John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Sense of the Senate offered by Senator Kerrey and accepted tonight by unanimous consent regarding payroll tax relief. We keep hearing the good news about surpluses but of the $1.55 trillion surplus over the next decade, all but $32 billion comes from the social security trust fund--from payroll taxes paid by working Americans on their wages--taxes that American workers paid to insure the viability of their Social Security benefits. Of families who pay payroll taxes, 80 percent pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. The payroll tax is the most regressive tax in America, disproportionately burdening low income families. Remember that almost 50 percent of households in this country earn under $35,000 per year and most of this income is from wages which are subject to the payroll tax. Given these facts, the payroll tax cut is clearly the tax cut this Congress should be discussing. And we should be discussing it along with the reforms necessary to fix Social Security for all Americans for all time. I know there are many Senators here who share my sentiments. I served with Senator Gregg on a bipartisan commission that thorougly studied this issue and we have recommended a comprehensive reform package. Senator Kerrey and Senator Moynihan have been working on a bill. Others in this bodies are also working on social security reforms. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to not only reduce taxes but to shore up social security and create wealth for working Americans.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Given the importance of this project, I hope that the conferees will agree to provide funding for completion of the enhanced radio system for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Department.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator Gregg, the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, Senator Hollings, the Subcommittee's distinguished Ranking Member, and Senator Landrieu, my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, concerning an important public safety matter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. As my colleagues know, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office has gained attention as one of our nation's most innovative and accomplished law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the Sheriff's Office's has been stymied in the past by a grossly inadequate and outdated conventional 450 MHz UHF radio system that has threatened public safety. It simply cannot provide the secure and varied communications capabilities needed by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office in order for it to communicate with various state and federal law enforcement agencies. To meet its operational needs, the Sheriff's Department has pursued the purchase of a new 800 MHz communications system. This new system will enable the Sheriff's Office to maintain a high and secure level of communication with district personnel and others. Through better communication, each officer can patrol his or her reporting areas more effectively. The new system will also enable the Sheriff's Office to successfully communicate with residents and other public safety officials during emergency situations, such as natural disasters, which require coordination of state and federal efforts. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for recognizing the importance of this project and for providing partial funding for this initiative in last year's appropriations bill. Unfortunately, Congress only provided half of what the Sheriff's Office needs to complete the new communications system. Now is the time for Congress to finish its commitment to fund this project.

Mr. BREAUX. The support from the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee in this matter is greatly appreciated. data survey of narragansett bay

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I call to the Senate's attention the serious and significant drought which has occurred in Louisiana this year. The combination of a prolonged lack of rainfall and persistent high temperatures have resulted in a natural disaster of historic proportions. For those affected, damages have been hard-hitting. As we debate the 1999 agricultural appropriations bill and amendments to it which respond to severe agricultural distress throughout the nation this year, caused by weather-related damages and low commodity prices, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the situation in Louisiana. On June 18 of this year, Governor M.J. ``Mike'' Foster and Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Bob Odom wrote to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman about the drought in Louisiana. Though adequate production records were not yet available at the time of their letter, Governor Foster and Commissioner Odom told Secretary Glickman substantial losses were expected in the state and that they expected to be requesting a disaster declaration as soon as adequate production information could be obtained. Various row crops and pine and hardwood seedlings have been affected in Louisiana by the drought, they said. Cattle have been affected because of severe hay and pasture shortages. Poultry losses also have occurred due to the high temperatures. Illustrative of the drought's historic character, they pointed out that records have been set for the least amount of rainfall received in the month of May, with rainfall records going back more than 100 years. Though Congressionally-authorized programs are in place at USDA to respond to disasters, I urge the Senate to be prepared to respond further and promptly as conditions and impacts would worsen. Mr. President, we know that production disruptions brought about by the drought will cause economic disruptions for producers. In addition, the communities in which our producers live also will be affected. It is for these reasons that I urge close attention to crop disasters and low prices and a readiness to act as warranted.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the efforts of Gerard and Myriam Ubaghs of Margraten, Netherlands, who have cared for the graves of American servicemen killed in the line of duty during World War II. In September of 1944, the United States Army reached the German frontier and entered the Netherlands near the city of Maastricht. By September 13, 1944, the troops of the U.S. 30th Infantry Division liberated part of eastern Holland, freeing the area from the grip of Nazi Germany. During the battle, 8,302 soldiers lost their lives including American servicemen from every state in the Union. I, as well as all American citizens, am truly thankful for the bravery, valor, and patriotism shown by our soldiers who fought and died for their country on that day and every day of World War II. These servicemen not only gave their lives for their country, but also died for the people of the Netherlands. For this, the citizens of the Netherlands have been and remain truly grateful to the fallen soldiers of the U.S. Army. One manifestation of their appreciation is their care for the Netherlands American Cemetery in the town of Margraten, in the Limburg Province of the Netherlands. This cemetery is the only one of its kind in the Netherlands. It was established in November of 1944 and free use of the land as a permanent burial ground was granted, without charge or taxation by the government of the Netherlands. The cemetery occupies 65.5 acres and includes a 101 foot-tall tower, a Court of Honor, a chapel and a reflecting pool. Among the 8,302 graves lie the remains of American, English, Canadian and Mexican troops. I would like to thank not only the people of the Netherlands for this cemetery, but two individuals in particular who have honored our fallen servicemen for fifty-three years. They are Gerard and Myriam Ubaghs. As children, after the liberation of their town by American troops, they adopted and cared for two graves until the bodies were identified and returned to the United States. To this day, they continue to honor our fallen soldiers and express much gratitude to America. I would like to officially acknowledge the Ubaghs and the people of Margraten, and thank them for their gracious deeds and for honoring our fallen soldiers. Their service is a reminder to all of us how the efforts of such brave soldiers on a day more than fifty years ago effects people around the world even today.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this time on the floor to inform my colleagues, and others who may have an interest in the fact, that the Medicare Commission will be having a field hearing on Monday coming outside of Washington in Minneapolis, MN. As always, it is the intention of myself as chairman of the Medicare Commission, along with my colleague from the House, Bill Thomas, and all of the commission members, that we need to get as much information from outside of Washington about the Medicare problem as we possibly can. This effort in bringing the commission to the city of Minneapolis, MN, on Monday for a rather very, very full agenda of activities in Minneapolis relating to Medicare is to give all of us an opportunity to gather information, which will be extremely important in helping us make the very difficult but extremely important recommendations that we are required by Congress to make to the President, and also to the Congress by March 1st of this coming year. Our hearing will consist of a site visit in the morning where commissioners will choose from one of four sites, three of which will have the direct interaction with Medicare beneficiaries. I would like to cover some of the sites that we will be visiting so people will know exactly what this commission is going to be doing. We will have a chance to visit the Wilder Senior Services Clinic, which is a Minnesota Senior Health Options Clinic, which is really a demonstration program now being run by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It serves seniors who find themselves in the unique position of being eligible for Medicare, and also being eligible for Medicaid at the same time. These people are so-called dual beneficiaries who can get their health coverage from two separate programs. And how this particular operation is handling it is something that I think we can benefit from seeing. The second site visit that we are going to take the commission to is a Fairview University Medicare Center, the Mayo Clinic, the world famous medical institution in Minneapolis, where our commissioners will have the opportunity to really tour an integrated care clinical site and observe telemedicine demonstrations with the Mayo Clinic in a rural facility outside of the city, and also a visit with providers and beneficiaries and also administrators. Third, the commissioners will be able to also visit Medtronic, which develops and manufacturers medical devices to treat cardiovascular and neurological disorders. The idea is to tour these facilities to look at the impact that new technology, of which the United States is a world leader in producing, has on the future of Medicare. Clearly, as we are able to produce more sophisticated equipment facilities to treat health care beneficiaries in this country, it is going to have a direct effect on the Medicare Program, and hopefully for the better. The final site visit opportunity we will be taking is the United Health Care Research Center, an Institute for Health Care Quality, where we will tour their facilities and learn about how United Health Care gathers and analyzes patient data to evaluate medical outcomes and cost-effectiveness as a treatment. It is very important that we study how various forms of health care affect outcomes, both from a health standpoint, as well as from a cost standpoint. Then, beginning at noon at the Minneapolis Convention Center, our commissioners will then hear from people who will make presentations to our committee in the form of three panels. The first panel we will hear from is the Buyers Health Care Action Group, which is interestingly a coalition of 27 large, Twin-Cities- based self-insured employers--companies like 3M, General Mills, and Honeywell. This panel hopefully will give the commission an opportunity to hear from private companies regarding how they purchase health care for their employees and what the result has been for their employees, as well as what the results have been for their companies. The second panel will be a panel of managed care plans to talk about their experience in the managed care market in Minneapolis, which has had managed care around longer than most places in the country. With the debate on Medicare both in the Congress and in the public in general I think it is important that we look at some of them and try to understand better how they are working in providing quality health care and reduced costs for Medicare beneficiaries. The third and last panel we will hear from is current and future beneficiaries on information that they need and use in making health care decisions. It is really important with the new proposal coming out of the Health Care Financing Authority, HCFA, coming October 1st. Medicare is not going to be like it used to be. People who are Medicare beneficiaries are going to get some choice options. They are going to have different decisions to make about whether they want to go into managed care. It is very important for seniors and their families to understand that grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, and others are going to have to make some different decisions about their health care. While this can be a little bit frightening, I think we should look upon it as a real opportunity to give them more choice and ultimately better services than they currently get under Medicare. We can be very proud of what Medicare has done. Medicare is not that great a plan in the 1990s. It doesn't provide eyeglass coverage; it doesn't provide prescription drugs; it doesn't provide long-term health care. Most beneficiaries think it is a wonderful program, and, indeed, it is. But it is not nearly as good as most health plans in the country today that are private plans which provide generally a lot more benefits to the beneficiaries than Medicare does. So we are going to be looking at how people get their information and what information they need in order to make these choices. The rest of the afternoon is going to be devoted to public interest, to really have the commission sit and listen to Mr. and Mrs. America and tell us what they would like to see in Medicare for the future. We have 2 hours set aside for audience participation. We call this session a ``Call for Solutions'' where we have invited ordinary citizens from the Minnesota region and area to submit their ideas and recommendations for improving Medicare. In addition to the field hearing that we will be having in Minneapolis, we will also be continuing to explore other ways to get input from the public. We don't have to visit every city and every State and every county in America to hear from America. In this century, as we move to the 21st century, we are going to be making use of teleconferencing, video conferencing. Commission meetings that we have had so far have been covered in full by C-SPAN. We have a national web site. We have had 13 commission and task force meetings since March 6th, all of which have been open to the public for their information. I think we have a very ambitious schedule, as I have just outlined, for the Monday field hearings in Minneapolis. I urge my colleagues to continue to be mindful of what we are attempting to do. If they have suggestions, we are open to receiving those suggestions. Hopefully, we will have their participation as we draft recommendations for the full Congress and for the President, so we can make the reforms necessary to preserve, protect, and even, indeed, improve Medicare for future generations. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which I believe will help achieve the development of a United States cruise vessel industry and generate numerous economic benefits for our country through the operation of United States-flag cruise vessels between American ports. There is little doubt that we should take significant and innovative action so that American ports, businesses and workers can share in the economic benefits that can be realized through the operation of cruise vessels in the United States domestic trade. Recently, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine held an oversight hearing on the need to generate cruise vessel operations between American ports. In fact, as a result of the hearing, many of our colleagues, including the Chairman of our Commerce Committee Senator McCain, are committed to moving forward on cruise vessel legislation this year so our port economies throughout the country can begin to benefit through cruise vessel operations. As strongly as I am committed to helping ports in my state of Louisiana and throughout our country to attract and benefit from increased cruise vessel operations, I am equally convinced that we will not achieve the full measure of these economic benefits if we simply allow foreign flag passenger vessels to operate between America's ports. Rather, I believe we should be directing our efforts to develop a large, modern and competitive cruise vessel fleet comprised of vessels built in the United States, operated under the United States- flag, and crewed by United States citizens. Otherwise, we would simply be allowing foreign companies and foreign workers to receive all the privileges and benefits that come with operating in the United States domestic trade without any of the associated and resultant obligations and responsibilities we impose on American companies and American workers. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to reflect the economic realities facing companies seeking to enter the domestic cruise trade and the desire of American ports to attract cruise vessels as quickly as possible. It will jumpstart the domestic cruise vessel industry by allowing American companies to acquire foreign built cruise vessels and operate those ships in the domestic cruise trade under very specific and limited circumstances. These vessels will be documented under the laws of the United States, run with American citizen crews, and operated in compliance with all applicable United States laws, regulations and tax obligations. My legislation reflects the principles embodied in our Nation's cabotage laws while recognizing that a waiver of the Passenger Vessel Services Act, under specific terms and conditions, is absolutely necessary to attract United States-flag cruise vessels into our domestic trades. Especially significant is the fact that in order to take advantage of the authority to operate such vessels in the domestic trades, the owner must agree, and my legislation requires, that they will first enter into a contract to build a replacement vessel or vessels in a United States shipyard. I share the desire of Senator McCain and our colleagues to develop legislation that will immediately and dramatically increase domestic cruise vessel operations. However, I am convinced that we should not let this present opportunity pass by--we have a legitimate opportunity to increase the size of the oceangoing United States-flag cruise vessel fleet and to greatly increase the opportunity for American ports to attract and benefit from cruise vessel activity. I am aware of at least one American company ready to take advantage of this legislation, acquire two modern, attractive, large cruise vessels and operate them under the United States-flag under the terms and conditions set forth in my proposal. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in support of this proposal so we can achieve the operation and construction of United States-flag cruise vessels. 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 introduce legislation which I believe will help achieve the development of a United States cruise vessel industry and generate numerous economic benefits for our country through the operation of United States-flag cruise vessels between American ports. There is little doubt that we should take significant and innovative action so that American ports, businesses and workers can share in the economic benefits that can be realized through the operation of cruise vessels in the United States domestic trade. Recently, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine held an oversight hearing on the need to generate cruise vessel operations between American ports. In fact, as a result of the hearing, many of our colleagues, including the Chairman of our Commerce Committee Senator McCain, are committed to moving forward on cruise vessel legislation this year so our port economies throughout the country can begin to benefit through cruise vessel operations. As strongly as I am committed to helping ports in my state of Louisiana and throughout our country to attract and benefit from increased cruise vessel operations, I am equally convinced that we will not achieve the full measure of these economic benefits if we simply allow foreign flag passenger vessels to operate between America's ports. Rather, I believe we should be directing our efforts to develop a large, modern and competitive cruise vessel fleet comprised of vessels built in the United States, operated under the United States- flag, and crewed by United States citizens. Otherwise, we would simply be allowing foreign companies and foreign workers to receive all the privileges and benefits that come with operating in the United States domestic trade without any of the associated and resultant obligations and responsibilities we impose on American companies and American workers. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to reflect the economic realities facing companies seeking to enter the domestic cruise trade and the desire of American ports to attract cruise vessels as quickly as possible. It will jumpstart the domestic cruise vessel industry by allowing American companies to acquire foreign built cruise vessels and operate those ships in the domestic cruise trade under very specific and limited circumstances. These vessels will be documented under the laws of the United States, run with American citizen crews, and operated in compliance with all applicable United States laws, regulations and tax obligations. My legislation reflects the principles embodied in our Nation's cabotage laws while recognizing that a waiver of the Passenger Vessel Services Act, under specific terms and conditions, is absolutely necessary to attract United States-flag cruise vessels into our domestic trades. Especially significant is the fact that in order to take advantage of the authority to operate such vessels in the domestic trades, the owner must agree, and my legislation requires, that they will first enter into a contract to build a replacement vessel or vessels in a United States shipyard. I share the desire of Senator McCain and our colleagues to develop legislation that will immediately and dramatically increase domestic cruise vessel operations. However, I am convinced that we should not let this present opportunity pass by--we have a legitimate opportunity to increase the size of the oceangoing United States-flag cruise vessel fleet and to greatly increase the opportunity for American ports to attract and benefit from cruise vessel activity. I am aware of at least one American company ready to take advantage of this legislation, acquire two modern, attractive, large cruise vessels and operate them under the United States-flag under the terms and conditions set forth in my proposal. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in support of this proposal so we can achieve the operation and construction of United States-flag cruise vessels. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments on the IRS Reform Act, which is now on the floor. This is indeed, in my opinion, a very historic day. Never before in the history of the Internal Revenue Service have we ever had legislation that brought about massive changes to an institution that is not thought of too well by the American people. This legislation goes far beyond anything that Congress has ever done in trying to reform the Internal Revenue Service. I want to join with others in commending a couple of people for the work they have done, particularly the chairman of our committee, the distinguished Senator Roth, who chaired the hearings, which really woke up a number of Members of Congress to the massive problems that were out there. It was really very moving to hear American citizens come in and actually tell about their experiences and the abuses they had suffered as a result of the Internal Revenue Service. I would, I think, fairly and properly add, however, that the vast majority of the people who both work for and work at the IRS are good, honest, decent citizens of this country, who are very loyal to what America stands for and respect the rights of taxpayers in this country. But as in any institution, whether it be government or private, there are abuses. What the hearings were able to do was to lay out in a public forum the problems with the current bureaucracy that represents the Internal Revenue Service. I want to commend, in addition to Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan for the work he has been doing, and I think Senator Hutchinson was proper in pointing out also the work done by a former Member of this body who used to sit right about over there on the Democratic side, a member of the Democratic leadership, David Pryor. He is not with us today, he is residing in Arkansas, but he is with us in spirit in the sense that we are discussing today something that he started a long, long time ago with his Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Long before the Roth hearings, David Pryor was working on this particular problem in bringing our attention to the defects that the IRS had. He always stood up for the individual taxpayers of America. I know that wherever he is in Arkansas, or wherever today, he is justifiably proud of the work that is being done today because he led the way in that area. The final person is Senator Kerrey in this body from the great State of Nebraska who chaired an IRS reform commission. As one who chairs a commission right now, I know how difficult it is to try to get people to agree and make recommendations on how to reform legislation. Many times a commission has so many experts on it that it is difficult to get any kind of consensus about change. But Senator Kerrey led the way in getting a commission to focus in on this problem and help produce legislation and recommendations. Without his work on the committee itself this product would not be in the good shape that it is in today. I am reminded of the old stories, which are repeated in Louisiana. You have various versions of this. One of them heard is about the two greatest lies ever told. The first one is people who say, ``I am from the Federal Government. I am here to help you.'' Of course, the second greatest lie could be just about anything that you want to add to it. And I have heard various variations, which I would not care to repeat on the floor of the Senate. But the first one is, ``I am from the Federal Government. I am here to help you.'' It is true in a sense that people have a great deal of mistrust in many institutions of government. That is unfortunate. When most people think of the Internal Revenue Service, they do not think of the word ``service.'' They think of fear, they think of intimidation, they think of threats, and they think of all sorts of things, none of which are very good. The last thing they think of is service. This legislation today will go a long way to restoring service to the Internal Revenue Service and letting that agency of our government know that their principal function is to serve the people of this country. They work for the taxpayers--not the other way around. The taxpayers in Louisiana should know this is a major improvement in how that agency is going to have to operate in the future, so that no longer if you get a letter from the Internal Revenue Service should there be a fear of opening it. No longer if you get a call to come down and meet with someone from the IRS should you be intimidated about having to fulfill that request. Some have advocated: ``Just abolish the agency.'' That is a good headline. That will get you 15 seconds of fame perhaps. But is it responsible? No. Is saying, ``We are going to abolish the Tax Code; and don't worry, sometime in the future we may replace it with something we hope might be better than we have now,'' responsible? How do you buy a house if you do not know what the Tax Code is going to be? How do you make a business investment if you do not know what the tax laws are going to be in 12 months? While it is very simple to say, ``Let's abolish everything and hopefully one day we will replace it with something that will be better than we have today,'' I question whether that is the responsible thing to do. It is much easier to, as they say, kick down the barn than it is to construct a new one. But what we are trying to do with the Roth legislation and people who put this package together is to say we want to repair what is broken. We want to reform what needs reform. We want to tell the American taxpayers there will be predictability in how and when and how much tax they legally owe to run the government functions that are important to this country. This legislation accomplishes what I think is incredibly the most massive change in the IRS that we have ever had since the agency was created--to restore service, to restore confidence, to restore fairness to the American people when they have to deal with their government, which hopefully will treat them in a fashion that makes all of us much prouder of the work that we have done with this legislation. Let me just make a comment about one particular aspect of the legislation which I think is important. The government, it is clear, has thousands of lawyers working for the IRS on behalf of the government--when a taxpayer is called upon, and it is said that they are deficient in some kind of a way--to represent the government's interests. Now, under this legislation we will have a taxpayer advocate who will now be called the National Taxpayer Advocate. We have done more than just change the name. We have changed the functions. Taxpayers should know that they will have someone who will be on their side when they have a problem to discuss with the IRS--someone who will represent their interests, and not just represent the interests of the government against them, but represent their interests before their own government. I think that is incredibly important. The National Taxpayer Advocate will be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, but only after consulting with the Commissioner of the IRS and the new IRS oversight board. It is very important to further point out that the Advocate would have to have experience in customer service representing customers--not representing just the government. You will have a requirement that he also--or she--has to have experience in tax law and have experience representing individual taxpayers. You would think you would not have to spell that out. But we have to make sure that person who is going to be in that position has experience representing individual taxpayers, has a knowledge of the tax law of this country, and also has background in customer service, also getting back to the point that this is a service organization of our government. I think it is particularly important to ensure their independence-- that we have also required in this legislation that the Taxpayer Advocate cannot have been an IRS employee within 2 years of his or her appointment, and must agree not to work for the IRS for 5 years after serving in this position. Why is that important? I think it is pretty obvious--to ensure their independence. We just do not want to pull someone out of the IRS and have them serve in this position representing taxpayers knowing that one day they will go right back to the IRS, or to have a career in the IRS and have that mindset guiding what they do representing the individual taxpayers. No. We have done just the opposite. We say that the Taxpayer Advocate has to have experience in representing the taxpayer and have experience in customer relations and not be an employee of the IRS, and not go to the IRS within 5 years after they leave this job. What that will ensure is that we will have a National Taxpayer Advocate who will be truly interested representing the individual taxpayer, so that taxpayer will know that there is someone on his or her side for a change when they have to present their case. I also point out that people believe lots of Americans are audited. That is not true. It is not true at all. Less than 2 percent of the people in the country are ever audited by the IRS. Ninety-eight percent of the people, plus--more than 98 percent--file their taxes, pay their taxes, maybe get a refund, and maybe have to owe something. But that is it. Ninety-eight percent plus of the people in this country are never audited, and abide by the law. Less than 2 percent ever have a problem with having to be audited. But when a person falls into that situation, under the new IRS service they will be assured of the fact that there will be an advocate who will stand by their side and represent their interests, and not just be an IRS employee, saying, ``Don't worry, we will take care of you.'' This is a major part of the reform that we will be voting on today. I would just say that this is monumental change. It is important. I think everyone who has worked and contributed to this effort, of which there have been many, would conclude with me that when we work in a bipartisan fashion we produce good results. And that is what we are voting on today--good legislation for all of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Coverdell for his work and Senator Torricelli, on our side, who has contributed so much to this debate. It gets down to basics: Are we interested in helping kids and families or helping buildings? I think the clear argument is that we should be helping students and helping families educate their children, wherever they attend school. One of the arguments against this bill I have heard is that, well, it gives some type of Government assistance to private or parochial schools. I want to address that issue because I think it is not a legitimate concern. I have a book here that is put out by the Department of Education, our Federal department here in Washington. It is a book of all the programs that exist currently where Federal tax dollars are used to help students regardless of where they go to school, as long as it is a legitimate school. This book is full of programs. It has about 70 pages of Federal programs that go to children. If you are poor, if you are disadvantaged, or if you have a disability, you can use that assistance to go to the school you want to go to. Now, the largest program we have in the Federal Government is Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It has been federal law since 1965. Let me read where Title I funds go: Elementary and secondary education as originally passed by Congress in 1965. Under this legislation, private school students, private school teachers, private school other personnel are included in the program. We do that already. We have done it since 1965. One in four schools in the country happen to be private or parochial. We are talking about helping the child get a better education, which is in the national interest. Yet, people say we are breaking a tradition of not helping private or parochial schools. We have bookloads of programs that do exactly that. This bill is consistent with that--completely and totally. In addition to Title I, which goes to students, like this education savings account goes to the families and students, we have other programs in the book. I will mention one or two. Child nutrition programs--do we not help private/parochial students with child nutrition programs? Of course, we do. It is important. Students with disabilities also get help. What about students who are not disadvantaged and do not have a disability? Are we going to ignore them? That is the largest group of people out there. I suggest this makes a great deal of sense. Talk about consistent. Just last year, this Congress, this body, most Democrats, and Republicans as well, voted for the $500 IRA savings account for higher education. It has the same limits on income as this proposal. The only thing we have done is make this for students in K through 12, and parents can set aside a little private money to help the child go to the school that is in their best interest to go to. We are not talking about a voucher; we are talking about a family taking their own money and putting their own money in their own savings account to help educate their child. It was very clear that the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997--the President signed it and I congratulate him for participating and signing it--is the same program. It is just that it was for higher education. If you went to Saint Michael's College, you got a $500 savings account. Nobody thought that was an infringement on trying to give Federal aid to private/parochial schools. We all applauded that. Let's do the same thing for the same families, with the same income limits. Let them, for K through 12, set aside a private savings account and draw interest on it and use it for school expenses for the child. All of a sudden, this is something that is novel, something we have never done before. Of course, we have. We did it last year. We have been aiding those students since 1965 with the largest Federal education in program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Students in Louisiana, when they are in a private or parochial school, get the same dollars, the same money, the same program benefits, the same child nutrition programs, and the same education for disabilities assistance. That is part of what our country is about-- trying to help educate children. We are not talking about vouchers. We are not talking about doing anything other than help families help their children. Why do we always ignore middle-income working families? If you are poor, we have a program. If you have a disability, we have a program. If you have other problems and special education needs, you have a program. But if you are middle income and struggling to make it and raise a family and keep the family together, we say no, that is an infringement. It is time to encourage working middle-income Americans who are struggling, to help them to have more savings to invest in their children's education. Let's not encourage families to say, ``I have no interest in it; let the government do it.'' We are saying let's create an incentive for families, middle-income working families, to help their children K through 12, and not be, I think, arguing that somehow we are breaking new ground, and saying ``My God, what are we going to do?'' We are doing what we have done consistently since the government has been involved in trying to help many families and help counties and parishes in my State improve the educational systems in their respective. I commend this bill for our support.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, may I have a few minutes from either Senator?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding some of her time. As well, I thank Chairman Hatch for the work that he did on this legislation. I think the two previous speakers really need to be congratulated for bringing to the Senate a commonsense approach to what has become a very tragic situation. I would like to make just a few comments about it. You know, in Louisiana, where I am from, there is an old saying that if you like the end product, there are two things you should never watch being made; one is sausage, and the other is laws; because if you like the end product, you don't like the process that you go through to make either laws or sausage. If you observe it too carefully, you will never like the end product, perhaps is what they are trying to say. The point I am trying to make today is, what has happened on the tobacco legislation, I think, is indeed very, very tragic, because what started out with very good intentions has ended up with a very serious loss for all Americans who are concerned about trying to do something about tobacco. There was a poll by one of the television networks on Friday night. It said that 47 percent of the American people were pleased that the tobacco legislation that came up in the Senate was defeated; 46 percent said that they were disappointed it was defeated. The American people have to be horribly confused about the situation, where we are and what has transpired. Do you know what we are engaged in now? We are now engaged in Monday morning quarterbacking. Members of both parties are trying to figure out how we can blame each other for the defeat of something that started off so pure and so good, with the best of intentions. Now all you see is spinmeisters saying, well, it is the Republicans' fault, because they are trying to load it up with marriage penalties and vouchers and they made it a tax bill and then they decided it was too loaded up after they loaded it up. There are some on our side who said, ``Well, no, this legislation wasn't nearly enough and wasn't tough enough on tobacco. We can be tougher on the tobacco companies than anybody else. Just watch what we can do when we want to be tough on tobacco companies.'' So we started with a product that was a good product in the beginning. Then, we made it so difficult that you broke the cooperation between all of the parties that is essential to get any kind of good agreement. I suggest there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. That is why 47 percent of the American people believe they are glad the tobacco bill is defeated; 46 percent do not feel happy, that the Senate should have passed it. The American people have to be horribly confused. I think now we have to take a look at where we are. What do we do? Do we continue to play the blame game for the rest of the year? Do we continue to see who can get the most political advantage? Or do we try to make one last desperate but incredibly important effort to put something together that we can pass and that will work? It is really interesting if you look at what happened. You have to start from where we started. The June 20 attorneys general agreement was a compromise that really got the job done. People have come to the floor of the Senate and said, ``I can't be for that because this bill was written by the health groups.'' Others have said, ``I can't be for this bill because this bill was written by the tobacco companies.'' Or they can't be for this because it was written by the attorneys general or it was written by the plaintiffs' lawyers. The truth, in fact, is the reason the June 20 attorneys general agreement was so good is because it was written by everyone involved. It was written by the attorneys general, who filed suit on behalf of 40 States against the tobacco companies. It was written by the tobacco companies, who were the ones being sued. It was written by the lawyers for all of the injured plaintiffs who had suffered injuries from smoking-related activities. That is why it worked, because it was not written by just one group, but it was written by everybody who had an interest in trying to get a realistic settlement passed. Now, all of the people who have now said that what we had on the floor was not nearly enough, I think they thought the June 20 agreement was pretty good. I was just looking at some of the old press releases about the June 20 agreement. One caught my attention the most. It was from the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids, which has been one of the strongest advocates for more, more, more, more, more. I understand where they are coming from, and I understand their position. But when the June 20 agreement came out with the attorneys general and the tobacco companies, which was far less than the bill they opposed on the floor from their perspective, here is what they said about the June 20 agreement: The agreement with the tobacco industry announced by the state Attorneys General has the potential to save millions of lives, prevent children from starting to smoke, and help break the cycle of addiction for both children and adults. They continued: This agreement has the potential to achieve more than could be realistically gained by any other means. The agreement can be a historic turning point in the decades-old fight to protect children from tobacco addiction and bring about a fundamental change in the role of tobacco and the tobacco industry in our lives. They continued by saying: The agreement goes well beyond the provisions of the FDA Rule in terms of reducing youth access to tobacco products and curbing tobacco marketing. It goes on and on and on praising the June 20 agreement. The bill on the Senate floor was far better than this agreement, which they said such wonderful things about, yet because of a desire for more and more and who can be tougher, we ended up getting less and less and less. And where we are today is very unfortunate. Where we are today is, there is no settlement of any of the lawsuits. No plaintiff has ever put a nickel in their pocket as a result of suing a tobacco company. This would have provided that. No settlements because of where we are; no money for the States for their Medicaid programs; no money for the States for tobacco-related expenses; no money for the National Institutes of Health to do research in this area; no additional authority for FDA to regulate nicotine as a drug; no advertising and marketing restrictions; no targets for reducing teen smoking, with penalties if these targets are not met. There is no help for farmers for getting out of the business. And what we have now is a debate about whose fault it is. We are arguing about failure. We are arguing that, ``It's your fault nothing was done''; ``No; it's your fault nothing was done,'' instead of trying to put together a compromise where we can argue about success, where we can argue about a bill that would provide all of these things that I have just outlined, and the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee outlined and about which the Senator from California spoke. We have none of that now. And we have none of that because of this rush to see who can be tougher and tougher and tougher. I am suggesting that what Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein have brought before the Senate is a major undertaking. And we are at the point where it is time for cooler heads to prevail. We have had the political debate. We have had the political arguments. We have had the pollsters talk about who comes out the best. And in fact, the truth is we all come out, I think, looking pretty bad. So I conclude by thanking Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein for doing what they are doing. The status of the tobacco legislation now, because of the Senate's action, is that it has been sent back to the Commerce Committee. I think we ought to take this legislation and bring it back to the full Senate. Now that we have had the political discussion, perhaps we can find a way to come together and do something where everybody can get credit. Both sides can get credit, and the American people will win. Right now we have a situation where I am afraid that everybody is a loser. This is a good, solid, balanced approach that needs to be enacted. Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we are in the middle of the debate on the so-called tobacco legislation which has been ongoing for a number of days. I think that it is appropriate to pause for a moment and to consider where we are and where we have been and to try to come up with an idea of where this debate is likely to go. Because I think that with all the debate and discussion we have had, there is some confusion as to exactly what has been happening. I think it is very important to recognize that in order to know where you are going, it is also important to actually know from where you started. I think if you look at where we started, Congress became involved in this tobacco legislation really as a result of attorneys general litigation on behalf of all the various States trying to recover money for the States' Medicaid programs, which had suffered a loss because of payments for people who had suffered disease and injury because of smoking-related activities. When it comes to this issue, I want to make one point very, very clear. I do not think any of us need to be lectured to about the problem that is facing us. All of us have examples and instances in our own lives that make the problems associated with cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry very, very clear. In my own family, my mother died of lung cancer--lung cancer that was clearly and directly related to years of tobacco use. In addition, my father-in-law died of lung cancer and tumors related clearly to smoking and exposure, probably at the same time, to asbestos. Probably each Member of this body and also the other body has similar stories they can relate that personally affect them in their approach to this legislation. You simply cannot divorce it. People are affected for a lifetime by personal experiences, and mine are not any different from probably many of my colleagues'. So when I approach this issue, it is with the intent of wanting to do something to reduce underage smoking in this country. In order to determine where we are going, it is important to look where we started. The June 20 agreement was the baseline. It was the agreement the attorneys general of this Nation, who deserve a great deal of credit, were able to reach as a result of litigation in the courts of America against the tobacco companies of America. That settlement that was immense in what it did. It was immense in the proportions of good that it did. I would like to outline it for a moment to show where we started. That June 20 agreement would have settled the lawsuits brought by all 40 States. It would have settled them. The States would have been compensated in their State Medicaid programs for funds that they spent to treat smokers. That is what the States wanted. It affected literally millions of people. In addition, it would have settled all of the individual lawsuits around this country, and people would have been compensated as a result of that settlement. In addition, it provided funds to cover the costs of implementing and enforcing several public health programs related to solving the problems of underage tobacco use and also to try to find ways to cure diseases caused by smoking. The tobacco companies, under that agreement, would have paid $368.5 billion, not including the attorneys' fees, over a 25-year period. Payments at the rate of $15 billion per year would have continued forever. It is important for us to note that for the previous 40 years there was not an individual in this country who ever put a nickel in their pocket as a result of litigation against tobacco companies. So to say that you get $368 billion-plus to cover the costs of individual suits, and to use those moneys for health programs, is monumental in what it achieved because no one had ever walked off with a nickel in their pocket as a result of that litigation. This settlement did that. It also did something that the FDA was never able to do. It said in the agreement that the FDA would regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the FDA would have the authority to reduce nicotine levels in those products. It also said we are going to set some goals, and the goals are going to be that you would have to show a 30-percent decline in cigarette and smokeless tobacco use by minors within 5 years --a 30-percent reduction--a 50-percent reduction within 7 years; and a 60-percent reduction within 10 years. If not successful, penalties would be assessed against the companies of up to $2 billion a year. That had never been done before in the history of this country, where you set absolute targets that companies agreed to and suffered penalties if they did not meet those targets, which were substantial. It also said, on advertising and marketing, that tobacco advertising would be banned on billboards, in store promotions, and displays over the Internet. No more Marlboro Man, no more cartoon characters like Joe Camel. Tobacco would also be banned from sponsoring all sporting events. No more race car events, no more race track events, no more anything from a sporting standpoint at which they would be able to sell or advertise. No more clothing, no more baseball caps, no more jackets, none of that would have been allowed under this agreement. Tobacco companies agreed to that. Companies agreed to the targets; companies agreed to the FDA regulation; companies agreed to pay $368.5 billion. Also, the warning labels were stronger than ever. Like, ``Smoking can kill you.'' Can you get it any stronger than that? You read that and still want to do it? Is there something loose somewhere in your head? That was going to be part of it. It includes substantial restrictions on youth access to cigarettes; a ban on cigarettes being sold from vending machines unless they are adult-only facilities; minimum standards for retailers. All of that was in there. If you had said this was possible to have 5 years ago, they would have looked at you and said, ``No way. You can't get that done.'' But that is all part of the agreement. That is where we started. I would just like to talk about some things that I think are part of this agreement that are not going to be able to be accomplished if we do not have an agreement that includes the companies. Marketing and advertising restrictions under this agreement took everything that the FDA wanted to have done and said, it is part of the agreement. It bans nontobacco brand names or logos on tobacco products. It bans tobacco brand names, logos and selling messages on nontobacco merchandise, i.e., the T-shirts, baseball caps, jackets; no more of that. It bans the sponsorship, as I said, of all sporting and cultural events in the name, logo or selling message of a tobacco product brand. It restricts tobacco advertising to black text on white background only, like this chart. It requires tobacco advertising to have a statement, ``Nicotine delivery device.'' It bans offers of nontobacco items or gifts based on the proof of purchasing a cigarette product. All gone. That is all what the FDA would like to have done, which, incidentally, is being litigated. Companies accepted that as part of that settlement agreement. It also said, we are going to do a lot more than that beyond what FDA wanted to do on marketing and advertising. This agreement spelled out some other things. We talked about it; that is, banning all outdoor tobacco product advertising, as in stadiums; and for indoor facilities directed outdoors. It bans the human images, again, like the cartoon characters of Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man. No more advertising on the Internet. It limits point-of-sale advertising to black-on-white. All of these things that no one has ever been able to accomplish was agreed to by the lawyers, agreed to by the defendants, agreed to by the tobacco companies as part of the settlement agreement. In addition to that, we also have youth-access restrictions. Retailers are prohibited from selling cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to children under 18, and all of the things they have to do under a youth-access restriction program. The point that I make is that all of this is part of their agreement. I am concerned that what we have done is to take this agreement, which no one would have thought possible 5 years ago, 4 years ago, and have turned it into an attempt to make a Christmas tree, to take care of all kinds of additional items, increase the amount everywhere you possibly can. I understand that. It is a race to see who can be the toughest on tobacco companies, and I understand that, too. My concern is, in our race to be the toughest, that we will lose all of the things that I have just outlined. Because I am absolutely convinced, from testimony in the Commerce Committee, that those restrictions on marketing and advertising that are in the current legislation, without the companies agreeing to it, is not going to be constitutionally upheld by the courts of this country--will not be. We cannot restrict advertising to adults. We cannot restrict advertising of legal products to adults that only incidentally affect children. The court cases are very, very clear with regard to what we can do and cannot do. The first amendment applies, yes, even to tobacco products, as long as they are legal, and no one is yet saying we will outlaw tobacco products like we tried to outlaw alcohol. I am concerned that as we increase everything that we are increasing, we lose the company's participation in this effort, and we are going to end up with something that may make us feel good temporarily but will not get the job done. An analogy is of the little boy who puts his hand in the cookie jar and tries to take all the cookies out of the jar; he has so many in his hand, he can't get anything out. We went from the base of $368.5 billion from the settlement; we increased that with a tax of $1.10, so now it is $574.5 billion. Then after we added to the base payments, we also added the look-back provisions. The look-back was the penalty for companies that didn't meet the targets I talked about. The June 20 agreement had penalties. The Commerce bill raised the penalty potential to $706 billion. Floor amendments raised it to $810 billion on the look-back. I think that is questionable constitutionally. I think it is questionable whether you can say to a company, you have to do all kind of things, but if you do all those things and still don't meet the targets we will penalize you. I think it is questionable constitutionally for the ability to do that unless the companies agree to it. I think what we are doing is penalizing companies without any fault on their part. We are saying, do all of these things, but if you don't reach these targets we are going to hit you with $810 billion worth of penalties. They can agree to that; but if they don't agree to it, I doubt whether it will pass constitutional muster. I think the marketing and advertising restrictions happen to be the most important thing we can do in order to get teens to stop smoking. The $1.10 is not going to do it. Kids pay $100 for a pair of sneakers. Do you think $1.10 will get that many to quit smoking when they are paying $100 for a pair of tennis shoes? I doubt it. Marketing and advertising restrictions are very important--probably not constitutional. The look-back provisions: Sounds good. Let's make it as high as we can. If the companies don't agree, I question whether that is constitutional. Look what we did when you add it up. The base payments were increased, the look-back provisions, and now the judgments. We used to have a $5 billion annual cap for liability payments. This is for future suits. People say we are giving them all kinds of limitations on liability. Individuals can still sue in the future, can still have criminal actions against companies in the future, under the agreement. You can still have punitive damages in the future for companies who do wrong, and intentionally do it, but what we have done--we have gone from adding an increase in base payments, increased the look-back penalties, and took the cap off any annual limitations on future payments. We have gone from $435 billion to $906.4 billion, and now we add it up and there is no limit. Why would a company agree to all of those marketing and advertising restrictions, agree to all these look- back penalties and targets that they have to meet, and get nothing in return? I am not arguing their case. I made it very clear where I come from in the beginning. An agreement, unless it is comprehensive, an agreement, unless everybody is involved in it, is an agreement on paper that may make us feel good temporarily but is not an agreement that is going to get the job done. It is incredibly important that we look at reality and come up with something that works. I suggest that we take the June 20 agreement as the basis, pass it, go to conference in the House, and we can work out something that will work. Senator Hatch, I understand, and Senator Feinstein and others on our side are working together to take what people thought was impossible and pass it. Let's get out of the cookie jar. Let's get back to reality. Let's do something that will pass, that will work, and that will make good sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, since colonial times, waterborne commerce has been key to the economic growth and vitality of our Nation. It has been especially important for my home state of Louisiana. The entire U.S. economy, and that of Louisiana, depends on an efficient and reliable transportation system to remain competitive in domestic and international markets. Navigable channels, railways, highways, and ports are links in the transportation chain that allow manufacturers, buyers, and sellers to send and receive goods quickly, safely, and efficiently. Congress has recognized the importance and need for promoting a system of seamless intermodal connections, from ship to shore, and then to rail or truck, and ultimately to the consumer's local retail store. The original ISTEA legislation, was named for intermodalism, in recognition of the importance of fostering and promoting intermodalism, and I am confident that ISTEA II will continue our efforts to expand and modernize the infrastructure needed to facilitate intermodalism. Continued adequate investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, including federal navigation channels, is critical. In fact, in Louisiana we have literally hundreds of miles of navigable waterways crisscrossing our state. The resulting benefits of this waterway system are efficient access to a wide variety of products and services, internationally competitive exports, and lower costs for consumers. Maintaining deep draft navigation channels is one of the most important, and least understood, factors in maintaining an efficient national transportation system. The need for both maintenance and deepening of navigational channels will drastically increase as vessel operators continue to switch to newer and larger vessels. The most modern and largest container ships available today are capable of carrying over 6,000 TEUs. By way of comparison, this cargo load would translate into a train length of over 27 miles. However, these vessels require navigable channels in excess of 45 feet of depth in order to get into port in a fully laden mode. We can have the greatest system of intermodal infrastructure available, but if the gigantic vessels that will be plying the seven seas cannot enter our ports, our importers and exporters will not benefit, and we will lose the competitive advantages of having cheap and safe transportation. U.S. port development and maintenance is currently a shared responsibility of federal, state, and local governments, with extensive private sector participation. Under this relationship, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government has maintained harbor access channels and contributed a share towards channel improvements, while individual ports construct and maintain the land-side terminal facilities, including developing rail and highway access, dredging their own shipping berths, and contributing to channel improvement cost-sharing programs. Since 1789, the Federal Government has authorized navigation channel improvement projects, and the General Survey Act of 1824 established the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the agency responsible for the Nation's navigation system. Relying in good faith on this long-standing partnership, local port authorities spend approximately $1.3 billion annually to construct and maintain the land-side facilities. These local investments have been paid for through state taxes and bonds and have resulted in a port system that can be relied on to meet our country's national defense needs and accommodate our ever growing international trade. Traditionally, the Federal Government funded maintenance dredging of federal navigation channels from General Treasury revenues. However in 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to pay for a portion of channel maintenance dredging. Revenue for this trust fund is generated by assessing a fee, the ``Harbor Maintenance Tax'' or HMT, on the value of export, import, and domestic cargo moving through the nation's deep draft ports. At the same time, local cost-sharing was instituted for funding new construction projects. These projects allow a Port to either widen or deepen navigable channels. By way of contrast, on the inland waterways, operations and maintenance costs are paid out of the General Treasury, and new construction costs are funded, in part, by an inland waterways fuel tax. The Funding for Maintenance Dredging is in Jeopardy Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Ad Valorem nature of the HMT and the surplus of revenues in the HMT makes it a tax rather than a user fee, and that the collection of the HMT violates Article I, section 9, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution which restricts Congress from enacting taxes or duties on U.S. exports. As a result of this determination, the U.S. Customs Service has been forced to cease collection of the HMT on exports. In addition, previous to the determination of the Supreme Court, the European Union challenged the HMT as a tariff barrier and an unfair trade practice under GATT. It will be unlikely that we will now be able to prevail in a GATT panel in a challenge to the HMT given that we only would collect the HMT for imported items. The Federal Government Must Resume Responsibility for Channel Maintenance The debate over the creation of a user fee in 1986 to fund maintenance dredging was a long and acrimonious one and one that divided the port, shipper, and carrier communities. Congress recognized and considered that the assessment of a tonnage fee on cargo or vessels would have severely affected bulk commodities, such as grain or coal, which compete in international markets where even the slightest price fluctuation can make or break a sale. The final product, assessing an Ad Valorem fee on cargo, ending up adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of shipping a single container of high value cargo, such as electronic equipment or computers, has caused traffic to be diverted to non-U.S. ports to avoid payment. For instance, the imposition of the HMT caused a railcar-carrier service on the Great Lakes to go out of business. When the HMT was enacted in 1986, Congress tried to be sensitive to the impact of a user fee on trade, and set the HMT at a level to collect 40 percent of the costs thought to be required to cover maintenance dredging. However, in 1990 in the budget agreement, Congress tripled the fee with very little debate, and since then the trust fund has accumulated a $1.2 billion surplus and that surplus has been projected to grow to $1.9 billion by the end of fiscal year 1999. The cost of maintenance dredging is expensive, and many U.S. ports could not perform routine maintenance dredging programs given the scope of the need of certain ports and the hydrographical particulars of certain channel waterways. Without routine maintenance dredging, many of these channels would be rendered unnavigable. It should be remembered that the prime beneficiaries of adequately maintained navigation channels are not the ports themselves, although local port communities do benefit from the economic activity generated through the port, but U.S. producers and consumers. In fact, the beneficiaries include the entire national economy, as well as the Federal Government, as well as the vessels of the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and other public agencies which travel our navigable channel waterways--all benefit from the public sector payments into the HMT to defray maintenance dredging costs. Without today's access to ports, there would be fewer and more expensive transportation options. U.S. exports would suffer as producers' transportation costs increased, thus decreasing our international competitiveness and the availability or accessibility of certain imports. Since 95% of U.S. international trade moves through our ports, the channels and harbors must be kept safe and navigable through essential routine maintenance by removing sediment that can clog shipping lanes. User Fees for Dredging Hurt Our International Trade Competitiveness Imposing new taxes on trade to fund maintenance dredging would run counter to our government's trade promotion efforts. Our nation cannot hope to reap the economic benefits of the global marketplace without providing the infrastructure necessary to transport those goods as cheaply and efficiently as possible. A 1993 General Accounting Office study found that 12 Federal agencies already levy 117 assessments on waterborne trade. Making our exports more expensive through additional fees makes the U.S. less competitive in international markets. U.S. ports annually handle more than one billion metric tons of international trade cargo valued in excess of $600 billion. Customs revenues in FY 1996 totaled $22.3 billion, of which roughly 70 percent (or $15.6 billion) is attributable to seaport activity. International trade's impact on the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is growing by astronomical bounds. In 1970, trade represented only 13 percent of U.S. GDP. By 1996, trade had grown to account for 30 percent of GDP, or about $2.3 trillion. More than 11 million U.S. jobs now depend on exports, and this figure represents an increase of 1.5 million jobs in just four years. Significantly, the wages earned by workers manufacturing goods for export are, on average, 13-17 percent higher than non trade-related jobs. Why Dredge? Over 90 percent of the nation's top 50 ports in foreign waterborne commerce, including ports in Louisiana, require regular maintenance dredging. Together these ports move nearly 93 percent of the volume of all U.S. waterborne commerce. Routine maintenance dredging is necessary in many parts of the country to remove sediment from rivers and harbors that builds up due to tidal and other hydrographical forces. Without dredging, many port facilities and navigation channels would be rendered unsafe and non-navigable to users in less than a year. For example, the Columbia River accumulates sediment at a rate of five to six feet a year in some areas. Without routine dredging, areas of the navigation channel that serves the water highway for many ports in Oregon and Washington State could change from a 40-foot to a 35-foot deep channel in one year. Since 90% of the ship traffic use the maximum depth of the channel, such a dramatic change would prohibit many ships from entering the channel or force ships to carry only a fraction of their intended load, making their voyages expensive and inefficient. Failure to adequately maintain navigation channels affects not only the local economy around the port, but has far-reaching impacts throughout the country. For example, agricultural and natural resource products such as grain or timber will be unable to reach export markets. In addition, imports such as clothing, consumer electronics, and automobiles will become more scarce and expensive. Since ships and ports provide the means to facilitate the flow of interstate and international commerce, the Federal Government should bear a large portion of the responsibility to ensure that these trade conduits remain viable. The Economic Benefits of Waterborne Shipping are Plentiful The economic benefit of our waterborne system is nationwide: goods from 27 states leave the country through the ports in Louisiana alone. Midwestern grain supplies the Pacific rim market through ports in the Pacific Northwest. Crude oil that is brought to and refined in New Jersey and Pennsylvania reaches consumers on the entire East Coast-- from Maine to Florida. Steel that travels to major Midwestern industrial centers is delivered cheaply and efficiently through ports on the Great Lakes. Ports on the West Coast handle high value goods destined for consumers throughout the country. Costs associated with waterborne shipping are three to four times less per ton-mile than any other freight transportation, and waterborne shipping is the most cost effective method of freight movement. Our waterborne transportation efficiency contributes mightily to our ability to compete in the price sensitive bulk commodity markets. Grain and coal are just two examples of price-sensitive bulk commodities. Because shipping contracts can hinge on a few tenths of a cent per bushel of grain or ton of coal, transportation costs can be the deciding factor for foreign buyers choosing between American or foreign bulk products. Maintaining the right channel depth allows U.S. commodities to stay competitive. For each foot of draft vessel depth not dredged, vessels carry less product--making each voyage less efficient and more costly. For instance, maintaining a channel at 43 feet instead of 44 feet may mean the difference of 750 tons of additional coal capable of being loaded on a ship. Properly maintained channels can make or break a contract in the international marketplace. Safety and Environmental Benefits of Dredging Making waterways safe for navigation is one of the most important benefits of routine maintenance dredging. Deepened channels that accumulate sediment become dangerous because they increase the chance of ships running aground. Groundings are expensive not only in cargo and time lost, but groundings may also pollute the environment if ships' hulls are breached and cargo is spilled. The cost of responding to and cleaning up oil pollution impacts everyone. Well-maintained channels eliminate any surprise shoalings or buildups that may cause mishaps harmful to the environment. When waterways are not regularly dredged, ships have to be lightered; that is, they have enough cargo removed to smaller, shallower vessels so that the primary ship is light enough to enter the harbor safely. Aside from the additional handling costs associated with the practice and the loss of time and potential productivity, lightering of bulk liquids increases the chance of spillage and pollution. Waterborne freight transportation is also the most efficient mode of surface transportation in terms of fuel use per ton-mile. Waterborne commerce contributes the least amount of pollution in terms of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide emitted per ton-mile, and is also the safest in terms of death or injury per ton-mile. Waterborne shipping emits five times fewer hydrocarbons than trains and seven times fewer than trucks. A shift of less than 1 million tons of cargo from ship to truck would increase fuel use by a factor of ten, and probable accidents by a factor of six annually. Future Role of U.S. at Stake Since the first wooden vessels arrived on our shores, this nation has relied on and prospered due to its access to water and thereon to the rest of the world. Both economically and strategically, thereby are no greater national assets than our ports and federal navigation channels--our water connections to the global marketplace and our means of projecting our national defense. Until 1986, the Federal Government fully funded the maintenance of our Nation's navigation channels, maintaining a partnership with state and local port authorities. Contributing to, and relying on this partnership, these local port agencies have invested billions of dollars in land-side terminals to develop the array of ports along our three sea coasts, Great Lakes, and inland waterways. The HMT, instituted in 1986 to recover first 40%, then 100%, and more, of dredging maintenance costs, has been ruled unconstitutional as applied to exports by the U.S. Supreme Court. Based both on this decision and the rancorous debate during the 1980s, any alternative trade tax/user fee funding mechanism will have significant legal and political challenges to overcome. With the United States' future role in the global economy at stake, it is critical that we approach this issue delicately, and I would urge the Administration to carefully review this issue and not rush to any judgment. This issue has too many different constituencies with an important stakeholder interest. Accordingly, I have written to Secretary Slater to request his assistance in establishing a private sector task force to review the issues confronting any reformulated approach to maintenance dredging. At a minimum, this task force should include various carrier and shipper interests and port and port-related labor interests and should allow the affected interests to air their concerns and make recommendations. The problem that we face with the potential elimination of the HMT is severe, and any action to replace it, or reformulate it, should be done only after an informed airing of the issues from affected parties. Mr. President, this issue is critical not only to Louisiana but to the entire country. I look forward to working with all interested parties to develop a workable solution.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia not only for his comments, but also for his untiring work on this very important legislation. He is to be commended. I thank all of our colleagues for their work and their contribution on the highway bill. But I assure everyone in this country that were it not for the senior Senator from West Virginia, this bill would not have been passed in this body this afternoon and be part of one of the most massive improvements of our transportation system in this country. He is to be commended. I know there are so many people that are not here today that want to say thank you to the very distinguished Senator for his contribution in this regard.

Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Ford), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, a very important bill for America's children. Our bill, the Vaccinate America's Children Now Act, will cut the excise tax on all vaccines to twenty-five cents per dose. Lowering the price of vaccines against such deadly and crippling diseases as polio and meningitis will not only result in lower health care costs, but also greater immunization rates. As a result, fewer American children will ever have to know the pain and devastation of childhood disease. Federal excise taxes on vaccines were first enacted in the late 1980s to fund a vaccine injury compensation fund to pay for those rare injuries associated with vaccination. Since enactment, this compensation fund has accumulated a surplus of $1.2 billion and the surplus continues to grow. However, claims against the fund have been falling as a result of safer vaccines. The interest alone on this fund is now enough to pay the anticipated claims and costs each year. Lowering the excise tax rate on vaccines will not endanger the solvency of the vaccine injury compensation trust fund in any way. In fact, the guardian of the trust fund, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines has unanimously endorsed our proposal. Lowering the vaccine tax rates will, however, reduce health care costs and make immunization more affordable. Our bill will save states money because states pay these excise taxes when vaccines are purchased for state immunization programs. For example, our bill will save my own State of Louisiana approximately $1 million. Nationwide, reducing the excise tax will save the states almost $53 million. These cost savings are one reason why the Association of States and Territorial Health Officers which represents all of the state health departments also supports our bill. Vaccines are a modern miracle--preventing disease and illness often for a lifetime with just a few doses. Vaccines have virtually eliminated the scourge of smallpox in the world. Polio as a wild virus has been eliminated in the western hemisphere. Measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis vaccines have saved thousands of lives. We must do every thing that we can to ensure that children continue to be immunized. Our bill will make these vaccines more affordable and more available to all of America's children.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to rise to introduce a piece of legislation, which I will send to the desk. It is called the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act of 1998. The commercial space launch industry is an essential part of the U.S. economy and opportunities for U.S. companies are growing as international markets expand. United States trading partners have been able to aggressively lower their commercial space launch prices either through direct cash payments for commercially targeted product development or with indirect benefits derived from nonmarket economy status. Because United States incentives for launch vehicle development have historically focused on civil and military rather than commercial use, and as a result U.S. launch costs have remained relatively high, the U.S. share of the world commercial market has decreased from nearly 100% twenty years ago to approximately 40% in 1998. This is very serious erosion. The key to regaining United States leadership in the world market is not another massive government program, but rather provision of just enough government support to enable the more cost effective private sector to build lower-cost space launch vehicles. Private sector companies across the United States are already attempting to develop a variety of lower-cost space launch vehicles, but lack of sufficient private financing has proven a major obstacle, an obstacle our trading partners have chosen to remove by providing direct access to government funding. Given the unique strength of private industry in the United States, a more effective alternative to the approach of our trading partners is for the U.S. government to provide limited financial incentives in the form of loan guarantees, which would help qualifying private-sector companies secure otherwise unattainable private financing, while at the same time keeping government involvement at an absolute minimum. The purpose of the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act of 1998 is, therefore, to ensure availability of otherwise unattainable private sector financing for private sector development of commercial space launch vehicles with launch costs significantly below current levels. As a result, it will be possible to: increase the international competitiveness of the United States space industry, encourage the growth of space-related commerce in the United States and internationally, increase the number of high-value jobs in United States space-related industries, and reduce United States Government space launch expenditures. Commercialization of space is an issue of importance not only to our nation as a whole but also to the state of Louisiana. Louisiana is already an active participant in the American space effort. For example, the Michoud Facility in New Orleans has been selected as the fabrication center for the experimental X-33 space vehicle's liquid oxygen tanks. The fuel tanks for the Space Shuttle are also built at Michoud, and Shuttle engines are tested at the Stennis Space Center in neighboring Mississippi. Furthermore, NASA has entered a partnership with the University of Southwestern Louisiana in Lafayette to establish a Regional Application Center for commercial remote sensing technology. Looking toward the future, Louisiana is clearly well positioned to participate actively in the commercialization of space and to benefit from the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act of 1998.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Let me make a brief comment. I want to associate my comments and feeling with the earlier remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, with regard to his comments about this bill and the use of funds in the highway legislation that could be used for veterans disability benefits associated with smoking. I was very, very pleased to hear Senator Daschle point out very clearly that this issue will be revisited. It needs to be revisited. It is unfortunate, I think, that moneys that were going to be available for veterans who have suffered disabilities from smoking problems will be used for part of this legislation that we just recently passed. But I think it is very clear there is a strong feeling among most all members of the Commerce Committee that this is an issue that needs to be revisited. We need to find the funds to make sure that these types of health disabilities are taken care of and that if it is a veterans disability associated with their service that they be treated as such. I support that. I will be here to do anything that I can to try and correct this problem. As we deal with the tobacco legislation on the floor, it would seem to me this would be, perhaps, a good way of addressing this particular issue as a health-related smoking issue. I hope we could find a way within the tobacco legislation to address this. I stand committed to work with Senator Daschle on finding a way to correct this problem. I am quite confident that we will be able to do so, and certainly I am committed to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, a very important bill for America's children. Our bill, the Vaccinate America's Children Now Act, will cut the excise tax on all vaccines to twenty-five cents per dose. Lowering the price of vaccines against such deadly and crippling diseases as polio and meningitis will not only result in lower health care costs, but also greater immunization rates. As a result, fewer American children will ever have to know the pain and devastation of childhood disease. Federal excise taxes on vaccines were first enacted in the late 1980s to fund a vaccine injury compensation fund to pay for those rare injuries associated with vaccination. Since enactment, this compensation fund has accumulated a surplus of $1.2 billion and the surplus continues to grow. However, claims against the fund have been falling as a result of safer vaccines. The interest alone on this fund is now enough to pay the anticipated claims and costs each year. Lowering the excise tax rate on vaccines will not endanger the solvency of the vaccine injury compensation trust fund in any way. In fact, the guardian of the trust fund, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines has unanimously endorsed our proposal. Lowering the vaccine tax rates will, however, reduce health care costs and make immunization more affordable. Our bill will save states money because states pay these excise taxes when vaccines are purchased for state immunization programs. For example, our bill will save my own State of Louisiana approximately $1 million. Nationwide, reducing the excise tax will save the states almost $53 million. These cost savings are one reason why the Association of States and Territorial Health Officers which represents all of the state health departments also supports our bill. Vaccines are a modern miracle--preventing disease and illness often for a lifetime with just a few doses. Vaccines have virtually eliminated the scourge of smallpox in the world. Polio as a wild virus has been eliminated in the western hemisphere. Measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis vaccines have saved thousands of lives. We must do every thing that we can to ensure that children continue to be immunized. Our bill will make these vaccines more affordable and more available to all of America's children.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to rise to introduce a piece of legislation, which I will send to the desk. It is called the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act of 1998. The commercial space launch industry is an essential part of the U.S. economy and opportunities for U.S. companies are growing as international markets expand. United States trading partners have been able to aggressively lower their commercial space launch prices either through direct cash payments for commercially targeted product development or with indirect benefits derived from nonmarket economy status. Because United States incentives for launch vehicle development have historically focused on civil and military rather than commercial use, and as a result U.S. launch costs have remained relatively high, the U.S. share of the world commercial market has decreased from nearly 100% twenty years ago to approximately 40% in 1998. This is very serious erosion. The key to regaining United States leadership in the world market is not another massive government program, but rather provision of just enough government support to enable the more cost effective private sector to build lower-cost space launch vehicles. Private sector companies across the United States are already attempting to develop a variety of lower-cost space launch vehicles, but lack of sufficient private financing has proven a major obstacle, an obstacle our trading partners have chosen to remove by providing direct access to government funding. Given the unique strength of private industry in the United States, a more effective alternative to the approach of our trading partners is for the U.S. government to provide limited financial incentives in the form of loan guarantees, which would help qualifying private-sector companies secure otherwise unattainable private financing, while at the same time keeping government involvement at an absolute minimum. The purpose of the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act of 1998 is, therefore, to ensure availability of otherwise unattainable private sector financing for private sector development of commercial space launch vehicles with launch costs significantly below current levels. As a result, it will be possible to: increase the international competitiveness of the United States space industry, encourage the growth of space-related commerce in the United States and internationally, increase the number of high-value jobs in United States space-related industries, and reduce United States Government space launch expenditures. Commercialization of space is an issue of importance not only to our nation as a whole but also to the state of Louisiana. Louisiana is already an active participant in the American space effort. For example, the Michoud Facility in New Orleans has been selected as the fabrication center for the experimental X-33 space vehicle's liquid oxygen tanks. The fuel tanks for the Space Shuttle are also built at Michoud, and Shuttle engines are tested at the Stennis Space Center in neighboring Mississippi. Furthermore, NASA has entered a partnership with the University of Southwestern Louisiana in Lafayette to establish a Regional Application Center for commercial remote sensing technology. Looking toward the future, Louisiana is clearly well positioned to participate actively in the commercialization of space and to benefit from the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act of 1998.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Ford), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), would vote ``yea.''