John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a television set or read any kind of political commentary or watch one of the Sunday morning talk shows without having the subject very quickly turn to the high price that we in this country are paying for gasoline. There is a certain amount of deja vu when you look at some of these situations: Here we go again. Many Members remember quite well the problems this country faced in the 1970s when we had the long lines at our gas stations around this country. People were screaming and hollering about the lack of gas for their automobiles and were also complaining about the price of that gas if they were lucky enough to get it. Here we are in the year 2000, and basically the problem is very similar to what it was back in 1973. It is interesting to me to see so many people wringing their hands, struggling to find out exactly what is causing this problem. It is not, indeed, a mystery at all. The problem is one of supply and demand. We are using far more gas and oil in this country than we were in the past decade, than in the past 5 years, in fact, more than we used last year. Yet we are producing substantially less than we are using. During the 1970s oil embargo, many of us, particularly those from oil-producing States, were saying the problem would only get worse unless we did something to become energy self-sufficient. In those days, the 1970s, we were importing about 36 percent of the oil we consumed in the United States. When the OPEC nations just slightly tightened their valves and started producing a little bit less, that 36 percent brought this Nation to its knees and created the long lines at the gas stations. Many of us at that time said it was only going to get worse unless we concentrated on trying to be more energy self-sufficient in this country; we would have to concentrate on making sure we were producing, in an environmentally safe manner, the necessary energy to run this Nation. I wonder what people would say if we imported 50 percent of all the food we needed to feed the citizens of our country. I bet that if we were 50-percent dependent on foreign countries for food in this country, there would be long lines marching in Washington, people clamoring for our Nation to get its act together and become more self- sufficient, producing the food we need. I wonder why it is any different when it comes to producing the energy this country needs. If food is important to our Nation and to our Nation's economy, to our Nation's well-being, to our security, certainly energy, which runs this country, is important to the security of this Nation. Yet in the year 2000 we are not importing 36 percent of the energy we use, as we were in the last major crisis back in the 1970s. Today we are importing 55 percent; 55 percent of all of the energy from oil and gas that we use in this country is coming from other countries. We cannot depend on many of these countries to give us the supply of energy we need in this country. So I question why there is so much difficulty in figuring out why we have this problem. In the last 13 years, our domestic oil production has fallen by 2.7 million barrels a day. In the past 2 years, domestic production has fallen about half a million barrels per day. In the last decade, there has been a 17-percent decline in the domestic production of oil and gas in this country, while at the same time our domestic oil consumption has increased by 14 percent. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that we have a huge problem. We are producing less and less and we are consuming more and more. We are depending more and more on foreign sources for the energy we need to run America. Whether you are a farmer in Louisiana or in Kansas or any other part of the United States, or whether you are a housewife taking the children to school, whether you are a small businessman who is dependent on deliveries, or whether you are an independent trucker anywhere in America, you are starting to feel serious economic pressure because of the dramatic and rapid increase in the price of oil, in the price of gas at the pump. The reason I bring this to my colleagues' attention is not any mystery. I have outlined why I think the problem is as it is. When you become over 50-percent dependent on other countries for something that is so important to your domestic survival and economic security, as we are dependent on oil, our country is facing very difficult times. Some may ask: Senator, that is all fine and good. I understand what you are saying. But is there any oil for us to produce in this country? The answer is: Absolutely. The problem, however, is that so many of our Nation's most valuable energy areas have been arbitrarily shut off from any potential exploration and development by actions of Government, actions by the Congress, actions by the previous President, actions by this President. They have all said: There are certain areas we are not even going to look for oil and gas. We would rather depend on OPEC to be generous and give us all the oil we need at the price we want. In fact, that is not happening. On the chart I have here on the floor, the orange shows the areas in the Outer Continental Shelf around the United States where we have said, by Presidential edict or by acts of Congress: You cannot even look for oil and gas. From Maine to Florida, from Washington State to the Mexican border, we have said we are not going to look or explore or even offer for lease these areas where there are known quantities of oil and gas. The distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, talked about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the fact that it has been closed to any kind of production. An interesting fact is, our own Department of the Interior has estimated we have enough oil in that area to replace the amount of oil we are getting from the country of Saudi Arabia. Yet that area has been closed to even looking to see if oil might be there and in recoverable quantities. I remember the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue very well. I was in the House of Representatives when Congress made a decision as to how to handle that area, which is located right next to Prudhoe Bay, which arguably has been one of the largest oil deposits anywhere in North America. I remember when we were doing the National Alaskan Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980. We were not sure about what to do with that area because not enough was known at that time, some said, to make a decision on whether or not we should explore for oil in that area. The House of Representatives--and it was also adopted in the Senate-- said: All right, we are going to take this area and set it aside, and we are going to study it. A lot of times, when Congress does not know what to do, it studies something and delays it by having a study. We required the Department, working with industry, to do a study about whether, No. 1, there were resources there, and, No. 2, whether they could be environmentally, safely produced by actions of industry if we allowed them to do it. That was in 1980. In 1987, the studies were completed and the results were in. The Department of the Interior looked at the results of that study and recommended the area be leased for exploration and development. But Congress would not let them do that. The administration would not let them do that. Even though the Department of the Interior, based on the study we required them to do in this area, recommended the area be leased for exploration and development, there has been no exploration. We will not even look to see whether there is any oil in that area for use by the people of this country. Yet the estimate is that there could be as many as 16 billion barrels of oil sitting there. By governmental action, by Presidential order, we are saying we are not even going to look there. Some say: Senator, are you advocating we have oil production in a refuge? I only point out, we have oil production in my State of Louisiana in practically every wildlife refuge. In the congressional district I represented, which is on the coast of Louisiana, we had oil and gas production on every single one of the wildlife refuges. The test is whether it is compatible with the purpose of the refuge. The question is whether they can be done together in an environmentally safe manner. The answer has clearly been shown to be yes, it can, in most circumstances. The wildlife refuge benefits from some of the royalties from that oil and gas production, and the country benefits because we are producing oil where it is found. We can do both at the same time. The Department of the Interior said that in 1987 after this extensive study Congress required. People in Congress said: We will study it because we think the answer will come back no. But when the answer came back, yes, it can be done, Congress said: We are going to say no anyway. If one looks at the map on the chart, they will notice that from Maine, up to the Canadian border, down to the middle of Florida, we have 25 leases. That is it--25 leases. In the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana and Texas, we have over 10,000 leases--oil that is being produced on the Outer Continental Shelf that is being used by everybody in the United States. About 75 percent of our Federal oil comes from off my State and the States of Texas and Mississippi in the Gulf of Mexico. Over 10,000 leases are producing oil every day, ensuring economic security for this country. We cannot do it by ourselves. Selfishly, I could say: Look, I hope they do not do it anywhere else. It is great for Louisiana if we have all the production and we get all the benefits, all of the jobs, all of the construction; that is fine for my State. But it is not good national policy to say we are only going to do it off one State. On the other hand, look at the west coast. There are a lot of cars on the west coast. There are a lot of SUVs on the west coast. There are a lot of people hurting who want prices to be lower on the west coast. Yet the entire coastline from Canada to Mexico is off limits. There are only 83 leases from Canada to Mexico, and these are old leases which have been there for years and years. With regard to this orange area on this map, we are saying: No, don't look at it; don't touch it; don't consider it. Are they saying that because we do not need it when we import 55 percent of our oil, or are they saying things have to be done perfectly to proceed and, unless things are done perfectly, we are never going to proceed? It seems to me we have to have a balanced approach to energy development in this country. We cannot continue to send our Secretary of Energy--which is where I understand he is this week--to meet with OPEC hat in hand, saying to these foreign countries, please, please, give us more oil, when at the same time we are not doing nearly enough to develop the legitimate resources in our own country. If we had an aggressive development and production program in our country, we would not be importing 55 percent of the oil we need to run America. Yet when we say we are not going to do anything between Canada and Mexico and between Canada and Florida and we are only going to do it off Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, that is not a balanced approach to energy development in the United States. Some say: We don't want to have it off our coast because it may pollute the environment; we may have an oil spill from an offshore platform. The truth is, it is far more dangerous to import oil in tankers every day than it is to produce in offshore waters. There was a study done by the National Academy of Sciences--and it is on the minerals management web site--which talks about where oil is coming from that is polluting the waters of the world. Does it come from offshore production? No. Offshore oil and gas development is actually 2 percent of the oil that is found in offshore waters around the world. A little less than 2 percent comes from offshore development. Where does it come from? It is no surprise: Importing oil and moving oil around the oceans of the world in ships. Marine transportation accounts for 45 percent of all the oil that is found in the ocean waters that is not supposed to be there. Municipal and industrial waste and runoff, which comes from when it rains and the rain runs off the streets and works its way ultimately to the oceans of the world, accounts for another 36 percent. Atmospheric fallout is about 9 percent, and natural seepage, which comes up from the ocean floor, is about another 9 percent. But less than 2 percent of the oil that is found in oceans comes from drilling for oil and gas off the coast of the countries where oil can be found. I do not know what the answer is. There is no simple answer. I know the President made some proposals in a radio address this week. I encourage the administration to continue to seek solutions to the problem. I have a suggestion, and one of the suggestions is right from the minerals management office. They have a chart that talks about the undiscovered resources in areas that are currently under moratorium. They make an estimate of how much oil is in areas of the country that we cannot even enter. Their estimate is probably the most accurate in the world. For areas under moratorium--either congressional or Presidential moratorium--they estimate there are 15.2 billion barrels of oil sitting out there in areas where we are saying: Don't even go look. And there is an additional 61.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could be found in these areas. But you know what. If we don't look, we will never know. It would seem to me that as long as we have these huge areas where we have x'd out any ability to take a look to see what energy is there, we are not on very solid ground when we blame OPEC for the problems we are facing today. With 55 percent of the oil used in the United States being imported, OPEC has the ability, by turning that faucet off just a little bit, to bring this country to its knees. Can you imagine what it would do if they turned a full turn and really reduced it? No nation should ever allow itself--certainly not a nation as strong as the United States--to become dependent on foreign sources for things that are critical to our economic well-being and our national security and, indeed, our survival. Yet over the years we have allowed just that to happen with regard to energy. We would not allow it to happen in the area of food. We would not allow it to happen in the area of planes or tanks or warships or anything else that we depend on for our national security--except in this one area. We have made a conscious decision to say: It is all right to import over half of the energy we use. It is unacceptable. It is bad public policy. It needs to be changed; otherwise, every so often we will be faced with what we are faced with today. In his radio address, the President has made some suggestions which I have noted. One was the creation of an environmentally sound home heating oil reserve for the Northeast. My question is, Where does the oil for that reserve come from? Are we just going to buy it from OPEC at $30 a barrel? That is not going to solve the problem of high energy prices for the Northeast if we are filling up their oil reserve with oil coming from OPEC at $30 a barrel. It would come out of the reserve at the same price. The second suggestion is to immediately reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is located in Louisiana and Texas, where we have oil underground. I am all for doing that, but we are going to be putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at $30 a barrel because of what OPEC has done to us. Neither one of these two suggestions domestically produce any additional oil. It will continue to be filled with 55 percent of oil coming from foreign sources at $30 a barrel or at whatever price OPEC determines. The President has some other suggestions on promoting energy efficiency. We are all for that. He has some suggestions for tax incentives for energy efficiency. I am for that. He has some suggestions on promoting the use of alternative fuels--I am for that-- and also support for domestic oil production, which I think is very positive. But if you have all of these areas that are roped off, if you will, and you say, ``Don't go here,'' when we know some of these areas have as much as Saudi Arabia exports to us--such as, in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge--I suggest that as long as we have huge areas, thousands of miles of areas where we are saying don't even look for energy, then we are never going to address the heart of the problem, which is a lack of energy self-sufficiency for the United States of America. We cannot ever say we are going to be energy self-sufficient just by producing energy off the coast of one or two States. Certainly, the Congress in the past has accepted the fact that we would let these areas be roped off. I guess the thought is always: Let's produce it somewhere else. That is what we are doing. We are producing it somewhere else. It is called OPEC. Its nations have formed a cartel. They have done very well in controlling the price. They know they can bring this country-- indeed, the world--to its knees simply by turning the valve off just a little bit. They will continue to do that. I hope they open up the spigot just a little bit, but as long as we are importing 55 percent of the energy for the United States of America, they will always have the ability to bring us to our knees. That is something that should be unacceptable for the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I appreciate that clarification.

Mr. BREAUX. I wish to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina. The Department of Professional Aviation at Louisiana Tech is one of the University's most successful departments. With the expansion of the aviation industry in this nation, the University has been in the process of expanding the physical infrastructure for the Department of professional Aviation. A new $6 million instructional facility has recently been constructed on the campus and the University will also construct a new flight operations facility at Ruston Regional Airport. While the State of Louisiana and the University have financed the cost of building these new facilities, the University is hopeful that it can receive federal assistance for the purchase of newer and safer equipment, such as new single-engine aircraft, a multiengine training aircraft, and a multiengine turbine simulator. As we consider this FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to know whether this is something that would be appropriate for receiving financial support from the FAA in the form of competitive grant funding as part of its university research and air safety programs? I hope that grant funding for this project can be obtained from the FAA.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I'm pleased to rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues and all of our constituents across the nation that March is National Eye Donor Month. For more than 55 years now thousands of Americans have participated in this selfless exercise of helping others. The purpose of National Eye Donor Month is not only to honor the past donors who have played a pivotal role in restoring the sight of over half a million individuals, but also to raise public awareness of the continuing need for donors. When people decide to become a donor all they need to do is sign a card and announce their intent to their family. The many recipients of this ``gift of sight'' represent the great diversity of our nation's population. For instance, Judrita Billiot is a young Houma Indian who lives in a small community about 50 miles from New Orleans, Louisiana. This young girl was born with a condition known as congenital opacity, in which the corneas neither transmit nor allow the passage of light. When she was still less than a year old Judrita received corneal transplants in both of her eyes. I'm happy to say that today she is a healthy young girl with normal vision thanks not only to the transplant procedure, but also to the donors who were thoughtful enough to leave behind this extraordinary gift. The success of Judrita's transplants is not uncommon. The current success rate of corneal transplantation is nearly 90% thanks to a rigorous screening process and the dedication of our nation's eye banks, working in conjunction with the Eye Bank Association of America. I appreciate this opportunity to highlight National Eye Donor Month and I encourage all of my colleagues to work with their local eye banks to increase public awareness of corneal transplantation and the continuous need for donors.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I wish to note the departure from public life of one of our state's most gifted public servants. Michael Skinner, who has served for the past six years as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, the largest geographical district in my home state, left office on January 15 and has returned to the private practice of law in Lafayette. It is no exaggeration to say that Michael Skinner will be remembered as the most effective and successful U.S. Attorney in the history of the Western District of Louisiana. From almost his first day in office, he set about to make it clear to the people of his district that the U.S. Attorney's office was their office, administering justice on their behalf and for their benefit. In short order, he threw open the doors of his office, demystified the work of the U.S. Attorney and instilled a renewed sense of confidence and enthusiasm for the administration of justice in the Western District of Louisiana. Judges, attorneys, citizens and scores of public officials from Lafayette to Lake Charles to Alexandria to Shreveport to Monroe agreed that Michael Skinner's appointment was a true breath of fresh air. Mr. Skinner's record as U.S. Attorney is an impressive one. He successfully prosecuted scores of cases involving public corruption, violent crime, drugs, health care and other types of program fraud, environmental crime and civil rights violations. Some of his most successful cases included: Food stamp and Medicaid/Medicare indictments and convictions that uncovered millions in fraud; a child pornography investigation that broke a child prostitution ring in South Louisiana; an environmental investigation that resulted in the cleanups of several south Louisiana toxic waste dumps; and the prosecution of literally hundreds of drug dealers who admitted or were convicted of selling drugs in Louisiana. Mr. President, I am proud to have recommended Michael Skinner's nomination to President Clinton in 1993. In the years since his confirmation by this body, I have watched with a mixture of pride and admiration as he performed the duties of his office with a rare combination of skill, integrity, compassion and determination. Mike Skinner represents the best that our country has to offer in its public servants and I believe that he will serve as the model for every person who follows him in that office. I know that I speak for the citizens of Louisiana and for every member of this body in thanking him for a job well done and in wishing he and his family all the best in this new phase of their lives.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Mack, in introducing legislation designated to address past problems with the allocation of the generation-skipping transfer (GST) exemption, and to provide for automatic allocations going forward. Under current law, taxpayers must make affirmative allocations of the GST exemption for transfers to a trust. As a result, many taxpayers have not made timely allocations and face the prospect of losing a significant portion of the exemption's benefit. This legislation is designed to assure that taxpayers get the full benefit of the law by making GST exemption allocations automatic for transfers to a trust and to give taxpayers the opportunity to cure past allocations which were not made on a timely basis. This legislation was included in the tax bill that was sent to the President earlier this summer. It enjoys Republican and Democratic support on both sides of the hill. I urge its inclusion in the next tax bill sent to the White House.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, in 1996 and 1997, I supported the creation of S corporation ESOPs, which--while they may sound a bit obscure to some--are an innovative way of giving employees an ownership stake in their companies and providing for their retirement. The design of these programs was quite deliberate, and intended to accomplish very specific policy objectives. We sought to create not only an administrable structure for these plans, but also a program that encouraged private businesses to give their workers a ``piece of the rock'' and help them save for their retirement. The law therefore allows some deferral of tax liability on current-year revenues of a participating S corporation, but of course only for that portion of the company's revenues that are put into the ESOP accounts of employees. That is to say, the deferral only exists so long as the monies are not realized by employee-owners; when they withdraw the funds for their retirement benefit, they also pay a tax, and in this case, at a much higher rate than standard capital gains. Recently, some have questioned whether this incentive should be eliminated. I am delighted that a strong bipartisan majority of the members of the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee have indicated they want to preserve the fundamental attributes of S corporation ESOPs. We have carefully scrutinized this matter in recent months, particularly in the context of the tax extenders legislation. We have determined that Treasury's proposal to eliminate the deferral aspect of S corporation ESOPs is a serious threat to the vitality of S corporation ESOPs. In rejecting this proposal, Congress has affirmed that--at a time when national savings rates are abysmally low, when Americans worry how they will fund their retirement, and when we in Congress worry about the future of Social Security--we cannot afford to undo such important programs. In response to Treasury's concerns with possible abuse of the system, we included a revenue raising provision in the extenders package to strengthen the 1996 law. However, the Treasury Department objected to the provision and it was dropped during the last minute negotiations on the bill. Secretary Summers has agreed to work with me over the coming months on a provision to strengthen and preserve broad-based employee ownership of S corporations through ESOPs in the future. Today, there are 100,000 or more workers in America who are using and benefiting from the S corporation ESOP rules that we designed. We have reason to be proud of this accomplishment, and to point to it as an example of how we are helping Americans build wealth for their futures and their families through private ownership. I believe more workers stand to benefit from this great opportunity, which is working as Congress intended. I believe, along with a strong bipartisan group of my colleagues, that we must do all we can to sustain and promote S corporation ESOPs. I appreciate the strong support of Chairman Roth and other members of the Finance Committee in particular to achieve this objective, and look forward to working with them on an ongoing basis for this very important cause.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Mack, in introducing legislation designated to address past problems with the allocation of the generation-skipping transfer (GST) exemption, and to provide for automatic allocations going forward. Under current law, taxpayers must make affirmative allocations of the GST exemption for transfers to a trust. As a result, many taxpayers have not made timely allocations and face the prospect of losing a significant portion of the exemption's benefit. This legislation is designed to assure that taxpayers get the full benefit of the law by making GST exemption allocations automatic for transfers to a trust and to give taxpayers the opportunity to cure past allocations which were not made on a timely basis. This legislation was included in the tax bill that was sent to the President earlier this summer. It enjoys Republican and Democratic support on both sides of the hill. I urge its inclusion in the next tax bill sent to the White House.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill that is called the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Act of 1999. The legislation cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Hollings, Shelby, Kerry, Sessions and Landrieu results from a far reaching conservation agreement among four key recreational and commercial fishing organizations. These organizations include the Billfish Foundation, the Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportfishing Association and the Blue Water Fishermen's Association. The legislation will prohibit pelagic long line fishing for designated months each year in U.S. waters determined to be swordfish nursery and billfish bycatch areas based on extensive analyses of the best available science. Based upon the effectiveness of this type of management strategy in other U.S. fisheries, I am optimistic about the benefits that can come from the legislation. Mr. President, the legislation has three major components that I would like to briefly outline. First, the bill would prohibit pelagic longline fishing for certain months each year in U.S. waters where swordfish and billfish are caught with other fish. Essentially, more than 160,000 square nautical miles in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico would become a conservation area to rebuild populations of swordfish, sailfish, tuna, marlin and sharks. Recognizing the economic impact on commercial fishermen, the legislation provides a fair and equitable program for longline vessel owners who are adversely impacted by the fishing prohibition. Funding of the permit buyback program would come through a partnership of the recreational and commercial fishing industries and federal funds. The bill also directs the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct a comprehensive research program in cooperation with the U.S. longline fleet to identify and test a variety of longline gear configurations to determine which are the most effective at reducing billfish bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. I believe that a true solution to the bycatch issue will require international cooperation. Ironically, next week the U.S. Commissioners to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) will be meeting in Brazil to consider many challenging issues, including a rebuilding plan for the north Atlantic stock of swordfish. Under the bill we introduce today, we are taking a bold first step to address the problems in our own coastal waters. I am confident that this first step will serve as an example to the international community on focusing much needed attention to this important issue.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill that is called the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Act of 1999. The legislation cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Hollings, Shelby, Kerry, Sessions and Landrieu results from a far reaching conservation agreement among four key recreational and commercial fishing organizations. These organizations include the Billfish Foundation, the Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportfishing Association and the Blue Water Fishermen's Association. The legislation will prohibit pelagic long line fishing for designated months each year in U.S. waters determined to be swordfish nursery and billfish bycatch areas based on extensive analyses of the best available science. Based upon the effectiveness of this type of management strategy in other U.S. fisheries, I am optimistic about the benefits that can come from the legislation. Mr. President, the legislation has three major components that I would like to briefly outline. First, the bill would prohibit pelagic longline fishing for certain months each year in U.S. waters where swordfish and billfish are caught with other fish. Essentially, more than 160,000 square nautical miles in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico would become a conservation area to rebuild populations of swordfish, sailfish, tuna, marlin and sharks. Recognizing the economic impact on commercial fishermen, the legislation provides a fair and equitable program for longline vessel owners who are adversely impacted by the fishing prohibition. Funding of the permit buyback program would come through a partnership of the recreational and commercial fishing industries and federal funds. The bill also directs the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct a comprehensive research program in cooperation with the U.S. longline fleet to identify and test a variety of longline gear configurations to determine which are the most effective at reducing billfish bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. I believe that a true solution to the bycatch issue will require international cooperation. Ironically, next week the U.S. Commissioners to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) will be meeting in Brazil to consider many challenging issues, including a rebuilding plan for the north Atlantic stock of swordfish. Under the bill we introduce today, we are taking a bold first step to address the problems in our own coastal waters. I am confident that this first step will serve as an example to the international community on focusing much needed attention to this important issue.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask the attention of the managers. I understand there is an informal agreement to allow myself and my colleague, Senator Frist, to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business. If that is the case, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes followed by my colleague from Tennessee with the same request.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this time with my distinguished colleague, Senator Frist from Tennessee, and our distinguished colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey, who served with me on the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, to offer what I think is the first ever comprehensive Medicare reform bill to be introduced since the advent of Medicare back in 1965. We introduced a bill today. It is available for consideration by our colleagues. I hope this legislative effort becomes the marker for future discussions and debate on the question of what we do with Medicare. We introduced the bill today because we think it is absolutely essential that the Congress in this session take up the question of how to reform the Medicare Program that is currently serving 40 million Americans. We did it essentially for two reasons. First of all, the program that the seniors now benefit from is not nearly as good as it should be nor nearly as good as it can be. Medicare today is noted more for what it does not cover than for what it actually covers. As an example, it does not cover prescription drugs; it does not cover eyeglasses; it does not cover hearing aids--three examples of things our seniors need and need very desperately. So in addition to not covering these items, it does not cover a number of other expenses, including about 47 percent of the expenses for seniors who are not covered by Medicare insurance. They have to go out and buy supplemental insurance. So the program is not nearly as good as it should be, nor as good as we could make it. The second reason we have introduced it is because, as bad as the program is, it is going broke. By the year 2020, one-half of all the revenues to fund the Medicare program are going to have to come out of general revenues. It was never intended to come out of general revenues. It was supposed to be paid from the payroll tax. But, by 2020, over half the costs of the program are going to have to come from general revenues. In addition, by the year 2015, the program is going to be insolvent. It is going to be broke. There is not going to be enough money to pay for the benefits the seniors currently get. For those two reasons, we have built on what the Medicare Commission recommended, expanded on it, and improved upon it, to present to our colleagues the first ever comprehensive Medicare reform bill. Basically, building on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, we are saying about the plan that I, as a Senator, have, and what all of our colleagues and all the House Members and the other 10 million Federal employees have, is if it is good enough for them, it should also be good enough for our Nation's seniors. What we have suggested is we pattern a new Medicare program based on the Federal employees plan. We would create a Medicare board, which would be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, for 7- year terms. They would guarantee all the plans being submitted to serve our seniors would ensure quality standards. They would negotiate the premiums. They would approve the benefits package. They would make sure there are safeguards against adverse selection of only healthy seniors. They would provide information to our seniors. This Medicare board would call upon the existing health care financing authority and all private groups such as insurance companies--whether it is an Aetna or a Blue Cross--all of these who want the privilege of serving the Medicare beneficiaries would have to compete for the right to do so. They do not do that today. We would say to all these people who want to serve Medicare beneficiaries, they have to offer at least as much as what Medicare pays for today, at least as much but hopefully a lot more. We would require every group that wants to sell health insurance to Medicare beneficiaries to have to compete for the right to do so, compete on the price they request seniors to pay, and compete on the quality of service they make available to seniors. In addition, every one of these plans would have to offer a high option plan which would contain a prescription drug plan. Prescription drugs today are as important as a hospital bed was in 1965, and maybe even more so because prescription drugs keep people out of hospitals. They keep people out of nursing homes. They make their lives better and the quality of their lives better than it would be, were they not getting prescription drugs. So every one of these single plans would have to offer a high option plan and they would have to make that a prescription drug plan with an actuarial value of at least $800 per year, which would be indexed to the increase of costs of prescription drugs annually. They would also have a stop-loss guarantee which simply means no senior would ever have to pay more than $2,000 out of their pocket. We think, in essence, what this plan would do is bring about substantive, real reform to a 1965 model program which simply is not working as we move to the 21st century. We cannot continue to tinker around the edges. We need complete, total reform of the Medicare program. If we do that, then we can start talking about adding other benefits such as prescription drugs, which I think are very important and I strongly support. But you cannot add prescription drugs to a broken program. You have to fundamentally restructure it and reform it; bring about real competition where all these plans will compete for the right to serve. That is what I have as a Senator. That is what 9 million other Federal employees have. I think we would see substantial savings brought about by companies having to compete for who can offer the best package at the best price. If they want to stay in a current fee-for- service plan offered by Medicare, they can stay right where they are. They don't have to make a change. But if they see one of these other plans offer them a better deal, they should take that better deal. We hope our colleagues take a look at what we have offered. We think it is where we are ultimately going to end up. My colleagues, Senators Kerrey and Frist, have done a terrific job. We think this is where we should go as a nation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce tax reform legislation that is long overdue in the effort to revitalize the nation's fourth arm of defense, the United States flag merchant marine. My bill, the National Security Sealift Enhancement Act of 1999, would provide targeted tax relief to enable the United States-flag oceangoing commercial fleet to better compete with foreign-flag commercial fleets registered in nations that have exempted companies from taxes. Currently, United States companies operating U.S.-flag vessels, and foreign-flag vessels operating under the application of national laws such as Japan or France, are forced to compete against companies that operate vessels under flag-of-convenience registries. Flag-of- convenience shipping registries operate under the legal authority of nations such as Panama, Liberia, Vanuatu, or the Marshall Islands, and attract shipping companies because of the deminimus regulatory costs they impose on companies operating under their flag. All of these nations exempt companies from taxes on income, and employees operating on the vessels do not pay tax on income they earn working aboard. The owners can employ foreign laborers, usually from third world nations, for very little pay, often working in unacceptable conditions. Additionally, the vessel operations are not required to comply with rigorous United States Coast Guard safety and environmental standards, and these operators use private companies to inspect their vessels to ensure that they are in compliance with international safety laws. Mr. President, we are all well aware of the critical role played by the American maritime industry in the economy of Louisiana and our nation. In my home state alone, the total economic impact of that industry was estimated in 1997 to be over $28 billion, supporting approximately 230,000 jobs throughout Louisiana. That economic impact constitutes almost 30 percent of the total gross state product for Louisiana. Louisiana companies were among the first to respond to the nation's call to provide for the rapid transport of critical equipment, munitions, and supplies to the Persian Gulf in those critical days following the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. However, the very existence of the American flag fleet, and thus the related economic and national defense benefits that flow from that fleet, are severely threatened by U.S. tax rules that unfairly hamper and restrict American shipping. I have worked from the first days of my arrival in the Congress to strengthen the U.S.-flag maritime industry and level the playing field in international shipping. Despite the well-intentioned efforts of the Congress, the Maritime Administration and other federal agencies to support the U.S.-flag commercial fleet, unfavorable and clearly noncompetitive U.S. tax policies have led to the continuing decline of that fleet. In fact, according to statistics maintained by the Maritime Administration, the commercial fleet of the United States has fallen into 11th place internationally, in total carrying capacity, ranking behind those fleets of Panama, Liberia, Malta, the Bahamas, and other nations who offer significant economic and tax advantages to their commercial vessels and crews. These same issues have also plagued other industrialized nations that operate shipping under the application of national laws and policies. For instance, between the period of 1975 and 1992, the national flag fleet operations in terms of deadweight carrying capacity decreased by 94% in the United Kingdom, 98% in Norway, 73% in France, 53% in Germany, 73% in Sweden, 98% in Denmark, and 47% in Japan. In order to combat decreases in the operation of shipping under national registries, nations have taken steps to provide direct subsidies or indirect support schemes that help owners offset the higher costs of operating under national laws. Other nations, such as Denmark and Norway, have created what are called international registries, or open registries, and have reduced taxes and societal costs to help offset the costs as compared to flag-of convenience vessels. Out of the eleven largest shipping registries, by carrying capacity, seven operate as flag-of-convenience registries or open registries. The other four nations are Greece, Japan, the People's Republic of China (which operates it's fleet as a governmentally controlled entity), and the United States. Mr. President, what is even more astounding is that the percentage of cargoes carried by U.S.-flag vessels in the foreign trades has also declined precipitously. At the end of World War II, after we had been forced to rebuild our shipping fleet in order to satisfy our defense logistic needs, almost 60 percent of the U.S. oceanborne commerce in international trade was carried aboard U.S.-flag vessels. Today, that figure is a mere 3 percent. To state this another way, 97 out of every 100 tons of cargo imported into or exported from the United States is carried aboard foreign-flagged ships. Through a wide variety of favorable tax incentives, including in most cases a total exemption from taxation, many foreign jurisdictions have succeeded in developing commercial maritime fleets that far exceed the capacity of that in the U.S. What truly concerns me is that the United States is rapidly undermining its very national security through its failure to enable the U.S.-flag commercial fleet to compete on an equal footing with foreign-flagged shipping. I recognize the strategic importance of the U.S.-flag merchant marine and American merchant mariners, and share the views of other senior political and military leaders that the ability of the U.S. to move its military personnel and supplies overseas quickly and effectively is critical to its national security. The United States cannot rely on foreign allies to achieve our national security objectives. We must be able to act decisively, and to act unilaterally, when our strategic interests are jeopardized. To ensure the maritime industry's ability to accomplish this crucial task, the military utilizes privately-owned U.S.-flagged commercial vessels to supplement the military's own transportation systems in both times of war and peace. Without such capability, the military would have to build and operate, at a significantly greater expense to the government and ultimately the U.S. taxpayers, many more military transport vessels to ensure it can effectively respond to military contingencies in a timely manner. As General Colin Powell so accurately observed following the Persian Gulf War in 1991: Our [nation's] strategy requires us to be able to project power quickly and effectively across the oceans to deal with the crisis we couldn't avoid or predict. Sealift will be critical to fulfilling this strategic requirement. . . . [The military] also acknowledges that the merchant marine and our maritime industry will be vital to our national security for many years to come . . . We simply cannot stand idly by while this vital national security asset is undercut through counter productive tax policies that do not allow the U.S.-flag commercial fleet to operate competitively, in the most competitive of all markets--that of international shipping. Mr. President, to preserve that vital national security asset, I believe it is essential to provide a tax environment for U.S.-flag carriers that more closely approaches the favorable tax treatment provided by other maritime nations to their own merchant fleets, while also creating incentives for the construction of new vessels in U.S. shipyards. Foreign tax incentives have significantly undermined the ability of the U.S. to retain a viable commercial fleet for defense purposes and to enhance the balance of trade. By way of example, U.S.- flag commercial vessel operators must pay a 34 percent tax on corporate income and a 50 percent duty on vessel repairs made in foreign countries; they are subject to far more restrictive (and expensive) Coast Guard and other federal operational and safety requirements; and their crewmembers engaged in the foreign trade do not share in the tax relief otherwise provided to U.S. citizens working abroad. On the other hand, owners of foreign-flagged vessels of the Bahamas, Liberia, Malta, Panama and many other countries are totally exempt from any taxation. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that the Bahamas, Liberia, Malta, and Panama have four of the top five commercial fleets in the world, and that vessel owners from around the world regularly register their ships with these countries to avoid taxation. Mr. President, I am not proposing to exempt U.S.-flag vessel owners from U.S. income taxes. Rather, I have developed a comprehensive yet narrowly focused bill that provides the necessary relief to alleviate the tax burden on the U.S.-flag fleet. This legislation is designed to provide a tax environment for U.S.-flag carriers that more closely approaches the favorable tax treatment provided by other maritime nations to their own merchant fleets. The Act includes the following provisions: Capital Construction Fund (CCF) Reform. Title I of the Act would expand the CCF to allow deposits of earnings from U.S. flag, foreign- built ships to be contributed to a CCF for the construction of vessels in the United States. Qualified withdrawals from a CCF would continue to apply only to U.S. built vessels and would be expanded to include vessels that operate between coastwise points of the United States. Contributions to a CCF would no longer be treated as preference items under the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, and owners of U.S. flag ships would also be allowed to deposit into a CCF the duty arising from foreign ship repairs. Election to Expense U.S. Flag Vessels. Significantly, for the majority of the foreign flag commercial fleet, there is no applicable depreciation schedule for commercial vessels because those vessels and their corporate owners and operators are totally exempt from income taxation. Other maritime nations that impose income taxes on commercial vessel operations still have depreciation schedules far more lenient than the anti-competitive 10-year schedule applicable to U.S.-flagged vessels. Therefore, in order to be internationally competitive, Title II of the Act would enable the owner of any U.S. flag vessel engaged in the international trade of the U.S. to fully deduct that vessel in the year in which the vessel is acquired and documented under the U.S. flag. Seaman's Wage Exclusion. Consistent with the current policies and objectives of Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code, Title III of the Act would extend the foreign earned income exclusion to American merchant mariners by changing the definition of ``foreign country'' to include a principal place of employment aboard a commercial vessel operating outside the United States, and amending the foreign residence test to include work aboard a vessel. Alternative Minimum Tax Relief. In order to be internationally competitive, Title IV of the Act repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) with respect to shipping income. No such tax exists on commercial vessels of any other foreign country, and the changes proposed elsewhere in this Act will essentially be meaningless if the AMT continues to apply to shipping income. Deduction of Expenses. The existing tax provision which permits the deduction of expenses with respect to conventions, seminars or other meetings on U.S.-flag cruise vessels traveling between U.S. ports would be expanded by Title V of the Act to include U.S.-flag cruises between the United States and foreign ports. Mr. President, absent the tax reforms in the attached proposal, U.S.- flag carriers in Louisiana and elsewhere will continue to face a formidable tax cost disadvantage against foreign flag carriers, who pay little or no tax to their home countries. This cost differential impedes the ability of U.S.-flag carriers to compete in the global marketplace, as evidenced by the ever growing share of non-U.S. flag carriers currently carrying this nation's imports and exports. It is universally recognized that key components of a strong national economy are a strong national merchant marine and shipyard industrial base, and it is now appropriate to alleviate the tax burden on the U.S.-flag fleet and simultaneously promote construction in U.S. shipyards. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation for the good of our American flag fleet and the security of our nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, in introducing the Private Wireless Spectrum Use Act. This legislation will help the more than 300,000 U.S. companies, both large and small, that have invested $25 billion in internally owned and operated wireless communications systems. It will provide these companies with critically needed spectrum and will do so through an equitable lease fee system. The private wireless communications community includes industrial, land transportation, business, educational, and philanthropic organizations that own and operate communications systems for their internal use. The top 10 U.S. industrial companies have more than 6,000 private wireless licenses. Private wireless systems also serve America's small businesses in the utility, contracting, taxi, and livery industries. These internal-use communications facilities greatly enhance the quality of American life. They also support global competitiveness for American firms. For example, private wireless systems support: the efficient production of goods and services; the safe transportation of passengers and products by land and air; the exploration, production, and distribution of energy; agricultural enhancement and production; the maintenance and development of America's infrastructure; and compliance with various local, State, and Federal operational government statutes. Current regulatory policy inadequately recognizes the public interest benefits which private wireless licensees provide to the American public. Consequently, allocations of spectrum to these private wireless users have been deficient. Private wireless entities received spectrum in 1974 and 1986 when the FCC allocated channels in the 800 megahertz and 900 megahertz bands. Over time, however, the FCC has significantly reduced the number of channels available to industrial and business entities in those allocations. Private wireless entities now have access to only 299 channels, or 32 percent of the channels of the original allocation. Spectrum auctions have done a great job of speeding up the licensing of interpersonal communications services and have generated significant revenues for the U.S. Treasury. They have also unfortunately skewed the spectrum allocation process toward subscriber-based services and away from critical radio services such as private wireless which are exempted from auctions. Nearly 200 megahertz of spectrum has been allocated for the provision of commercial telecommunications services, virtually all of which has been assigned by the FCC through competitive bidding. Competitive bidding is not the proper assignment methodology for private wireless telecommunications users. Private wireless operations are site-specific systems which vary in size based on a user's particular needs, and are seldom mutually exclusive from other private wireless applicants. Auctions, which depend on mutually exclusive applications and use market areas based on population, simply cannot be designed for private wireless systems. Under this legislation, the FCC would allocate no less than 12 megahertz of new spectrum for private wireless use as a measure to maintain our industrial and business competitiveness in the global arena, as well as to protect the welfare of the employees in the American workplace. Research indicates that private wireless companies are willing to pay a reasonable fee in return for use of spectrum. They recognize that their access to spectrum increases with their willingness to pay fair value for the use of this national asset. This bill grants the FCC legislative authority to charge efficiency- based spectrum lease fees in this new spectrum allocation. These lease fees should encourage the efficient use of spectrum by the private wireless industry, generate recurring annual revenues as compensation for the use of spectrum, and retain spectrum ownership by the public. Furthermore, the fee should be easy for private frequency advisory committees to calculate and collect. Mr. President, there may be some who believe this bill does not adequately address all their concerns. I assure all interested parties that I will work with them through the legislative process to address their concerns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, in introducing the Private Wireless Spectrum Use Act. This legislation will help the more than 300,000 U.S. companies, both large and small, that have invested $25 billion in internally owned and operated wireless communications systems. It will provide these companies with critically needed spectrum and will do so through an equitable lease fee system. The private wireless communications community includes industrial, land transportation, business, educational, and philanthropic organizations that own and operate communications systems for their internal use. The top 10 U.S. industrial companies have more than 6,000 private wireless licenses. Private wireless systems also serve America's small businesses in the utility, contracting, taxi, and livery industries. These internal-use communications facilities greatly enhance the quality of American life. They also support global competitiveness for American firms. For example, private wireless systems support: the efficient production of goods and services; the safe transportation of passengers and products by land and air; the exploration, production, and distribution of energy; agricultural enhancement and production; the maintenance and development of America's infrastructure; and compliance with various local, State, and Federal operational government statutes. Current regulatory policy inadequately recognizes the public interest benefits which private wireless licensees provide to the American public. Consequently, allocations of spectrum to these private wireless users have been deficient. Private wireless entities received spectrum in 1974 and 1986 when the FCC allocated channels in the 800 megahertz and 900 megahertz bands. Over time, however, the FCC has significantly reduced the number of channels available to industrial and business entities in those allocations. Private wireless entities now have access to only 299 channels, or 32 percent of the channels of the original allocation. Spectrum auctions have done a great job of speeding up the licensing of interpersonal communications services and have generated significant revenues for the U.S. Treasury. They have also unfortunately skewed the spectrum allocation process toward subscriber-based services and away from critical radio services such as private wireless which are exempted from auctions. Nearly 200 megahertz of spectrum has been allocated for the provision of commercial telecommunications services, virtually all of which has been assigned by the FCC through competitive bidding. Competitive bidding is not the proper assignment methodology for private wireless telecommunications users. Private wireless operations are site-specific systems which vary in size based on a user's particular needs, and are seldom mutually exclusive from other private wireless applicants. Auctions, which depend on mutually exclusive applications and use market areas based on population, simply cannot be designed for private wireless systems. Under this legislation, the FCC would allocate no less than 12 megahertz of new spectrum for private wireless use as a measure to maintain our industrial and business competitiveness in the global arena, as well as to protect the welfare of the employees in the American workplace. Research indicates that private wireless companies are willing to pay a reasonable fee in return for use of spectrum. They recognize that their access to spectrum increases with their willingness to pay fair value for the use of this national asset. This bill grants the FCC legislative authority to charge efficiency- based spectrum lease fees in this new spectrum allocation. These lease fees should encourage the efficient use of spectrum by the private wireless industry, generate recurring annual revenues as compensation for the use of spectrum, and retain spectrum ownership by the public. Furthermore, the fee should be easy for private frequency advisory committees to calculate and collect. Mr. President, there may be some who believe this bill does not adequately address all their concerns. I assure all interested parties that I will work with them through the legislative process to address their concerns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, I want to comment on the legislation pending before the Senate which is the Caribbean Basin Initiative trade bill along with the African trade bill. I remind my colleagues, it came out of the Senate Finance Committee with a unanimous vote. In essence, we did it on a voice vote. At a time when this Congress and perhaps this Senate is becoming better known for what we have not done, we are presented with an opportunity to do something extremely significant in the area of trade for a large part of the world with which the United States deals. When we write about what we did or did not do in this first session of this Congress, it will be clearly pointed out that we did not do Social Security reform, as the Presiding Officer well knows, because of his involvement in an effort to reform that system. We did not do Medicare reform, as the speaker certainly knows, following the efforts of the National Commission on Medicare. We did not do campaign finance reform, and we all remember those arguments. We have not done Patients' Bill of Rights legislation because of the differences of opinion and the politics involved in that legislation. I do not know of any environmental legislation that has worked its way through this body with a resounding vote of support, nor do I remember particularly any major education efforts that have been successfully navigated through this body this year. I have a great fear this body is becoming more known for what we have not done rather than what we have done. I wonder what the American people think of the distinguished Members of this body with whom I have the privilege of serving and why we cannot get together and work out our differences in the interest of the American public. Why do we spend so much of our time debating whose fault it is that nothing is getting done as opposed to working together? We can always have the debate over who did it. At least under those circumstances we would be arguing about success: Look what we did; no, look what we did, rather than arguing about failure and whose fault it is that nothing was done. We have one last opportunity of great significance in this Congress to pass legislation that is bipartisan in its origination, that is strongly supported by the administration, which, when it came before the Senate Finance Committee after the hearings and after the debate, we reported out by a voice vote. The question then becomes: What is the problem now? Some will argue it is the Republicans' fault because they have filled up the tree. That ought to go over well in my State of Louisiana when I tell people we did not pass this bill because the Republicans filled up the tree. They are going to say: What in the world are you talking about? I daresay some are going to say: We did not complete action on this bill because we were not able to offer amendments to it in the nature of other important efforts, such as minimum wage or agricultural provisions, or other trade legislation that some want to offer. Because they cannot offer it now, we are not going to continue our progress on this legislation. I daresay, the American people would say: What in the world are you talking about? Here is a trade bill that affects U.S. jobs, U.S. industry; it helps people who have been loyal to the United States in other parts of the world. It clearly helps Central American nations which not too many years ago were Marxist countries, Communist dictatorships that have gradually been brought into the family of nations with the assistance of the United States, and we want to continue having their support on things that are important for the people of this country. This legislation is a way of doing that--by working out bilateral trade agreements with these countries to the south of us that will help them economically. When we help them economically, they help us. When countries in Central America can do a little bit better economically, they buy more of what we produce. From my own State of Louisiana, they could buy more rice, more soybeans, more manufactured goods. They would ship it through the Port of New Orleans, the Port of Baton Rouge, and the Port of Lake Charles because they have more money and better jobs. They are helped and we are helped. It is a win-win situation. The question is: Why don't we do it? What is the problem? The problem is politics. The problem is political posturing about whose fault it is that it is not getting done. Most of the debate is going to be why we did not do it and blame each other for failure. Then, again, the American people are going to say: What in the world are they talking about? My State is particularly affected by this. I have heard arguments that it is bad for American jobs. My State has lost thousands of jobs in the stitch-and-sew industry. It used to be in Louisiana that thousands of minimum wage employees, many of them minorities, were working in the stitch-and-sew industry for many of these large companies that manufacture items we are talking about today. Many of them were arbitrarily dismissed, arbitrarily fired. Many of them lost their jobs right before Christmas a couple of years ago when most of the companies moved out of my State and went to Central American and Latin American countries and located down there. That has already happened. It did not happen because of this bill. This bill was not being considered then. It happened because of the existing state of the world. I have worked with our people. We have helped them find other jobs. Fortunately, because of the economic conditions of our State and the economic conditions of the United States, the vast majority of these people who lost jobs in the so-called stitch-and-sew industry have found jobs in more sophisticated, if I can use that term, industries in the United States that represent the future of the United States in terms of jobs in the high-tech industries as opposed to something like stitch and sew. What we have been able to do is use some of the training programs and retrain these people to get them into other manufacturing segments, to get them into high technology, to get them into computers, to get them jobs where they now find they are much better off than they were sitting behind a sewing machine stitching and sewing underwear. I argue the future of U.S. employees is not in the stitch-and-sew industry. If we have to somehow preserve jobs in the stitch-and-sew business, we are not being very bullish on America. I argue that is not the future of this country. The future of this country is highly trained men and women who can do the jobs for the 21st century, and that is not in the stitch-and-sew industry. It is interesting. I love my dear friend and colleague from South Carolina who was reading this article in Time about how these companies have, in fact, moved out of the United States. He is absolutely right. One of the things I noticed when I was looking at the article the distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina was pointing out is the article had a picture of the State of Kentucky, and the caption under the article is: ``Fruit of the Loom eliminated more than 7,000 jobs in the past 6 years. Here would-be workers attend a job fair held by new arrival Amazon.com.'' That is particularly important because it says that while stitch-and- sew jobs are moving out of this country, high-tech jobs, better jobs, better paying jobs, more sophisticated jobs, jobs that require more training and a better educated workforce are moving in. The people who were leaving the Fruit of the Loom jobs were moving, on the other hand, into jobs that Amazon.com was providing in that area using those workers and retraining them for the 21st century. That, I argue, is the future of the United States. The future workers of this country are not going to sit behind a sewing machine. If that is the future of this country, I daresay it is not a very bright future. The future is highly trained jobs in highly technical industries which pay well and have a future. We are not going to be able to compete with the poorest of the poor in terms of who can pay the lowest wages. We should be concentrating on educating our workers for the 21st century and then, at the same time, trying to do what we can in the textile industry. The reason I believe it is so very important and necessary to pass this bill is because we say in this trade bill, particularly in the textile industry: Look, we are not going to have the stitch-and-sew jobs, but, by God, we are the best manufacturer of textiles and cloth and fabric. We have the best technical ability to weave and dye the fabric. And this bill, for the first time, says: Look, if we are going to give these countries some advantages, at least we want it to be a two-way street, to at least say, if you are going to be able to do these products in your country, with lower paying jobs, at least use fabric that is manufactured and woven and dyed and assembled in this country. We will send it to you. We will manufacture the fabric, you will use those fabrics to manufacture garments, and then you have the ability to export those products back to this country. Mexico can do it now. China will be able to do it. Unless we have something like this, we are not going to get any part of the business. This legislation, when it talks about the products that are covered, clearly says: Apparel articles assembled in the Caribbean basin and sub-Sahara Africa from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States. What that says to the cotton farmers in my State of Louisiana and throughout the South is that we are going to use their cotton. Without this legislation, we are not going to be using their cotton. The fabric will come from overseas, as well as the finished product. At least this legislation says we will use their cotton. This legislation also says it has to be assembled in this country. It has to be woven in this country. If it is going to have a color to it, it is going to have to be dyed in this country. So we are getting something out of this that we do not have now, that in the absence of this legislation we will not have. Therefore, I think it is very clear this is something that is important to do. The House thought it was. You talk about how bad the House is divided. The House passed this 234-163. Now it is before this body. For those who argue they don't like the process, I don't like the process, either. I would probably like to offer a Medicare reform bill to this legislation. People are looking for a wagon to jump on to get something passed they would like to have passed. I understand that. The problem is that you are affecting the merits of good legislation that was bipartisan when it left the Senate Finance Committee, that passed by voice vote in the Senate Finance Committee, and that merits our support. So my point is that other countries are going to benefit, but we are going to benefit. If we do not have this legislation, other countries will be able to have access to our market with no requirements on using U.S. fabric at all. I think we owe it to the workers of this country who are still engaged in some aspect of this industry to come up with a fair product and fair package like this is. I intend to support this legislation. I think it is the right thing to do. I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to rise to express my thoughts about the loss of a great friend and a dear colleague, Senator John Chafee. The Senate has lost a great Senator and this country has, indeed, lost a great American. All of us in the Senate family have lost a great friend. John Chafee was a Senator who thought of what was best for his country first and thought about the politics, if he did at all, last. All of his colleagues, I know, will have great personal memories of Senator Chafee, how their paths crossed over the years, and the work he did as a leader of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. On our own Senate Finance Committee, when we had such historic debates, Senator Chafee was always in the midst of them. I know his work on the Environment and Public Works Committee will ensure all Americans in the future will breathe cleaner air and drink cleaner water and have to worry less about their health because of the environment in which we all live. He always was a leader in the environmental area and will always be noted for that. It is true; all of us are better off for the services he provided in that capacity. I remember John Chafee and the efforts he and I undertook together. It was, indeed, my privilege to work with him on what became known as the Centrist Committee, a centrist coalition. Senator Chafee was enthusiastic about finding a consensus on the difficult issues that faced our country, but he was concerned about more than just trying to find a consensus; he was really concerned about creating a consensus. His efforts in our little coalition produced some dramatic results because he, in hosting these meetings with our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, truly recognized solutions to difficult problems cannot come from the far left or the far right. These difficult solutions must be found in the center, and that is where I think he found himself most comfortable. We used his hideaway office here in the Senate almost on a weekly basis, as I said, to host meetings between Republicans and Democrats who worked together. We talked to each other rather than merely listened to echoes of ourselves. We actually spoke about the issues and tried to find and recommend solutions that were not necessarily good political solutions but were the right thing to do for this country. I think his greatest accomplishment in this area that I remember was the recommendations that he helped guide in the area of health care. We ultimately brought them to the floor of the Senate and they were adopted by a very strong majority of this Senate, to a large extent because of the credibility John Chafee brought when he was listed as being one of the principal cosponsors. Unfortunately, those recommendations did not become the law of the land, but I am certain, and very confident, that one day they will. So John Chafee will be missed by all of us. He served his State and he served his Nation very well. I look to the day in the Senate when there will be more John Chafee's. Certainly this Nation and this country needs them and we deserve them. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator, and I thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me on this important matter. I certainly agree with the comments of the Senators from Texas and New Mexico that the proposed MMS royalty valuation rule simply will not work. Regulations should reflect a fair, reliable, and accurate royalty valuation system. The issue here is really very simple: How do you set the fair market value of crude oil extracted from Federal lands on which to base the royalty calculation? Oil companies do not determine how much they have to pay--we do. Congress set the royalty percentage in the Mineral Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other Federal laws and these laws provide that the royalty percentage to the Federal Government is \1/6\ or \1/8\ of the total value of the oil. This is a very complicated, ongoing rulemaking procedure to assess legitimate deductions and transportation costs in order to determine the fair market value of oil. But how do you determine the price of oil that is produced in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? You can very easily determine the price of oil at the wellhead, if you sold the oil at the wellhead, some 200 miles offshore. However, the oil is transported hundreds of miles onshore where it is refined and then ultimately sold. The question then becomes: Who pays for the transportation of the oil from the middle of the gulf? It is the Federal Government's oil. Do the companies pay for the transportation or does the Federal Government? There is a huge disagreement on this very difficult and complicated issue. We say to the Interior Department, in the Interior appropriations conference report, that the rule is fundamentally flawed. It does not allow for the legitimate deductions in the costs of transportation that should be allowed. Therefore, do not go forward with this rule. Instead, we are giving Congress and the Interior Department time to come to an agreement on what is appropriate and I am pleased that we have been able to at least delay the rule until a suitable solution can be determined.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act. This bill upholds a long-held principle in the application of the Federal fuels excise tax, and restores this principle for certain single engine ``dual-use'' vehicles. This long-held principle is simple: fuel consumed for the purpose of moving vehicles over the road is taxed, while fuel consumed for ``off- road'' purposes is not taxed. The tax is designed to compensate for the wear and tear impacts on roads. Fuel used for a non-propulsion ``off- road'' purpose has no impact on the roads. It should not be taxed as if it does. Mr. President, this bill is based on this principle, and it remedies a problem created by IRS regulations that control the application of the federal fuels excise tax to ``dual-use'' vehicles. Dual-use vehicles are vehicles that use fuel both to propel the vehicle on the road, and also to operate separate, on-board equipment. The two prominent examples of dual-use vehicles are concrete mixers, which use fuel to rotate the mixing drum, and sanitation trucks, which use fuel to operate the compactor. Both of these trucks move over the road, but at the same time, a substantial portion of their fuel use is attributable to the non-propulsion function. Mr. President, the current problem developed because progress in technology has outstripped the regulatory process. In the past, dual- use vehicles commonly had two engines. IRS regulations, written in the 1950s, specifically exempt the portion of fuel used by the separate engine that operates special equipment such as a mixing drum or a trash compactor. These IRS regulations reflect the principle that fuel consumed for non-propulsion purposes is not taxed. Today, however, typical dual-use vehicles use only one engine. The single engine both propels the vehicle over the road and powers the non-propulsion function through ``power takeoff.'' A major reason for the growth of these single-engine, power takeoff vehicles is that they use less fuel. And a major benefit for everyone is that they are better for the environment. Power takeoff was not in widespread use when the IRS regulations were drafted, and the regulations deny an exemption for fuel used in single- engine, dual-use vehicles. The IRS defends its distinction between one- engine and two-engine vehicles based on possible administrative problems if vehicle owners were permitted to allocate fuel between the propulsion and non-propulsion functions. Mr. President, our bill is designed to address the administrative concerns expressed by the IRS, but at the same time, restore tax fairness for dual-use vehicles with one engine. The bill does this by establishing an annual tax credit available for taxpayers that own a licensed and insured concrete mixer or sanitation truck with a compactor. The amount of the credit is $250 and is a conservative estimate of the excise taxes actually paid, based on information compiled on typical sanitation trucks and concrete mixers. In sum, as a fixed income tax credit, no audit or administrative issue will arise about the amount of fuel used for the off-road purpose. At the same time, the credit provides a rough justice method to make sure these taxpayers are not required to pay tax on fuels that they shouldn't be paying. Also, as an income tax credit, the proposal would have no effect on the highway trust fund. Mr. President, I would like to stress that I believe the IRS' interpretation of the law is not consistent with long-help principles under the tax law, despite their administrative concerns. Quite simply, the law should not condone a situation where taxpayers are required to pay the excise tax on fuel attributable to non-propulsion functions. This bill corrects an unfair tax that should have never been imposed in the first place. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act. This bill upholds a long-held principle in the application of the Federal fuels excise tax, and restores this principle for certain single engine ``dual-use'' vehicles. This long-held principle is simple: fuel consumed for the purpose of moving vehicles over the road is taxed, while fuel consumed for ``off- road'' purposes is not taxed. The tax is designed to compensate for the wear and tear impacts on roads. Fuel used for a non-propulsion ``off- road'' purpose has no impact on the roads. It should not be taxed as if it does. Mr. President, this bill is based on this principle, and it remedies a problem created by IRS regulations that control the application of the federal fuels excise tax to ``dual-use'' vehicles. Dual-use vehicles are vehicles that use fuel both to propel the vehicle on the road, and also to operate separate, on-board equipment. The two prominent examples of dual-use vehicles are concrete mixers, which use fuel to rotate the mixing drum, and sanitation trucks, which use fuel to operate the compactor. Both of these trucks move over the road, but at the same time, a substantial portion of their fuel use is attributable to the non-propulsion function. Mr. President, the current problem developed because progress in technology has outstripped the regulatory process. In the past, dual- use vehicles commonly had two engines. IRS regulations, written in the 1950s, specifically exempt the portion of fuel used by the separate engine that operates special equipment such as a mixing drum or a trash compactor. These IRS regulations reflect the principle that fuel consumed for non-propulsion purposes is not taxed. Today, however, typical dual-use vehicles use only one engine. The single engine both propels the vehicle over the road and powers the non-propulsion function through ``power takeoff.'' A major reason for the growth of these single-engine, power takeoff vehicles is that they use less fuel. And a major benefit for everyone is that they are better for the environment. Power takeoff was not in widespread use when the IRS regulations were drafted, and the regulations deny an exemption for fuel used in single- engine, dual-use vehicles. The IRS defends its distinction between one- engine and two-engine vehicles based on possible administrative problems if vehicle owners were permitted to allocate fuel between the propulsion and non-propulsion functions. Mr. President, our bill is designed to address the administrative concerns expressed by the IRS, but at the same time, restore tax fairness for dual-use vehicles with one engine. The bill does this by establishing an annual tax credit available for taxpayers that own a licensed and insured concrete mixer or sanitation truck with a compactor. The amount of the credit is $250 and is a conservative estimate of the excise taxes actually paid, based on information compiled on typical sanitation trucks and concrete mixers. In sum, as a fixed income tax credit, no audit or administrative issue will arise about the amount of fuel used for the off-road purpose. At the same time, the credit provides a rough justice method to make sure these taxpayers are not required to pay tax on fuels that they shouldn't be paying. Also, as an income tax credit, the proposal would have no effect on the highway trust fund. Mr. President, I would like to stress that I believe the IRS' interpretation of the law is not consistent with long-help principles under the tax law, despite their administrative concerns. Quite simply, the law should not condone a situation where taxpayers are required to pay the excise tax on fuel attributable to non-propulsion functions. This bill corrects an unfair tax that should have never been imposed in the first place. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bond in introducing the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 1999. This is important legislation regarding our children's health. More than 12 million women of childbearing age--one in five--lacked health insurance in 1998, according to the Census Bureau. Lack of insurance leads to bad outcomes for pregnant woman and the children. Pregnant women without health insurance face barriers to care and do not receive the medical attention they need to have healthy babies. The Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act could provide insurance coverage to virtually all pregnant women in the United States. Such coverage will have an enormous impact on the health of children in our nation, by ensuring pregnant women have access to prenatal care and automatically enrolling their babies in their State Children's Health Insurance Program. In the United States, 7.6 out of 1000 babies die before their first birthday. Our nation is ranked 25th, in the world for our infant mortality rate. The statistics in my home state are even more disheartening; in Louisiana where 24.7% of childbearing age women are uninsured, there are 9.8 deaths per 1000 births. Many of these deaths are preventable, and good prenatal care is the first step to ensuring that babies see their first birthday. The Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 1999 addresses these concerns in three ways. One, it would amend Title XXI of the Social Security Act to give states the options to use Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds for health insurance coverage of uninsured low income pregnant women. Two, it would automatically enroll newborns to CHIP eligible women in CHIP for one year. And three, our bill would provide states additional opportunities to tap into a $500 million fund created by the 1996 welfare reform act to help expand Medicaid outreach efforts. This bill would allow the fund to be used for any Medicaid or CHIP outreach initiatives. This Act could provide insurance coverage to 95% of currently uninsured women, by both increasing outreach efforts to pregnant women eligible for Medicaid and by giving states the option to extend CHIP coverage to low income pregnant women over the age of 18. Since the enactment of the welfare reform law, many people who are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP coverage do not realize it and remain unenrolled. It is estimated that 358,000 pregnant woman and 3 million children are eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid. Millions of additional children are eligible for but not yet enrolled in CHIP. This legislation has the potential to lower healthcare costs and keep our babies healthy. By removing barriers to prenatal care access and automatically enrolling babies in their State Children's Health Insurance Program, we can give our children a head start on good health. Research shows that access to appropriate prenatal care improves the outcome of pregnancy. According to the March of Dimes, prenatal care--especially among lower income women--reduces the risk of low birth weight threefold and results in decreased infant mortality rates and healthier babies. According to the Institute of Medicine, each dollar spent on prenatal care for women at high risk, saves $3.38 in medical care costs for low birth-weight babies. This legislation is an important step to ensuring our children have bright and healthy future. I thank Senator Bond for his leadership on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 1999.