Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas--by the way, one of the biggest beneficiaries of this bureaucratic snafu, his State, gets more dollars as a result of this bureaucratic snafu than almost any other State.

Mr. BAUCUS. I said one of the most. I did not say ``the.'' He is saying that, under the law, the allocation is made according to the best data available. The fact is the data was available and is available in 1994. Do you know what happened? Some bureaucrat punched the wrong keys. So the allocation was put over to the general fund instead of the highway trust fund. The data is always available. It is collected. Just some bureaucrat, somebody, made a mistake and punched the wrong buttons in the computer. So the allocations from States, gasoline receipts from States, a portion of it, was put in the wrong account. It was put in the general fund, not the trust fund. The data was available. More importantly, I am astounded at the argument of the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Texas who rails against bureaucracy, who rails against the Federal Government, is standing here tonight basically standing up for the bureaucratic ``snafu protection act.'' As he says, if a bureaucrat makes a mistake, we do not correct it. If the bureaucrat makes a mistake, we do not correct it, and we do not come back here on the floor and try to correct the mistake. I am astounded, absolutely astounded, that the Senator from Texas would stand up and say we should let a bureaucrat who makes a snafu continue the effect of that mistake and do not correct the mistake even though the result is $1.6 billion of unfairly distributed highway trust funds. That is essentially what he is saying. Essentially that is what he is saying. Do not correct the mistake. If we come back here next year and find a mistake, we should not correct it. I hope we do not come back here next year and correct this mistake again. The Department of Treasury has said, and I take them at that their word, in a memo they sent up to us here tonight, ``Procedures have been implemented to assure that future adjustments to the highway trust fund occur in an accurate and timely manner.'' Now no one can guarantee they will not make a mistake again. I would guess tonight there are a lot of red-faced folks over there in the Department of Treasury perhaps watching this debate saying, ``Oh, my gosh, how do we make that mistake? How in the world did that happen? Boy, don't we have egg on our face.'' It is true they do. They made a booboo, a $1.6 billion mistake. So all we are saying is let us correct it. The Senator is wrong when he says this is an allocation fight tonight. It is not that. Nobody who is listening to this debate believes it is. Nobody who is listening to this debate believes the argument that this is an allocation fight. This is simply an effort to correct a mistake. That is all it is, pure and simple. Now somebody can come up with some kind of sophistry, argument, turn on the tail and come back around, and so forth, to try to confuse people. This Senator is not trying to confuse anybody. This Senator is trying to very plainly ask the Senate to correct a mistake that was made--and this is another point, Mr. President--so that when we go into ISTEA next year there is a better taste in people's mouths; that Senators will be more inclined to know that the base is fair. I tell you, Mr. President, if this mistake is not corrected, there is going to be a lot of bitterness in that debate next year as we begin to try to figure out what the correct allocation is because Senators will know that a mistake that should have been corrected was not corrected and we are starting off basically with a base that is the result of a big snafu and that snafu is compounded every cycle. I do not think we want that. I think we want to start off on a level playing field, and the level playing field will be the restoration of what the formula is supposed to be and that will be the case if this mistake is corrected. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Grassley and Bingaman as cosponsors to the pending amendment.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong this either, but I would much rather read facts into the Record than sit here in a quorum call. So I will correct the misinformation we just heard from the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Texas is trying to imply this is an error in estimating the highway trust fund, it is not a bureaucratic error. I would like to address that by reading the memorandum to the chairman of the committee from the Department of the Treasury, dated today. There is a little bit of bureaucratese in here, but, if you listen closely, you can tell this is not an estimate problem, it is a bureaucratic problem. I will read from the beginning. In fiscal year 1994, an accounting error, described in greater detail below-- It did not say an error in estimating, in estimating receipts. It says ``an accounting error.'' An accounting error was made-- Resulted in a $1.590 billion misallocation of excise taxes against the Highway Trust Fund. . . . Then it says: This misallocation of excise taxes was corrected in Fiscal Year 1995. Then going on: The initial transfer of receipts to the Highway Trust Fund is based upon monthly estimates provided to Financial Management Services . . . by the Office of Tax Analysis. Subsequently, FMS uses the IRS Quarterly Certification of ``actual'' liability to adjust the Highway Trust Fund balance for any difference between accounts initially transferred and ``actual'' quarterly liability. This adjustment was referred to as the ``Correcting Adjustment.'' More importantly: At the request of OTA, [that is the Office of Tax Analysis, in the Treasury] the format of the IRS Quarterly Certifications used to make correcting adjustments to the Highway Trust Fund was changed. I will repeat that statement. At the request of OTA, the format of the IRS Quarterly Certifications used to make correcting adjustments to the Highway Trust Fund was changed. The format was changed. This [format] change led to a misinterpretation of the information provided to FMS on the IRS Quarterly Certification and resulted in a misallocation of excise taxes between the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund in Fiscal Year 1994. The problem is not a miscalculation of the estimates. It was a mistake made because of a change in format. Somebody over there did not understand the new format and took the data, the correct data, but put it in the wrong account. This misallocation of excise taxes was corrected in Fiscal Year 1995, debiting the General Fund and crediting the Highway Trust Fund in the amount of $1.590 billion. Procedures have been implemented to assure that future adjustments to the Highway Trust Fund occur in an accurate and timely manner. This has nothing to do with what the right estimate is, nothing at all. This has everything to do with just a bureaucratic mistake in misinterpreting a new format, that is all this is. It is very clearly a clerical, bureaucratic error. It is not an error in estimating tax receipts, not at all. It is an error made in computing the adjustments that were made between the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund. That is all this is, stated clearly by the Department of the Treasury. That is the technical argument. The basic argument, Mr. President, is: Here we are. This is the end of July. This is 1996. What special is going on right now in America? It is the Olympics. In the world? It is the Olympics down in Atlanta, where people compete fairly. They compete according to the rules, and there are winners and losers, according to the rules. Certainly Senators, if they want, can take advantage of a mistake, take advantage of something that is unfairly given to them at the expense of somebody else. Or they can live by the rules, live by the rules and not take advantage of an ill-begotten gain but rather say, yes, that is not fair, let us correct this, when the real battle on highway allocation of trust funds is next year when Congress takes up the transportation bill. That is what this is all about, very simply, very plainly. Are we going to correct a mistake or are those Senators who are enriched by the mistake going to take advantage of that mistake? Or are they going to say, yes, a mistake is made, let us correct the mistake and let us go on. I made a point earlier, which I think is one worth remembering. That is, if this mistake is not corrected, it is going to sour the debate next year when Congress takes up the highway bill, because Senators are going to know the debate begins not with what it was supposed to be, not as was determined by the 1991 highway bill. Rather, it would be based as a result of a bureaucratic snafu, and I do not think we want that. I think we want to correct the mistake. I urge my colleagues to just basically correct the mistake and get ready for the battle next year when we take up the highway bill in earnest, because that is the proper place to do all that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter, dated July 31, 1996, from Linda Robertson to Senator Chafee, be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might, a slight correction, 1995 is in 1997.

Mr. BAUCUS. The allocation made to States is determined by the receipts received 2 years earlier. So 1994 determines 1996, and the amount in the trust fund in 1995 determines 1997.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Excuse me. I am sorry.

Mr. BAUCUS. I am glad to yield to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, momentarily I am going to be offering an amendment to correct a mistake the Treasury Department and Department of Transportation made in calculating allocation of highway funds. I see my very good friend from Virginia is in the Chamber. He is a very valuable member, ranking member of the authorizing subcommittee and wishes to make a statement on this, and I should like to yield to my good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an accommodation to allow us to proceed with the bill. I think it meets the objective of the Senator from Texas, and as to another look at the degree to which there is an accounting clerical error, it is also significant. It is my view that it is. It is altogether appropriate that we crafted the amendment in a way so that the Senators who were concerned about this issue are better reassured that this error was, in fact, made. Second, it accommodates our interests because it is quite clear that an error was made, and I feel quite confident that the administration, in reexamining this, will make the proper certification. Nevertheless, it helps us get a little better record and a better sense of what actually did happen here. That suits the interests of all Senators all the way around. I thank my colleague from Texas for helping craft this amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, essentially following up, I thank the managers for the amendment. There was a natural catastrophe in the State of Montana due to abnormal weather. This amendment helps that situation. I thank the Senators.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the committee and the ranking member on the floor. I mentioned earlier that I very much appreciate the statements by them, if they will urge the House to adopt this amendment. Might I ask the chairman of the committee, along with the ranking Member, if they will, in pushing this, consult with the chairman of our committee, Senator Chafee, as well as the ranking member as you work with the House in attempting to persuade them to adopt the amendment. As we all know, there might be give and take and some modifications. I very much hope that the managers would consult the managers of the authorizing committee.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy the Senator from Indiana offered this amendment. He has been committed, including the Presiding Officer, for many years to trying to get this passed. There has been a development which makes this legislation more imminent. Recently, the city of New York announced that it is going to close its Fresh Kills landfill. Fresh Kills landfill is probably the biggest landfill in this country. They receive 13,000 tons of garbage a day at Fresh Kills landfill in New York. That amounts to 1,200 trucks a day of garbage dumped at the Fresh Kills landfill. That is going to be closed. It will be closed in 2 years. I think it will be phased out ultimately by the year 2001. That is a problem. It is a problem for a lot of so-called importing States, States that receive other States' garbage. It is a problem because States are having a very difficult time enacting laws providing for incinerators. People do not want incinerators to burn garbage. This is a major proposal in the State of New York for the State of New York to build a major incinerator in Brooklyn. It has been turned down. It is the old not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Nobody wants an incinerator in their backyard. So incinerators are not getting anywhere, which means that New York has a problem. New York City has a big problem with Fresh Kills closed. Where is all that garbage going to be, 13,000 tons, 1,200 trucks a day? That is just an example of the problem that we face. I might say that my State is typical; that is, Montana has wide open spaces. A lot of folks from the East think that is a good place to dump garbage. ``Let's dump it out in the West. They have wide open space out there.'' Regrettably, a major entrepreneur in an Eastern State decided that he wanted to open up a big landfill in Miles City, MT. We in Montana do not want this big landfill in Miles City. He was able to cut a deal with a couple of folks in Miles City to build this landfill, whereas the vast majority do not want this landfill in Montana. The State of Montana could not pass legislation prohibiting this, could not pass legislation limiting the dumping of out-of-State garbage in our own State. Why? Because the Supreme Court says the States cannot do that. It is in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Very simply, this is a very basic proposal. Basically, we are saying that by the passage of this legislation, with some modifications, the States have the right to say no. They have a right to say no to the shipment of out-of-State garbage being dumped in their State. We talk a lot around here about local control. We talk a lot around here, ``Gee, let States decide their own destiny, and let local communities decide their own destiny.'' This legislation will allow States to do that. They will be able to say no to the dumping of out- of-State garbage in their own States. I hope that the House conferees take this provision. It is going to be difficult. I very much appreciate the statement of the manager of the bill, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, as well as its ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Johnston, that they will push for this amendment in conference. The trouble is that the House has not looked very favorably on this legislation recently. It is basically because of who is on what committee over in the House and what States are exporting States. It is a problem. But I urge our Senate conferees to be very vigorous in pushing this amendment in conference, because then, finally, we are going to get this thing enacted. I can tell you that there are a lot of people in our country who very much want to control their own destiny in a lot of ways, and one way is to be able to say no to the shipment of out-of-State garbage. I have been working with Senator Coats on this for years. When the Democrats were in the majority, I had the subcommittee that got this legislation passed a couple of years ago. This is very similar to that legislation, this proposal before us. I very strongly commend the Senator from Indiana for his very, very deep dedication to this issue. I hope we can finally get it passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Agricultural appropriations bill before the Senate. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work on this bill and I thank them for their efforts. The bill before us includes a number of very important items. While the legislation is replete with programs which are of great benefit for the Nation as a whole, there are a number of provisions which are especially critical to Montana. And I'd like to address those issues right now. Mr. President, I am pleased that the bill contains adequate funding for the animal damage control activities conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For livestock producers this is a vital program. And in Montana and the other Western States which are home to the reintroduction of wolves this program is essential--to both the producers in the affected region and to the wolves. In the area of research I am pleased that the Senate mark has funded the Agricultural Research Service at a level above the level of appropriations for 1996. I feel that is appropriate. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 laid the foundation for a transition to dramatically decreased Federal involvement in agriculture production. That transition will result in a greater need to be competitive in agricultural production. Research holds the key to enhancing that competitiveness. The research conducted and supported by USDA will help ensure that American agriculture continues the success that has characterized this industry over the past century. One facility which will play a role in this research effort is the Center of Excellence which is being established in Sidney, MT. I am pleased that the report language encourages the direction of adequate resources to this center. This bill also provides for the continued funding of a number of research efforts which are underway in Big Sky country. These efforts which are largely cooperative efforts engaged in with other institutions will yield the technological advances which will carry Great Plains agriculture into the 21st century. But Mr. President, it is important to note that there is one item which is not completely provided for in this bill. While I recognize the chairman's desire to avoid revisiting the farm bill, there is considerable need for a technical corrections package, but that package has not been forthcoming. And I am uncomfortable waiting until next year to repair some of these problems. In one instance--regarding the payment rate for barley producers-- there is an inequity which has not been totally resolved. While the initial payment rate projections for all commodities have been reduced from their initial projected levels, through no fault of their own, barley producers were dealt an exceptionally hard blow. Their payment levels which were lower than most commodities to begin with were dramatically impacted by calculations predicting the economic effect by 0/85 program acreage enrollment. While this program had an effect on all commodities, due to high enrollment of barley acres it had a far greater negative impact on the barley payment rates than on other commodity rates. So the barley producers have come to their Senators--those of us from barley producing regions of this Nation--and asked for our assistance. I want to give them the fair treatment they deserve. I would thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance in reaching agreement on an amendment to repair this. But I would ask that this issue--this question of fairness for all commodities--be considered for further refinement in the conference. I think we can find a better solution to this issue and I look forward to working with the conferees on that effort. Mr. President, I would conclude my remarks by urging my colleagues to support this bill--with the change I have mentioned. And I thank the managers for their work on this matter. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate a few years back, one of the first bills I introduced was the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, to protect taxpayers in disputes with the Internal Revenue Service. At that time I noted: Oliver Wendell Holmes reasoned that ``Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.'' However, Justice Holmes did not consider additional burdens imposed on taxpayers--added costs and delays that result from inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the administration of tax law. That was back in 1979. And it took a while, but we finally scored a big win in 1988 with the enactment of a comprehensive Taxpayer Bill of Rights. That went a long ways toward defining taxpayer rights and providing protection against arbitrary actions by the IRS. The Taxpayers' Bill of Rights required the IRS to give at least 30 days written notice before levying on a taxpayers' property, so that he or she would have time to file an appeal. It expanded the kinds of property exempt from IRS levies, and raised the wage total exempt from collection. It allowed taxpayers to collect costs and attorney's fees from the Government if the IRS was not substantially justified in bringing an action. And it let taxpayers sue the Government for damages if IRS employees acted recklessly in collecting taxes or intentionally disregarded any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. These were important steps toward accountability and fairness. But they did not solve all the problems. A few years ago I spent a day working at Rocky Mountain Log Homes in Hamilton, MT. The business is owned by Mark Moreland and a couple of partners. They put together prefabricated log homes, which add a lot of value to the timber and create skilled, high-paying jobs. These homes sell all over the world, and are especially popular in Japan. But then last year, Mark sent me a letter to tell me about the trouble he was having with the Service on an ``independent contractor'' issue. The dispute goes all the way back to 1986. Mark went through many meetings with the Service, including two meetings in which he thought the matter had been settled. But then in 1995--9 years later--he was told that the matter remained ``open'' and that they owed the IRS a great deal of money. So I wrote to the Commissioner to ask what was going on. But we did not get much satisfaction. Mark wrote me a couple of months later to let me know how it went. He said: I felt you would want to know what has happened subsequently. In spite of your efforts, the IRS pursued the matter and we were forced to retain counsel. Our attorney was able to keep the IRS from attaching our assets and challenged their contentions based on the IRS' 20 point test. For several months we were forced to produce documents and try to refute their position. Once we were on the brink of going to court on the matter, we received the enclosed communication. Unbelievably, they had disposed of all the pertinent records related to our case back in 1986! They had absolutely no basis for attempting to collect the original $28,000 let alone the additional $60,000 to $70,000 in penalties and interest. Through what can only be referred to as a bluff, they threatened and postured, hoping we would roll over and pay. The cost to us in legal fees, time lost from our businesses and practices, and mental anguish is immense. So here is a case in which the IRS, with little justification to begin with, and at the end with no evidence at all, put a good business through 9 years of misery. And Mark's experience is not an isolated event. I have received many letters--far too many--who have gone through experiences like his. Good, law-abiding people are fed up with the means the IRS uses to resolve disputes with taxpayers. It is no wonder that many believe the IRS should be eliminated and the current tax system torn out by the roots. Today we will do something to help. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights II builds off the start we made in 1989. To be specific, it creates an Office of Taxpayer Advocate within the IRS to help taxpayers resolve their problems with the IRS; expands the ability of taxpayers to take the IRS to court in order to abate interest; raises the damages a taxpayer can collect in the event an IRS agent recklessly or intentionally disregards the Internal Revenue Code from $100,000 to $1 million; and eases the burden of proof a taxpayer must show in order to collect attorney's fees and costs when he or she successfully challenges an IRS decision. These are commonsense ideas. They will help folks like Mark who are victimized by reckless and irresponsible IRS procedures. So let's pass this bill, and restore some fairness and accountability to tax collection in this country.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is about to consider the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This is an important bill. A great deal of work has been done to get this legislation to the floor today. Everyone involved in this process has been diligent in assuring that only worthy projects are included. Sound criteria have been consistently applied so that each project has a Federal interest and a good benefit to cost ratio. But I have a larger concern about this bill. It is the issue of our spending priorities. Briefly stated, at a time when we are trying to cut spending in order to balance the budget, we should not be authorizing so much new spending on water resource projects. This legislation authorizes more than $3.3 billion in new Federal spending. And while investing in our infrastructure, including navigation, flood control, coastal and storm protection, is important, it is not the only demand being made on our taxpayers. We are in the midst of one of the most critical balancing acts in our Nation's history--balancing the budget. We are facing some very tough choices. The question facing us is whether modernizing an existing lock is more important than protecting Medicare, or whether deepening an existing channel will be of greater benefit to the people of this country than promoting education programs? Less than a month ago, the Senate passed a budget resolution that would cut funding for the Army Corps of engineers by nearly $1 billion over the next 5 years. Yet this bill adds more than $3 billion in new spending for the corps. How can we ever get the budget in balance if we continue to say yes to projects we do not have the money to build? How will we ever get to balance if one day we vote to cut spending and the next day we vote to increase spending? In my judgment, while the projects in this bill are largely worthy ones, we simply cannot afford them. finding a solution to the flooding of the james river in south dakota

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has become a dominant force in developing, marketing, and managing assets for American investors. Since 1990, assets under management by U.S. mutual funds have grown from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion in 1995. Yet, while direct foreign investment in U.S. securities is strong, foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds has remained relatively flat. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Gorton and Murray, the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996. This legislation, which I have had the honor of cosponsoring in each of the last two Congresses, would eliminate a major barrier to attracting foreign capital into the United States while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. mutual fund industry. This legislation would remove a barrier to the sale and distribution of U.S. mutual funds outside the United States. The bill would change the Internal Revenue Code to provide that foreign investors in U.S. mutual funds be accorded the same tax treatment as if they had made their investments directly in U.S. stocks or shares of a foreign mutual fund. Under current law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital gains received directly by an investor outside the United States or received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30- percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and short-term capital gain income received by a foreign investor through a U.S. mutual fund are subject to the withholding tax. This result occurs because current law characterizes interest income and short-term capital gain distributed by a U.S. mutual fund to a foreign investor as a dividend subject to withholding. The Investment Competitiveness Act would correct this inequity and put U.S. mutual funds on a competitive footing with foreign funds. The bill would correctly permit interest income and short-term capital gain to retain their character upon distribution. Current law acts as a prohibitive export tax on foreign investors who choose to invest in U.S. funds. That is why the amount of foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds is small. Mr. President, it is time to dismantle the unfair and unwanted tax barrier to foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds. The American economy will benefit from exporting U.S. mutual funds, creating an additional inflow of investment into U.S. securities markets without a dilution of U.S. control of American business that occurs through direct foreign investment in U.S. companies. Moreover, the legislation will support job creation among ancillary fund service providers located in the United States, rather than in offshore service facilities. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the efforts of Senators Gorton and Murray in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help to move it forward.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has become a dominant force in developing, marketing, and managing assets for American investors. Since 1990, assets under management by U.S. mutual funds have grown from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion in 1995. Yet, while direct foreign investment in U.S. securities is strong, foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds has remained relatively flat. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Gorton and Murray, the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996. This legislation, which I have had the honor of cosponsoring in each of the last two Congresses, would eliminate a major barrier to attracting foreign capital into the United States while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. mutual fund industry. This legislation would remove a barrier to the sale and distribution of U.S. mutual funds outside the United States. The bill would change the Internal Revenue Code to provide that foreign investors in U.S. mutual funds be accorded the same tax treatment as if they had made their investments directly in U.S. stocks or shares of a foreign mutual fund. Under current law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital gains received directly by an investor outside the United States or received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30- percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and short-term capital gain income received by a foreign investor through a U.S. mutual fund are subject to the withholding tax. This result occurs because current law characterizes interest income and short-term capital gain distributed by a U.S. mutual fund to a foreign investor as a dividend subject to withholding. The Investment Competitiveness Act would correct this inequity and put U.S. mutual funds on a competitive footing with foreign funds. The bill would correctly permit interest income and short-term capital gain to retain their character upon distribution. Current law acts as a prohibitive export tax on foreign investors who choose to invest in U.S. funds. That is why the amount of foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds is small. Mr. President, it is time to dismantle the unfair and unwanted tax barrier to foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds. The American economy will benefit from exporting U.S. mutual funds, creating an additional inflow of investment into U.S. securities markets without a dilution of U.S. control of American business that occurs through direct foreign investment in U.S. companies. Moreover, the legislation will support job creation among ancillary fund service providers located in the United States, rather than in offshore service facilities. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the efforts of Senators Gorton and Murray in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help to move it forward.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Finance Committee in a colloquy regarding a provision in the Small Business Job Protection Act. Section 1120 of the act provides an exception from the 50 percent disallowance for business meals for certain remote seafood processing facilities. It is my understanding that this provision is intended to address a specific issue related to these seafood processing facilities, and is not intended to imply congressional intent on other exceptions to the 50 percent disallowance on business meals claimed by taxpayers.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great sadness and regret that I rise today in support of S. 1899, a bill to name the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness for Mollie Beattie, the former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As most of you now know, Mollie passed away last night after a long battle with brain cancer. She fought that battle gallantly with great courage and dignity, just as she had fought so hard for this Nation's fish and wildlife resources during her recent tenure as the first woman Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I extend my heartfelt condolences to her husband Rick Schwolsky, and the rest of her family. Mr. President, the Nation owes Mollie a deep debt of gratitude. In a time of unprecedented challenge to some of this Nation's most important environmental laws, Mollie stepped forward to remind us that threatened and endangered species, and the national wildlife refuges on which many of those species depend, must be protected for future generations of Americans to treasure and enjoy. It is therefore fitting that one of the most magnificent wilderness areas in the United States, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness, be named for her. I hope my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will join me and the sponsors of this bill in ensuring its quick passage for signature by President Clinton. It is a small tribute to a truly outstanding individual who has made an invaluable contribution during her lifetime to the benefit of the entire country.