 percent for assets purchased after 2000 and held for at least 5 years. For joint filers with incomes less than $41,200, the top capital gains rate will be 10 percent of assets held for at least 18 months, and 8 percent for assets held for at least 5 years. Our package does away with capital gains taxes on the sale of a home, as long as the home is $500,000 or less for joint filers and $250,000 or less for single filers. The benefit of capital gains tax relief will be felt not only by our families, but by America at large. According to economist Lawrence Kudlow, in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, The budget's lower capital gains tax rate will help maintain U.S. global economic leadership in the 21st century. This is especially important in relation to the fast-growing economies of the Pacific rim, with China looming not far behind. Most of the Asian tigers have lower tax burdens on capital formation that the U.S. America, Mr. President, needs this capital gains tax relief. It is long overdue. However, the tax relief contained in this package does not end here. Families will also benefit by the way that this bill offers relief from the estate tax--the tax that can rob a family of its farm or business when a father or mother passes away. To help these families, we raise the unified credit to $1,000,000 per estate by 2006; and we provide tax-free treatment for family-owned farms and small businesses for up to $1.3 million. I can't overstate how important this estate tax relief will be to our families and small businesses. In 1995, delegates to a convention on small business survival, ranked killing the estate tax among the top five priorities on a list of 60 recommendations to the President. This is because many small business men and women fear the enterprises they have worked their lives to create won't be around to pass on to their children. The estate tax relief provided in this package offers a strong first step toward allaying that fear and providing families the protection they deserve. Beyond offering relief for estate taxes, this package also benefits America's small businesses by accelerating the phase in of the self- employed health insurance deduction, raising that deduction all the way to 100 percent, and by clarifying the deductibility of the home office business deduction. These, Mr. President, are important provisions. They will promote economic growth, jobs, and family security. They naturally complement the overarching objective of this legislation to provide immediate tax relief and to create conditions that will prepare America and Americans for a bright and prosperous future. Just how important this objective is can be seen by the fact that a full 80 percent of the tax relief we offer in this package is directed at the $500 credit for children and provisions that will promote education. These education-related measures will go a long way toward assisting students and their parents in affording the cost of post- secondary education. They include the Hope scholarship tax credit, a $2,500-per-year student loan interest deduction, and penalty-free withdrawal from IRA's. We can't overstate just how important these measures will be to American families, to America's students, and to our future. I had hoped that we could have gone even further in promoting the educational aspects of this bill. For example, I wanted to maintain a provision that would offer tax-free treatment for State-sponsored prepaid tuition plans, a permanent extension of employer provided education assistance, and a comprehensive education IRA, but in these areas the White House was unwilling to compromise. And this brings up a point I would like to make--a point I touched upon yesterday. No one received everything they wanted with this package. That, Mr. President, is the nature of compromise. Another lesson we learn from compromise is that it tends to add complexity to the package under consideration. We learned how when you have three parties involved in the process-- the Senate, the House, and the administration--each compromise made in negotiations rendered the final product that much more complex. Having said this, let me be clear that I am generally pleased by the outcome. Certainly, I could be more pleased. But the bipartisan effort that produced this reconciliation package is something to be appreciated. We accomplished what we set out to do. We provided tax relief for middle-income families; we provided tax relief to promote education; and, we provided tax relief that will stimulate economic growth, opportunity, and jobs. Let me show just how that relief will affect typical American families. When I first brought the Senate Finance Committee tax relief package to the floor--about 6 weeks ago--I introduced three hypothetical families from Delaware: a single mother named Judy Smith, a farming family--the Wilsons--and a young professional couple, John and Susan Jones. Let me show you how this package--in its final form-- will benefit them: Let's begin with Judy. She has two young children and works as a legal secretary in Wilmington, making $35,000 a year. Currently she pays over $3,000 in Federal income taxes--over $3,000. When President Clinton signs this bill, Judy's taxes will be cut by $800 next year and by $1,000 the year after. Why? Because of the child tax credit. Judy will be able to spend that savings as she wants, or she can put it in an enhanced individual retirement account for her future. Jim and Julie Wilson, our farming family with three children and an income of $55,000, now pay over $5,500 in Federal income taxes. When President Clinton signs this bill, their taxes will be cut by $1,200 in 1998, and by $1,500 in 1999 and beyond, as they will receive $500 for each child. Julie Wilson will be able to set up a homemaker IRA to save for her retirement. Looking far ahead, if the farm prospers, Jim and Julie will be able to pass it on to their children free of the burden of the estate tax--all because of the middle-income tax relief contained in this bill. Finally, Mr. President, let's look at John and Susan Jones. They live and work in Dover, DE. College graduates, John is a veterinarian and Susan is a physical therapist. They make $75,000 and have one young child. Under current law, the Jones family pays about $11,500 in Federal income taxes. Because of this legislation, they will receive a $400 tax credit next year, and $500 each year thereafter. Susan will be able to take the home office business deduction, as her practice is located within their home, and she will be able to accelerate the phase-in of the self-employed health insurance deduction. John and Susan will also be able to deduct a portion of the interest on their student loans, and they'll be able to set up new back-loaded IRA accounts for their retirement. This is how our work will affect these three families, Mr. President. It will provide relief--much needed relief. As I have said, today the taxes paid by our families are higher as a percentage of GNP than they've been since 1960. This bipartisan tax relief effort will do something about that. It will provide relief as part of a budget reconciliation package that will lead our Nation to a balanced budget in 2002. Having said that, however, I want to add that I consider this only a beginning. Americans not only need tax relief; they need tax reform. They need tax reform that really does simplify the Tax Code. They need reform that focuses on fairness. They need reform that maintains and promotes strong economic growth--growth that will lead to continued job creation. And they need reform that promotes American exports and our competitiveness in the global economy. This is what we will turn our attention to next. And it is my hope that the same level of cooperation that sustained us in this debate will attend us as we move from tax relief to tax reform. I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been active, involved, and given to a spirit of willingness throughout this process. I am particularly grateful to Senator Moynihan--my friend and a thoughtful, well-esteemed leader. And again, Mr. President--as I did yesterday--I thank the professional, capable staff of the Senate Finance Committee for their countless hours and lost sleep. This was, indeed, a heroic effort. I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, I will be very brief. First of all, I just want to publicly recognize and thank Senator Moynihan for the role he has played. I think his statement today is another example of his towering intellect. We are very fortunate to have an individual who is renowned throughout this country for his ability to analyze, to study, and come up with constructive proposals. Certainly, we have all benefited from his rare intellect. I would just like to comment on two or three things that he spoke about in his opening remarks. First of all, I share the pride and satisfaction in our higher educational system. I have often thought there are few countries that have anything like ours. They may have one or two outstanding schools--Oxford and Cambridge in the British Isles; in Japan they have the University of Tokyo. But we have so many outstanding schools. My only criticism of what Senator Moynihan said is he failed to mention the University of Delaware which, I must confess, is really a hidden jewel. But I share the pride, and I think it is important that we do everything that we can to strengthen this, both the private and public sector, in these days where knowledge and technology is of even greater importance than any other time. I would also like to speak very briefly about Amtrak, because it seems to me we have our last clear chance to do something about it. I have to tell you that for the last several months, I have fought tooth and nail to try to bring about a solution. Mr. President, I cannot imagine the leading industrial nation of the world, the only superpower not having a modern passenger rail system. It is just unconscionable for that to happen, particularly in these times when we are running out of--I don't know about the State of New York, but I can tell you, in my little State of Delaware, we are running out of land. How many highways can we build? How many planes can fly over? What are we going to do about the environment? This is a critical matter, not only to the Northeast but to the entire country. I couldn't agree more with Senator Moynihan than when he calls upon the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Labor to provide some leadership. This can still be salvaged, it still can be saved, but it means that the parties that are involved and interested are going to have to get together and bring about the kind of reform that assures a sound future for our rail system. This, again I say, is our last clear chance. We have the funds in there. They are available. Now it is up to those who have the voice on reform to get together and compromise and work together, just as we did in our committee. I again express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator for his contributions and cooperation.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his very gracious remarks. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Taxation staff members named on the list I send to the desk be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2014.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am now pleased to yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, before yielding time to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, I would like to thank my good friend and colleague from North Dakota for his knowledge, his background, and contributions to this effort. No one has, I think, greater expertise in such matters as these than this distinguished Senator. I just wanted it to be publicly known that I appreciate his contribution and look forward to continuing in a bipartisan spirit. I am now pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it's time to move beyond the tax and spend ways that for far too long have marked business-as-usual in Washington. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, as part of the budget reconciliation package, signals a new beginning for Congress--the beginning of a trend that puts Americans first. To argue that the tax relief contained in this package is too high-- or that the cuts are too big--is to argue that government simply doesn't tax American families enough. This is absurd. Today, Americans are paying higher taxes, as a percentage of our gross national product, than they have since 1960. Today, American families are paying more in taxes than they are for food, clothing, and shelter combined. High taxes are forcing parents who would rather be at home with their children to work longer, or to hold down a second job. Many, who would rather be homemakers, are forced by high taxes to enter the labor market, as Americans are finding it impossible to support their families and the government on one salary. Despite all of this, we're hearing now that taxes aren't high enough. Well my question, Mr. President, is just how high is high enough? How much more would satisfy my colleagues? I'm afraid that Congress could tax 100 percent of all the wealth in America, and it still wouldn't be enough for those who refuse to change their tax and spend ways. You see, I come from another school of thought. I believe that the money Americans earn belongs to them. I believe our families know best what to do with their checkbooks. I believe that money earned by an individual belongs to the individual--that it does not belong to government--and that government is arrogant to assume that it can decide how much a hard-working man or woman can keep. You see, Mr. President, unlike my distinguished colleagues, my disagreement with this bill is exactly the opposite. My disagreement with this bill is that the tax relief contained within it doesn't go far enough. The tax cuts aren't deep enough. That's why I can assure those who are listening that we will be on this floor again, some time in the near future. We will be here addressing real tax reform--tax reform that is structured from the taxpayer's point of view. But for now, I'm willing to accept this compromise. It was crafted in a spirit of bipartisanship, with willing and cooperative leaders on both sides of the aisle. I will vote for this tax relief. But again, I assure you--I assure the American people--that this relief is only a first step in an effort that will continue--a bipartisan effort that will deliver the kind of tax reform Americans deserve. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to the many staff members who helped us draft this historic tax relief legislation. These dedicated men and women worked tirelessly over the last several months. They worked early mornings, they worked late nights and many times almost all night, as well as weekends, to help us succeed. I, for one, am deeply appreciative of the staff's effort. I know that my colleagues are as well. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the names of the staff printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. I'd also like to thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their hard work and effort on this legislation, including Ken Kies, Bernie Schmitt, Mary Schmitt, Barbara Angus, Steve Arkin, Tom Barthold, Pat Driessen, Chris Giosa, Ben Hartley, Rob Harvey, Harold Hirsch, Melani Houser, Allison Ivory, Ron Jeremias, Kent Killelea, Leon Klud, Gary Koenig, Tom Koerner, Roberta Mann, Laurie Matthews, Alysa McDaniel, Joe Mikrut, Pam Moomau, John Navratil, Joe Nega, Judy Owens, Barbara Robles, Cecily Rock, Mel Schwarz, Carolyn Smith, Bill Sutton, Maxine Terry, Mel Thomas, Mike Udell, Barry Wold, and Judy Xanthopoulos. In addition, I'd like to recognize particularly the assistance of the support staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Without their efforts, this bill could not have been completed in a timely manner.

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely.

Mr. ROTH. Well, I say to my distinguished cochairman that I----

Mr. ROTH. It takes you longer to make a point.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation package we have passed--and again, I congratulate my colleagues on such a tremendous bipartisan effort--that reconciliation package contains important measures to promote education. A full 80 percent of the tax relief we offered goes to a $500 credit for children and provisions that will promote education. As I mentioned in my statement, I strongly supported those measures to help our young people--to help our families--pay for college. These youth are our future, and investing in them is fundamental to keeping that future bright and prosperous. However, as I also mentioned earlier, I had hoped that we could have gone further in promoting the educational aspects of the tax relief bill. There were a number of very innovative and very effective provisions that were contained in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but that were excluded during the conference. For example, there was a provision to offer tax-free treatment for State-sponsored prepaid tuition plans. There was a provision for a permanent extension of employer provided education assistance. And there was also a comprehensive education IRA. Unfortunately, these were knocked out of the reconciliation package by the White House. What I want to do now, Mr. President, is introduce these measures as a bill--a bill that will expand education IRA's to permit families to invest up to $2,000 per year toward education. These IRA's would permit withdrawals for expenses incurred during elementary and secondary school. Second, this bill will allow employers to assist their employees' in their graduate and undergraduate education without the employees having that assistance taxed as income. It will expand State-sponsored prepaid tuition and savings programs to permit tax-free savings for educational needs. And finally, this bill will allow universities to develop prepaid tuition and savings programs that will permit tax-free savings for tuition, fees, book, school, supplies, room, and board. These are much needed tools to promote education. Over the past 15 years, tuition at a 4-year college has increased by 234 percent. The average student loan has increased by 367 percent. In contrast, median household income rose only 82 percent during this period, and the consumer price index only rose 74 percent. Our students--our families--need these resources to help them meet the costs and realize the opportunities of quality education. And I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.