John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his opening comments outlining what is the essence of the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords bill. I point out the obvious; it is the only tripartisan bill that has been introduced in this Chamber dealing with this issue. We have had bipartisan bills introduced, and I congratulate the author, but there is only one bill that has the support of independents, Democrats, and Republicans, as well, and that, of course, is the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords legislation. I have come to respect all Members engaged in this debate because I think we all have the same goals, and in many cases we all have approached the solution to the problem in a very similar fashion--not identical but very close to being almost the same approach. I was struck yesterday by a number of our colleagues who were talking about the Senator from New York, the senior Senator, Mr. Schumer, and I think the junior Senator from New York was engaged in talking about individual patients, children who have suffered damages because of denial of access to care that is medically necessary. I thought the points they made were well taken. I don't have any disagreement with the points made. I have no disagreement that these cases should have someplace they can go to ensure the coverage for these individuals, children, elderly, and average citizens, which is needed and determined to be medically necessary. We have come a long way. I think this Congress in general is in agreement that patients should have federally guaranteed rights that are enforceable through a process of internal and external appeals, to get a quick decision that is good for the patient and good for society. If those appeals processes do not work, there should be access to the courts to enforce these rights that all Americans should have under their health care plans. Indeed, if damage is done, there should be an opportunity for patients to recover damages. We basically agreed on the rights the Federal Government should guarantee. Senator Frist went over those rights. They are very similar in both plans. I think theirs probably covers a few more protections for what I would term the providers as opposed to protections for patients, which is what we essentially are talking about. But given that, we are very similar in the things we say should be guaranteed to Americans when they have health insurance. OB/GYN access for patients is guaranteed. Access to specialists is there. Breast cancer treatment plans must be covered. Clinical trials are available. There is continuity of care and emergency room access. There are no gag rules. There are point-of-service provisions. These are things we have in common in both plans. Congress has agreed there should be certain patients' rights on which they can depend, that are enforceable, and if they are not provided, damages can be provided to compensate the injured parties. We both agree that one methodology of handling the enforcement of these rights is through an appeals process, through an internal and external appeals process. One of the few things, interestingly, that works in the Medicare Program is, when a Medicare patient, a senior, is denied care, there is an internal and external appeals process that occurs very quickly. What we try to do is not give patients access to courts but access to health care. The fastest and best way to do it is through an appeals process internally, as we provide in this legislation, which requires the company that denies the care to review that decision. They have to do it in a very short timeframe, a matter of hours. If the patient still is denied care, there should be some kind of access to an external panel of independent professionals, medical professionals who will take care of looking at it independently of what the HMO did. We have both agreed the external appeal should be independent. The question is, How do you do that? Both of them I think require--ours does--that HMOs are responsible for entering into a contract with independent professionals who are in fact going to look at these cases and handle the external appeals. I do not know, if you require the HMO to enter into a contract, how they are not going to be involved in helping to select the independent reviewers. That is something I think that has to be done. If they are going to enter into a contract to pay for the people who are going to do the independent review, how can they not be involved in the selection? We can talk about that. I think we both agree the external review panel should be totally independent of the HMO. I think both sides say the HMO has to pay for them. Then how do you guarantee their independence? We can work on that, but I think we are both in agreement that the external review people should have no connection to the HMO, although we both require the HMO pay for them. How we handle that I think is open, but I think we both agree they should be totally independent of the HMO, as much as humanly practicable that we can devise a plan that will in fact do that. Another problem you will hear a lot of talk about, that I think will be subject to amendments, is both sides say we don't want the employer to be sued if the employer is not involved in medical decisionmaking. We agree with that. I think this side and the other side agree with that premise as well. The problem with the approach of the other side, in the sense of how they protect employers, is finding an area that would be protected activities by the employer which would not cause them to be liable for any decisions. The concern many employers have is that doesn't prevent litigation against employers, where they would have to come in and prove they have not done anything that is wrong. I think employers were legitimately concerned about being sued for things and then they would have to come in and show they were not guilty. Our approach is a little different. I think it is a better approach. It says employers can select a designated decisionmaker who will make the medical decisions, and if they do that, the employer cannot be sued. They don't have to come into court and defend themselves for something they never did in the first place because the designated decisionmaker, which in most cases would be the insurance company, is the entity which should be sued for making the wrong decision. I think our approach in that area is a better approach. The final point: We both have a convoluted system with regard to where you file suit. In their bill you can file for some things in Federal court and some things in State court. And guess what. In ours you can sue for some things in State court and some in Federal court. We are amending ERISA. It is a Federal statute creating Federal rights. Anytime you litigate under existing ERISA rules, you litigate in Federal court. Therefore, if you expand rights under ERISA by amending it to include a designated set of Federal rights, the proper forum is the Federal court, not 50 different State forums. I know my good friend from North Carolina suggested lawyers may have a problem finding a Federal court. That is a slight exaggeration. But there is no lawyer I know of who has any difficulty getting into Federal court. They do it on a regular basis very successfully, and I am glad they do. So we have suggested if you are going to file litigation after the appeals process to enforce Federal rights that are passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, it should be in Federal court. If you are going to sue on the existing State medical malpractice laws, the proper forum for that to be litigated is in the State courts. That is where it traditionally has been. It is a right that exists today in State court. If you are going to sue a company for medical malpractice, a doctor or hospital for medical malpractice, you will continue to do it in State courts as is the current situation. I want to make sure we get something that can become law. If we enact a bill the President will not sign, we have not given the patients in this country one single benefit. We have given them perhaps a good political argument, but we have not created any legal rights for them to enforce when they need medical help and assurances their rights will be protected. Therefore, what I am trying to do in offering this, along with my two colleagues, is to try to create something that can actually become law. I tell you, I would not lose sleep if the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill passed. My concern is not that. My concern is that it cannot become law. Therefore, as legislators, we want to enact something that can actually become law. We have offered a compromise which I think, No. 1, even from their perspective, could give at least 95 percent of what their legislation does in terms of protecting patients. But it gives 100 percent more of what theirs would do if theirs cannot be signed into law. That is just a bottom line as far as being pragmatic and as practical as I possibly can be, to say look, this is something that can become law. I think it can pass, and I think it will be signed into law if it reaches the President's desk. The opposite is true for their version which the President has said time and time again he will not sign. We can argue whether that is a good decision on his part or not. I am sure they think it is the right decision; others would disagree with it strongly. I think we have offered something that can become law that does address the concerns that have been articulated in the Senate and in the other body for a long period of time. It is time to reach an agreement that can actually become the law of this land. I yield any time I may have remaining.

Mr. BREAUX. The issue is, this should not be an insurmountable task for us to reach agreement on how we select the people who are going to do it. Somebody has to make the selection. I don't know that you have another creature out there who goes out into the world and says: Pick reviewer A versus reviewer B. Somebody has to pick who the independent reviewers are. In both bills the HMO pays for them. It is just a question on how they are selected. Our bill says they should be independent reviewers, and I think there are a lot of companies that do that type of work. The Senator from North Carolina probably knows it far better than I in his practice of law. But there are groups which are totally independent that offer their services to do this. Isn't there a way that the two bills can reach agreement on how we select the independent reviewers? The HMOs in both bills are going to pay for the services. It is just a question of how we select them. I want them to be as independent as they possibly can.

Mr. BREAUX. I am trying to understand the differences between our two bills on that particular point. We both say the external review panel should be independent. I think we say that the HMO has to contract with these external review people. I think you have been saying they have to have a contract with an HMO to do the same thing. So what is the difference?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. I think we may be close to reaching agreement. If we can't solve this problem, we might as well shut down this place; we will never solve any problem. This is a small problem in comparison with other issues we are going to be faced with in conference. Let me ask if the Senator suggests that HHS or the Federal Government has an approved list of independent arbitrators.

Mr. BREAUX. Let me answer that with a question.

Mr. BREAUX. Let me answer it with a question. Does that language prohibit the HMO from paying the salaries of the independent reviewers? Is that not influencing the independent reviewers? If the HMO, under your bill, pays for the services of the independent reviewers, is that not influence over their decision?

Mr. BREAUX. I am trying to nail down this point on the independent review. I am trying to do this one point at a time because we have so many points out there. It is my understanding both our bills have the HMO paying for the independent reviewers. Both of them enter into a contract with people who are going to have an independent review. Therefore, in a sense, in both bills the independent reviewer really works for the HMO in the sense that the HMO is going to enter into a contract for their services. The HMO will have to pay for those services. Both bills require that.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I am honored to join today Senator Kerry on the occasion of Commander Thomas Richey's retirement from the United States Coast Guard. Senator Kerry and I both serve on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, and in fact we have sat next to each other for years during committee executive sessions, hearings and other subcommittee fora. It was during these occasions that I first came to know Commander Richey. I would classify the period of 1996-1998 as a very busy time for the subcommittee. During this period, Tom was instrumental in advising Senator Kerry and subcommittee members in general on crucial oceans and fisheries, and maritime issues. On a more personal note, I sincerely appreciate Tom's assistance and diligent follow through in support of the issues and concerns of my constituents. It brings me and all Americans great pride in knowing that the Coast Guard is represented by individuals with such high ideals, integrity and dedication to duty. I know of the sacrifices made by Commander Richey and his family and offer my congratulations and personal thanks for a job well done. I wish Tom the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am honored to reintroduce today, along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Graham, Chafee, and Levin, the ``Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 2001''. This bill will provide the necessary incentive needed to help preserve, revitalize and restore our Nation's older and historic neighborhoods, which often form the core of many of our Nation's most distinct urban areas. During the 106th Congress, this legislation received bipartisan majority support in the House with 226 sponsors and enjoyed the support of 39 sponsors in the Senate. In the 107th, the House bill, H.R. 1172, sponsored by Rep. Clay Shaw, H.R. 1172, is already endorsed by 72 Members to date. This bipartisan proposal would create a historic homeowners tax credit directed toward housing stock in deteriorating neighborhoods and communities located in more than 11,000 Federal, State and local historic districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It would allow homebuyers and homeowners to take a 40 percent federal tax credit on residential properties they rehabilitate for use as their primary residence. If enacted, a historic homeowners tax credit would be a useful tool to preserve historic neighborhoods and homes in small towns and urban areas; make homeownership more affordable for less affluent families; revitalize deteriorating older neighborhoods; strengthen the tax base for local governments; and combat sprawl and urban blight. The number of properties eligible for the historic homeowners credit is approximately one third of the almost one million structures in historic districts nationwide, and 58 percent are located in census tracts with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater. In Louisiana, 91 percent of the historic districts in the state overlap with census tracts with a rate of poverty of 20 percent or more, a figure much higher than the national average. My home state of Louisiana also has one of the highest concentrations of historic properties in the Nation. In a recent National Park Service survey, it was found that 109 National Register Historic Districts in the State contain 45,084 historic buildings. The Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation reports that of these 45,000 plus structures, 20 percent are in poor condition, 20 percent are in only fair condition and 60 percent are owner-occupied housing. The City of New Orleans alone is reported to have 30,000 vacant housing units, of which 10,000 would qualify for the historic homeownership tax credit. I cannot emphasize enough how much enactment of this incentive would mean to my State and the Nation at large. This bill will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for residents and homebuyers of modest means and incomes while increasing the tax base of our most economically distressed urban areas. This legislation also includes unique provisions to assist developers and mortgage lenders in saving our most vulnerable historic neighborhoods. Under the bill, developers could rehabilitate historic properties, sell them, and pass the credit onto homebuyers. This feature would allow nonprofit housing providers to utilize the credit to further the goal of affordable homeownership. In addition, the bill offers an option to convert the tax credit to a mortgage credit certificate which could be transferred to a bank or mortgage lender to reduce the mortgage interest rate, lowering monthly mortgage payments to benefit low- and moderate-income families who do not have enough tax liability to use the credit. In Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Community Renewal areas and distressed census tracts, the credit could also be used to lower the cost of the down payment on a historic home. America's priceless heritage is being threatened by urban sprawl as residents abandon the historic districts for the suburbs. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act is an excellent incentive to aid in the restoration of our national, State and local historic districts that are currently threatened by abandonment and decay. It would encourage local residents to invest in their communities and give first time homebuyers an opportunity to move into older neighborhoods. This bill will not only preserve our heritage, but also help local governments by putting deteriorated ad abandoned properties back on the tax rolls. I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am honored to reintroduce today, along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Graham, Chafee, and Levin, the ``Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 2001''. This bill will provide the necessary incentive needed to help preserve, revitalize and restore our Nation's older and historic neighborhoods, which often form the core of many of our Nation's most distinct urban areas. During the 106th Congress, this legislation received bipartisan majority support in the House with 226 sponsors and enjoyed the support of 39 sponsors in the Senate. In the 107th, the House bill, H.R. 1172, sponsored by Rep. Clay Shaw, H.R. 1172, is already endorsed by 72 Members to date. This bipartisan proposal would create a historic homeowners tax credit directed toward housing stock in deteriorating neighborhoods and communities located in more than 11,000 Federal, State and local historic districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It would allow homebuyers and homeowners to take a 40 percent federal tax credit on residential properties they rehabilitate for use as their primary residence. If enacted, a historic homeowners tax credit would be a useful tool to preserve historic neighborhoods and homes in small towns and urban areas; make homeownership more affordable for less affluent families; revitalize deteriorating older neighborhoods; strengthen the tax base for local governments; and combat sprawl and urban blight. The number of properties eligible for the historic homeowners credit is approximately one third of the almost one million structures in historic districts nationwide, and 58 percent are located in census tracts with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater. In Louisiana, 91 percent of the historic districts in the state overlap with census tracts with a rate of poverty of 20 percent or more, a figure much higher than the national average. My home state of Louisiana also has one of the highest concentrations of historic properties in the Nation. In a recent National Park Service survey, it was found that 109 National Register Historic Districts in the State contain 45,084 historic buildings. The Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation reports that of these 45,000 plus structures, 20 percent are in poor condition, 20 percent are in only fair condition and 60 percent are owner-occupied housing. The City of New Orleans alone is reported to have 30,000 vacant housing units, of which 10,000 would qualify for the historic homeownership tax credit. I cannot emphasize enough how much enactment of this incentive would mean to my State and the Nation at large. This bill will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for residents and homebuyers of modest means and incomes while increasing the tax base of our most economically distressed urban areas. This legislation also includes unique provisions to assist developers and mortgage lenders in saving our most vulnerable historic neighborhoods. Under the bill, developers could rehabilitate historic properties, sell them, and pass the credit onto homebuyers. This feature would allow nonprofit housing providers to utilize the credit to further the goal of affordable homeownership. In addition, the bill offers an option to convert the tax credit to a mortgage credit certificate which could be transferred to a bank or mortgage lender to reduce the mortgage interest rate, lowering monthly mortgage payments to benefit low- and moderate-income families who do not have enough tax liability to use the credit. In Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Community Renewal areas and distressed census tracts, the credit could also be used to lower the cost of the down payment on a historic home. America's priceless heritage is being threatened by urban sprawl as residents abandon the historic districts for the suburbs. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act is an excellent incentive to aid in the restoration of our national, State and local historic districts that are currently threatened by abandonment and decay. It would encourage local residents to invest in their communities and give first time homebuyers an opportunity to move into older neighborhoods. This bill will not only preserve our heritage, but also help local governments by putting deteriorated ad abandoned properties back on the tax rolls. I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues a few remarks about a very remarkable gentlemen that visited with me recently. Maersk McKinney Moller is a legendary figure in his native Denmark. And after our meeting, I've come to appreciate even more his ties to the United States and the history he's lived in his 86 years. Mr. Moller, as some of my colleagues may know, is the owner of the world's largest shipping company--the AP Moller Group. Its U.S. headquarters were founded in 1943, and its U.S. affiliate, Maersk Line, Limited was chartered in Delaware in 1947. Today, it generates employment for approximately 9000 Americans through 10 U.S. corporate entities devoted to ship management, terminal operations, trucking, rail, transportation and logistics services. On a global scale AP Moller controls approximately 250 ships, 53 of which fly the stars and stripes of the United States. It is notably, the largest US-flag commercial fleet in the world. Mr. Mollers' ties to the United States go back to 1910, well before he was even born. In that year his father, Arnold Peter Moller, married Chastine Estelle McKinney, a native of Kansas City, MO. Returning to Copenhagen, the senior Moller had by 1940 built a fleet of 46 ships, many of which were engaged by the US and its allies in WWII. April 1940 saw Germany invaded Denmark and young Maersk McKinney Moller's life fundamentally changed. With his bride of five days, he came to the United States. With personal assets blocked by the war, times were financially lean and his lifestyle was modest. The ensuing eight years, however, marked a period that cemented his enduring bond with Americans and admiration for U.S. armed forces. By the time WWII ended in 1945, 148 Maersk seamen had lost their lives and the Maersk fleet had lost 25 vessels. That personal history would color much of what followed for Maersk- McKinney. After the war, he and his father rebuilt the AP Moller Group into the global shipping powerhouse it is today. Along the way, he has maintained a close relationship with the United States and her allies in ways that make a significant contribution to our national security. For nearly 20 years Maersk Lines, Limited, has partnered with the United States Marine Corps to preposition ships and supplies where needed. Maersk ships, in fact, were the first vessels to arrive in Desert Storm and off-load critically needed Marine Corps supplies and equipment. Prior to Desert Storm, Maersk Line, Limited obtained a secret clearance from the Department of Defense and now has a top-secret clearance to operate sensitive surveillance ships for the US Navy. I point these things out to my colleagues for a couple of reasons. First, as a matter of general interest, I wish more of my colleagues could have the pleasure of visiting with Mr. Moller. His personal history has imbued him with a very thoughtful approach and seasoned perspective on global issues. Second, as the man behind the largest commercial fleet of US-flag ships, he has proven to be a valuable partner to our defense interests. His ships and loading facilities and transportation infrastructure have moved literally tons of supplies that support our men and women in uniform. In the future the Maritime Security Program, MSP, one of the programs critical for maintaining a US-flagged shipping fleet, will need to be reauthorized. During times of critical national need, MSP participants like Maersk Line, Limited are contractually obligated to the statutorily mandated Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, VISA. I, for one, am reassured to know that a man of Maersk McKinney Moller's stature and integrity is involved so strongly in this aspect of our national defense. He has proven his value to our Nation many times over.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Absolutely.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee for his consideration in allowing me to have the time that I need to make comments on this budget. I also thank Senator Domenici for being willing to yield me some time. Let me start, first, by commending Senator Conrad for the work that he has done, under some very difficult circumstances, with regard to putting together this product. It has not been easy. It has been very difficult. It has been very emotional--with a great deal of pressure on both sides to try to come up with something that makes sense and that is a rational guideline for how we handle the affairs of this country over the next 2 years. I also commend the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, as well as the Republican leader, Senator Lott, because I know that within their own caucuses there are vast differences as to how we should approach the passage of the budget for this coming year. It has not been an easy job for either of the budget leaders--Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici--or for our two respective leaders. I think they have both done about as good a job as anyone could ever ask for them to do considering the circumstances. Mr. President, and my colleagues, I will make the point that governing in a democracy is about the art of the possible; it is not about the art of the perfect. Is this budget a perfect document? Of course not. But does it advance the cause of governing in a democracy that is almost evenly divided among the two parties? The answer is, yes, it does. Republicans, as we need to remind ourselves, control the House with the narrowest of margins in years. The President was elected after losing the popular vote and narrowly winning the electoral college vote. Our Senate, indeed, is the perfect tie, 50/50. Now is not the time, with these circumstances, to figure out how we can disagree. There are plenty of opportunities to find where we disagree with this document, but now is not the time to concentrate on how we disagree but, rather, now is the time to figure out how we can reach an agreement for the good of all the people whom we represent. It is very clear that we could have 535 budgets and each author would think theirs is the best one. But we can only have one. The two principal parts of this budget consist of how we handle revenues or taxes and how we go about spending what is left, a challenge every American family must make for themselves when they work out their family budgets. We are fortunate today to have what CBO tells us is a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. That $5.6 trillion is more than is necessary to run all of our Government functions at the current level. Most Members, but not all Members, would say it is appropriate to give a portion of that surplus back to the citizens who created that surplus when they paid their taxes. The question then before this body is, How much do we give back? President Bush said: Give back $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Vice President Al Gore, as a candidate, suggested a tax cut of $500 billion. This budget consists of a $1.25 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years, plus a $100 billion stimulus package in the first 2 years. Some would think that is too high; others argue that it is far too low and not enough. It is, in fact, sufficient to give money back to all Americans with a balanced and a fair tax cut. We can, within this budget, reduce all marginal rates. We can, within this budget, create a new 10-percent bracket for lower income Americans, which would also benefit all income Americans. We can, within this budget, reduce the estate tax to a level that almost eliminates everyone from paying it. We can, within this budget, fix the alternative minimum tax problem. And we can, within this budget, increase the child credit that families take. We can make it refundable, and we can make it retroactive within this budget. And we can help education within the tax structure of this budget by making tuition taxes deductible for all American families. We can, within this budget's tax structure, fix the marriage penalty. With regard to spending contained in this budget, it is important for us to put the figures in proper perspective. Last year our Democratic President, President Clinton, proposed a budget for discretionary spending calling for $614 billion. The House and Senate Republicans and the budget, indeed, ended up saying we were going to spend $596 billion for discretionary spending. We ended up spending $635 billion. We did that because of emergencies that occurred during the year. We did that because of new spending priorities that were brought to our attention during the year that were unforeseen at the time of the budget enactment. This Congress responded to those needs as they occurred. This Congress will respond to those needs as they occur in the upcoming months of this fiscal year. This budget provides $661 billion in discretionary spending. That is without any emergency money being designated. It is not designated because it is clear that this Congress will add that emergency money as the emergencies occur. If there is a hurricane, if there is an agricultural emergency, if there is an earthquake, if there are any other kinds of emergencies, it is clear, from the history of this body, that this Congress will address those needs because they are true emergencies. That $661 billion is a $26 billion increase over last year. That is a $47 billion increase more than President Clinton asked for last year when he submitted his budget to the Congress. I know some of my colleagues will argue that it is not enough, that we don't have enough money, for instance, for education in this budget. My reading on education is that there will be a lot more money than last year for education, a lot more. President Bush has offered a $4.6 billion increase for the Department of Education over last year's $18.3 billion in spending. That is larger than the $3.6 billion President Clinton won for this fiscal year. As Senator Kennedy, who is the master of putting together good policy deals, has said: We have exceeded the budget every year in education appropriations, and we are going to do it again. That is a correct assessment of what we are going to do and have done in the past, when it comes to meeting the educational needs of the people of this country. We will provide sufficient funds to educate our children. It is important to bear in mind that most of the money for education comes from the local and State levels. In fact, 94 percent, on average, of the money on education doesn't come from Washington; it comes from the States; it comes from the local communities that fund the educational programs they determine are their priorities. On average, only 6 percent of the total education budget comes from Washington, DC. The money will be adequate to address the demands. My recommendation is that we pass this imperfect document to allow the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committee to begin their work. This document is important as an outline of our priorities, but it is written on paper. It is not written in concrete. It can and will be modified as we have done so every single year as we move through the legislative process. This is a time of great emotion. It is a time of great pressure. Our leaders, Tom Daschle and Kent Conrad on the Budget Committee and also Senator Domenici and Senator Lott, have had a very difficult job trying to reach an agreement in truly a divided Government. I respect all of them for their sincerity and their honesty and their dedication to try to reach an agreement that everyone can support. It is, however, time for us to move ahead. There is other work to be done. Now is the time to begin that work by adopting this budget and moving on to the next step. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments for an individual retirement account, IRA. Congress excluded ``collectibles,'' such as antiques, gold and silver bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contributions to IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concern that individuals would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are valued. Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding certain precious metals bullion. My legislation would exclude from the definition of collectibles only those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards: certification by a nationally recognized grading service, traded on a nationally recognized network, and held by a qualified trustee as described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal use may be included in IRAs. There are several nationally recognized, independent certification or grading services. Full-time professional graders, numismatists, examine each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed, preserved, to ensure that it remains in the same condition as when it was graded. Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified Coin Net. These networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest in the legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until updated. The liquidity provided through a bona fide national trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and should given the same treatment under the law as other financial investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments for an individual retirement account, IRA. Congress excluded ``collectibles,'' such as antiques, gold and silver bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contributions to IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concern that individuals would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are valued. Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding certain precious metals bullion. My legislation would exclude from the definition of collectibles only those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards: certification by a nationally recognized grading service, traded on a nationally recognized network, and held by a qualified trustee as described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal use may be included in IRAs. There are several nationally recognized, independent certification or grading services. Full-time professional graders, numismatists, examine each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed, preserved, to ensure that it remains in the same condition as when it was graded. Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified Coin Net. These networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest in the legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until updated. The liquidity provided through a bona fide national trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and should given the same treatment under the law as other financial investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to address a problem that has prevented municipal gas systems from using their tax exempt borrowing authority to obtain an assured, long-term supply of competitively-priced natural gas. I am joined today by my colleagues, Senators Thompson, Miller, Cleland, Landrieu, Shelby, Bunning and Frist. There are approximately 1,000 publicly owned gas distribution systems in the United States, the vast majority of which are located in small towns and rural communities across my home state of Louisiana and across the country. In 1993, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, restructured the natural gas industry so that municipal gas systems could no longer purchase natural gas supplies on a reliable and regulated basis from interstate natural gas pipelines. This fundamental change in the marketplace meant that for the first time municipal gas systems had to acquire reliable gas supplies and transport on their own in a deregulated marketplace. In response, many formed joint action agencies--as contemplated in the FERC restructuring, to acquire and manage the delivery of gas. In today's turbulent natural gas markets, long-term prepaid supply arrangements are the most reliable means of obtaining an assured supply of natural gas. To fund prepaid supply contracts, a municipality or a joint action agency issues tax-exempt bonds. These contracts contain stiff penalties if the supplier fails to fulfill its contract--making this the most reliable gas supply that municipal gas agencies can purchase. The seller discounts the price for several reasons including the fact that a prepaid contract eliminates the normal credit risk associated with selling gas to non-rated governmental entities. Municipal gas systems are able to obtain these firm gas supplies at more competitive prices. Until August of 1999, joint action agencies entered into prepayment supply contracts with gas suppliers to obtain a long-term, e.g., 10-year, supply of gas. In August 1999, the IRS effectively prevented municipal gas systems from using their tax-exempt borrowing authority to fund the purchase of long-term, prepaid supplies of natural gas for their citizens. In a statement on an unrelated matter, the IRS questioned whether the purchase of a commodity, such as natural gas, under a prepaid contract financed by tax-exempt bonds has a principal purpose of earning an investment return. In this scenario, the bonds would run afoul of the arbitrage rules of the Internal Revenue Code. Confusion over the IRS' statement and fear of impending regulations has led to the effective elimination of an extremely effective method of securing natural gas for local communities. The IRS has yet to issue any clarification or guidance on this issue. Under current law, tax-exempt bonds may not be used to raise proceeds that are then used to acquire ``investment-type property'' having a higher yield than the bonds. Governmental bonds that violate this arbitrage restriction do not qualify for tax-exempt status. Treasury regulations provide that investment-type property includes certain prepayments for property or services ``if a principal purpose for prepaying is to receive an investment return.'' But, ``a prepayment does not give rise to investment-type property if . . . the prepayment is made for a substantial business purpose other than investment return and the issuer has no commercially reasonable alternative to the prepayment. . . .'' A nearly identical standard is used to determine whether a prepayment transaction is treated as a loan for purposes of the private loan-financing test. If a transaction is considered a private loan financing, the bonds are treated as private activity bonds. Although municipal gas systems clearly have a ``substantial business purpose'' for entering into prepayment transactions and ``no commercially reasonable alternative,'' the lack of clarification on this IRS language has hampered the most efficient tool available to public gas systems to secure long-term supplies of natural gas. The bill does not overturn current law or any IRS regulations. It simply clarifies the law, both with respect to the arbitrage rules and the private loan financing rules, to allow an effective and reasonably- priced energy delivery system to continue unimpeded. The United States is in the midst of an energy crisis. Natural gas distribution systems are scrambling to obtain an assured supply of natural gas, even while prices have skyrocketed in the last few months. The ability of small communities to use their tax-exempt borrowing authority to obtain a long-term, assured supply of competitively-priced natural gas is essential. By clarifying current law, we provide a low- cost natural gas option for millions of Americans across the country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I can only say in 11 seconds that it specifies it has to be for education, and it comes out of the function 500. That is the education function. It can't be used for anything else.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have only a minute. For the sake of our colleagues, this amendment simply takes $70 billion off the tax cut which is now at approximately a level of $1.275 trillion, I think. It says that $70 billion is going to be used for education purposes, and the purpose is to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA; to put the money back where I think it is a high priority. This amendment is offered on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords who has been a long-time champion for the funding of the IDEA program. This amendment does not take it out of the contingency fund. There is no more contingency fund. Remember the spectrum? Remember how many times we spent it? It is gone; agriculture and defense and everything else ate it up. If you want the $70 billion, there is only one place to get it, and my amendment provides the one place to get it by reducing the tax cuts. I ask my colleagues to support this effort.