John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to express my personal appreciation to all the conferees who participated in the fiscal year 2000 energy and water development appropriations conference for including funding and language for Louisiana projects. Flood control, hurricane protection and navigation are all vital to the safety and well-being of our citizens. These water-related infrastructure projects are of major economic importance to the state. A number of them are of major importance to the nation. Of the Louisiana projects in the fiscal year 2000 report and the Statement of Managers, there are two Louisiana projects which I would like to discuss further at this time: the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock Project and the Bayou Darrow Floodgate, Aloha-Rigolette Flood Control, Red River Project. I appreciate all that the conferees have done for these projects. I am taking this opportunity to express my views to the Senate on some key issues affecting them. Resolution of these issues is critical to the two projects being built in a timely manner to provide the protection and service for which they have been authorized. With regard to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, I am most appreciative of the funding which the conferees have included for it and its mitigation. On the related key project issue, it is of the highest importance that the Corps of Engineers use the full replacement cost to value the real estate and facilities which it acquires from the Port of New Orleans as part of the project. The Port of New Orleans had expected the Corps to use full replacement value when it acquires the Port's properties. I am told that full replacement cost is the value which the Corps is using to acquire other similarly-situated property and facilities for the lock project. Senator Landrieu and I contacted the conferees about this full replacement cost issue. As I understand and which I appreciate very much, the conferees noted that there are significant differences in the estimates used by the Corps and the Port to value the Port's properties to be acquired. As I also understand, conferees expect the Corps to work in good faith to arrive at an equitable solution to this issue in accordance with current law, which I also appreciate very much. If, indeed, the Corps is using, in accordance with current law, full replacement cost for other similarly-situated properties which it will acquire for the lock project, then it is only equitable and fair that, in accordance with current law, it use full replacement cost to acquire the Port's properties for the project. With regard to the Bayou Darrow Floodgate, Aloha-Rigolette Flood Control, Red River Project, I am most appreciative that the conferees have provided FY 2000 funding for the project. I also appreciate their consideration of the request by Senator Landrieu and I which was not able to be included as part of the conference agreement, that is, to authorize full federal responsibility for project costs which are in excess of those anticipated in the 1994 Project Cooperation Agreement. The excess costs have arisen due to extenuating circumstances which included, as I understand, project-related contract negotiations, but about which the Town of Colfax, the non-federal sponsor, says it was not consulted. The Town, which is a very small rural community, says it is unable to pay the share of the excess costs assigned to it by the Corps. I am most concerned about this situation. I hope that the Corps of Engineers will work very closely with the Town of Colfax to resolve the excess cost issue soon and that this much-needed flood control project will be able to be completed in a timely manner. This concludes my statement, Mr. President.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding. I appreciate it very much. I really wasn't going to say anything again. I thought I said enough on this issue. I think the Senate probably has debated far too long on this issue. What is surprising to me is what the arguments have been about. I don't think they are directly related to the issue at hand. I think it is important for us to try to understand what the issue is. Is it that we don't like oil companies, or is the issue that we like the environment, or is the issue that we don't like education, or that we do like education? No. The issue is very simple and not complex at all. The law that was passed by the Congress--I was on the committee in the House that wrote the bill in 1976. We wrote the OCS Lands Act of 1976. We determined at that time that offshore oil companies that produce oil on Federal lands and the OCS would pay the General Treasury one-sixth of the value of the oil. That is the law; it is one-sixth of the value of the oil. We established that back in 1976. It was one-eighth before that. Companies, every year, pay one-sixth of the fair market value of the oil. That doesn't go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It goes to the General Treasury. Congress then appropriates that money to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, appropriates it for defense purposes, appropriates it for health purposes, and everything else Congress does. That is what the companies have been paying every year--one-sixth of the fair market value of the oil. Last year, they paid about $4.7 billion, I think, in royalties for the right to produce that oil on Federal lands in our country. Now, the issue is a very narrow issue. How do you determine what the fair market value of the oil is? It is even more narrow than that. It is what a company is entitled to deduct in determining that fair market value. I listened intently to my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, with his chart showing why independents paid one price and integrated major companies paid a different price for producing oil on the same adjacent leases. There is a very simple explanation of why that is the way it is. The Senator from Michigan would never argue with the fact that if a Michigan automobile company built a car in Detroit and then sold that car in Louisiana, that Michigan automobile manufacturer would not be able to add the cost of transporting that car to New Orleans to the price he got for the vehicle. Of course, the big company would be able to do that. That would be part of the cost of doing business. He would build the car in Michigan, transport it to New Orleans, sell it, and add the transportation cost to the price of the car. No one would think that would be unusual. The same principle affects oil companies, as well. In determining the fair market value, you find out where they sell it. A legitimate deduction is transporting it to the place of the sale. The difference between the independent companies and the major companies in the same area is they sell it at different places. The independent will sell it when it comes out of the ground. He will sell it at the wellhead. An integrated company would not sell it at the wellhead but would put the oil in a transportation pipeline and send it to a point where it is sold down the line. Would anybody argue that the cost of transporting the oil from the time it is brought out of the ground to the time it is eventually sold is not a legitimate cost of producing and selling that product? Of course, not. Just as the cost of transporting that car from Michigan to New Orleans is a legitimate cost of producing and selling it the first time you have a sale; it is a legitimate add-on to the price of the product. So, too, is the cost of transporting the oil from the well to the place of the first sale. It is a legitimate deduction for the cost of producing that product. That is really what we are arguing about. The Department of the Interior and Minerals Management say they don't agree that a cost of transporting it should be a legitimate deduction, or maybe some of it should but not all of it. The companies say they think it all should be deductible. The MMS says just part of it. That is the fight. This fight is not about education or welfare or defense. It is a very narrow issue. The Senator from Texas is merely saying: Please, let's make them talk a little bit more about trying to resolve this very narrow issue. Oh, we can let the rule go through, and it is going to be litigated from here to who knows where. That is going to cost the Government and the taxpayers and the companies a lot of money, and it is not going to resolve anything--certainly not in 12 months. We will be in litigation in courts all over the country litigating what they think is a legitimate deduction versus what the company thinks. The Senator from Texas has suggested we pause for 12 months and say negotiate out what is a legitimate deduction for transporting the oil from the time it is brought out of the ground to the time it reaches its first sale. There is nothing mysterious about that. We always argue with companies about what is and is not legitimate. My State has sued oil companies right and left, disagreeing on the interpretation of a legitimate deduction. The issue is whether you are going to allow transportation costs to be deducted or not. It is not whether or not you like oil companies. Hate them; I don't care. The question is simply fairness about what a legitimate deduction should be with regard to determining the fair market value of the oil. Oil companies have said: Let's put an end to this. We will give you the oil and you sell it and determine the fair market value. The Government says: No, we don't want to do that; we want you to market it and get a fair market value for it. It is not a question about anybody lying, cheating, stealing, or trying to rip off the Government, or anything else. Companies have an obligation to represent their stockholders and the millions of employees they have. The Government has an obligation to be fair. The only thing the amendment of the Senator from Texas says is, let's avoid litigation and quit fighting. It is unfortunate that we got into a debate about whether we like oil companies or not. That is not the issue. Oil companies have paid ever since they have had production on Federal lands. Like I said, $4.7 billion was paid just last year to the General Treasury, and rightfully so, as the cost of being able to produce energy on Federal lands. In my State and on other Federal lands around the coastal areas of this country, it will continue to be paid. It is a very narrow issue. This is not a monumental deal that we should be talking about. We should not be involved in cloture votes and arguing about something that is relatively so small. Some of the Senators say $88 million is being lost. It is not being lost. It is a dispute as to whether it is a legitimate deduction or not. I think we eventually will pass the amendment and, hopefully, the oil companies will sit down in the offices of the Interior Department and negotiate instead of meeting in courthouses and having to litigate. I just hope we can move on--adopt this measure and get on with the many other things that are more pressing than whether we should deduct transportation costs or not. That is the only issue that is on the table. You can talk about anything else, but the issue is only what are legitimate transportation costs from the time the oil comes out of the ground to the time it is sold at the first sale. I suggest that this is not something that you tie up the Senate for as long as it has been. It should be negotiated out by technicians, lawyers, but it should be negotiated, not litigated. I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this question is really about whether we are going to pause for 12 months and negotiate or whether we are going to litigate for 5 years. I think the Hutchison amendment is very helpful in that it says: Let's pause and, instead of fighting it out in the courtroom, let's get people to talk about it in their offices, between Interior and industry, over what is a fair market value. It is well worth a 12-month pause to try to negotiate instead of litigating from here on after--that is all the Hutchison amendment does--in order to find out what a fair market value truly is. We should support it.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu, the ``Lake Ponchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 1999,'' S. 1621. Our goal for this bill is clear and straightforward: to help with the ongoing restoration of the Lake Ponchartrain Basin. As one of the largest estuarine systems in the nation and the largest one on the Gulf Coast, restoration of the basin merits federal assistance. Pollution problems accumulated in the basin for years. The clean up of the watershed has been under way for about a decade, but more work remains to be done. Spearheading the current restoration has been the Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation, created by the Louisiana Legislature in 1989. Since then, the Foundation has implemented 38 water quality, habitat and education programs and projects. Coordination and cooperation have been hallmarks of the basin restoration initiative. The State of Louisiana, local governments and officials, citizens, businesses, universities and federal agencies all have contributed to it. Three key basin-area institutions have allied themselves and have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to help facilitate the basin's restoration. These organizations include the Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation; the Regional Planning Commission, consisting of Orleans, Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes; and the University of New Orleans. The legislative initiative which Senator Landrieu and I have undertaken has been assembled through these organizations' leadership. Is the basin better off today than it has been for many years? Are there obvious signs of improvement? Has the grassroots campaign of the past 10 years been successful? In 1995, pelicans were spotted again and their numbers are on the increase. In 1998, a sea turtle appeared, as well as two manatees. Now there are four manatees. This year, dolphins have been seen for the first time in 40 years. The pelicans, manatees, dolphins and a sea turtle confirm that the hard work and commitment of citizens, the state and the local governments have improved the basin. With these successes in hand, it is vital to the basin's 5,000 square-mile ecosystem that the restoration work continue as vigorously as it has to this point. The bill which Senator Landrieu and I have introduced would authorize a federal Lake Ponchartrain Basin Restoration Program, to be housed at the Environmental Protection Agency. A key component of the bill would be the authorization of federal funds for the restoration program. As important, the bill would direct the Federal Government to coordinate the restoration with the State and local agencies and organizations. To carry out the Federal restoration program, the EPA would be directed to establish the Lake Ponchartrain Executive Council. Council members would include the EPA, the State of Louisiana, the Regional Planning Commission, the University of New Orleans, and the Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation. The EPA, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, the State and local authorities, would assist the Council with the preparation of a comprehensive, multi-use watershed management plan to restore and protect the basin. Federal grant funds and technical assistance would be available through the EPA. Certain planning, research, monitoring and voluntary restoration projects would be eligible for funding. In accordance with the management plan, the voluntary restoration projects would address various waste, runoff, discharge and water quality problems to improve the basin's watershed. Also to be authorized for continued priority funding would be the New Orleans Inflow and Infiltration Project. Lake Ponchartrain, the basin's namesake, is located in its midst. The lake plays a vital environmental, economic and quality of life role for the 1.5 million people who live around it in 16 Louisiana parishes. A 630 square-mile body of water, the lake is a major beneficiary of the basin's restoration. Other beneficiaries of the restoration program would be the many species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and plants which are found in the basin. Federal assistance should be provided for a watershed program of this size and impact to assist with the cost of the voluntary restoration projects as well as planning, research, and monitoring projects. I commend all those who have organized and implemented the current basin restoration program over the past decade. They have given so much of their time, energy and support to make the basin environmentally healthier today than it has been for many years. All of them deserve the highest tribute and recognition. It is my privilege and honor to serve on behalf of citizens who recognize a serious problem and work cooperatively to solve it and also to introduce legislation which would help them continue such a major undertaking. For these reasons, I have joined with Senator Landrieu in cosponsoring the ``Lake Ponchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 1999.'' I urge the Senate's prompt consideration of the bill and look forward to working with other Senators on behalf of its passage. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleagues. advanced development project powder river coal initiative

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman. I commend the gentleman from Washington and the distinguished ranking member Mr. Byrd for the great leadership they have demonstrated in crafting the FY2000 Interior Appropriations bill. Of great personal interest to me is a Kemp's Ridley sea turtle project that is, in part, funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This project is a twenty-year-old on-going success story in the recovery of a high endangered species. Since 1978, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, has spearheaded the sea turtle conservation work at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. This collaborative conservation project with the Mexican government and the U.S. shrimp industry through the National Fisheries Institute protects Kemp's Ridley sea turtle nests an females from predation and other hazards, and ensures that young turtles make it into the sea. This project is the longest standing collaborative conservation project between the United States and Mexico without a formal treaty. This year, despite the demonstrable success of the project, the Fish and Wildlife Service did not dedicated funds to the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle project. I am extremely concerned and want to express my strong support for continued funding for this valuable conservation effort.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, will the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. In just 60 seconds, it is unfortunate we are voting with a number of Senators absent. I guess we will have to do that. The question is, How do we value oil? The law says the companies owe the Federal Government, taxpayers, one-sixth to one-eighth of the value of the oil. The problem is, how do you determine the value? It is a very complicated rulemaking procedure that is ongoing to try to determine what are the legitimate deductions and transportation costs, in particular, determining what the fair market value of oil is. We can rush this thing through. It will result in years of litigation. Or we can pause for a few moments, which is what we are asking to be done, to try to negotiate out something to which both sides can agree. I think it makes more sense to pause for a few moments, get the groups together and work it out, rather than run the risk of years and years of litigation. We know what is going to happen then. Nobody is going to win. The American public is not going to win. I urge we support the Hutchison amendment and get it done in a more realistic and fair fashion.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. When I heard some of the arguments by my colleagues about cheating, stealing, and lying, I thought I was listening to a country and western song at one point. The question is not about cheating, stealing, and lying. It is not about whether you have sympathy for the oil companies coming out the wazoo. I checked my wazoo, and I don't have any sympathy for the oil companies coming out of it. But I do think I have sympathy for what is fair and what is right. The Federal Government owns the oil, and it allows companies to explore and produce it. The companies give back in return one-sixth or one-eighth of the royalties to the Federal Government--to the taxpayers of the United States--in payment for the right to do this type of production. The only question is, What is the value of oil? The companies don't set that. We do. Congress does. The only issue is, How do you determine the legitimate value of the oil? We have a formula that has been in place for years. The Federal Government, through minerals management, said we will try to make it simple. We are not going to try to raise any additional money and keep it revenue-neutral. We want to have a simpler way of doing it. The issue now boils down to the regulations. They are very complicated. It is not an easy process. How do you determine the price of oil that is produced in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? If you sold it at the well 200 miles offshore, it would be easy to determine what the price is. But it is not sold in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It is transported hundreds and hundreds of miles onshore where it is refined and then ultimately sold. The question is, What is the legitimate production price? Who pays for the transportation from the middle of the gulf? It is the Federal Government's oil. Do the companies pay for the transportation, or does the Federal Government pay for the transportation? The question is, What is the legitimate production in determining what the price is? Could I have 30 seconds to conclude? What the Senator from Texas has done is say: Look, pull over. There is a huge disagreement. It is very difficult and very complicated. Nobody is stealing, cheating, or lying. But we need a little bit more time to try to bring both sides together to come up with a realistic way of determining fair market value. I think our amendment is a good one and should be supported.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. The IRS position would be difficult or impossible to administer. The position will lead to years of litigation, as companies and the IRS battle out whether commissions should be capitalized or deducted. That will drain resources from both sides for no productive reason.

Mr. BREAUX. I have been very concerned about this issue, as well. It seems to me that commissions paid by cellular telephone companies are like any other marketing expenses incurred by telephone companies--or any other companies--and are deductible under current tax law.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the conference report for The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 states that section 1317 of the Senate amendment regarding prohibited allocation of stock in an S corporation ESOP was not included in the conference agreement. Is that report language correct?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman for this clarification. Tax Treatment of Commissions Paid to Enroll Cellular Telephone Customers

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York and also the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the Senator from Delaware. They are both distinguished gentlemen. I just make a note that when we use the term ``distinguished gentleman,'' we use it sometimes lackadaisically in the Senate. In this case, I think it is important for us to note that there are probably no two finer gentlemen in this body today than the Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the committee, and the Senator from New York, the ranking member of our committee. They are gentlemen in the sense of how they have had to conduct the affairs of bringing this conference report and this tax bill to the American public. Although they have had differences in what they thought the ultimate product should look like, both of these two distinguished Senators have conducted themselves in the finest sense of being a gentleman, and they have worked together in a fashion that I think has kept our committee together. I congratulate them for that. Let me say a couple of words about where we are. Unfortunately, the debate we are hearing on the floor today is about something that is not going to happen. We are spending all of this time talking about something that is not going to become law; it is not going to occur because none of this will, in fact, become legislation. It will only be something about which we have talked. Many colleagues on this side of the aisle are talking about how bad the provisions are in the conference report, and many colleagues on that side of the aisle are talking about how wonderful the provisions in the bill are. The bottom line is we are talking about something that is not going to happen because it is very clear to everybody in America, and everybody in Washington knows, that when this bill gets down to the President in this form, it is going to be vetoed. The veto will not be overridden. All of this exercise today, while I am sure it is important to make our political points, is not talking about what is going to benefit the people of our country. As a result of where we are, there will be no reduction in the marriage penalty. It is not going to be fixed. It is not going to be addressed by this product. There will be no reduction of income rates from 15 percent to 14 percent. That is not going to become law. There is not going to be any increase in the standard deduction for hard-working Americans. The standard deduction is not going to go up. The marriage penalty is not going to go down. Estate taxes are not going to be repealed. Estate taxes are not going to be reduced. It will be the same after this bill is disposed of. Child care credits are not going to go up. Health care credits for people who don't have health care will not be assisted because all of the things we have in these various pieces of legislation that we tried to get into a package that could be signed will, in fact, not be signed into law. In many ways, this is an exercise in futility--in the sense that we know it will never become law. This debate, however, I think is still important. It is important to point out some of the things that are in the bill, which I find sort of interesting. I know my colleagues have looked at this list. It is a list of all of the things that are in the bill that are going to be sunsetted. We have more sunsets in this bill than they had in the movie ``South Pacific.'' The broad-based tax relief is going to be sunsetted. The marriage penalty will be sunsetted. The AMT relief, the capital gains reduction, and the individual retirement accounts, which Senator Roth has worked so hard on, will be sunsetted. Assistance for distressed communities will be sunsetted. There is a sunset on every page. It is enough to put us to sleep. The problem is that all of these things we have are not going to become law. But I think the debate we have is important because I always remain optimistic. I guess when I lose my optimism, I will lose my interest in serving in this esteemed body; and I haven't reached that point yet. I think it is important to have this debate. It is unfortunate that we only have 10 hours. It is unfortunate that we had 20 hours for 100 Senators to debate a major reform in the Tax Code of this country. I think we have to recognize that the system in which we bring tax bills to the Senate floor for open debate needs to go back to that old system where we have open debate on something as important as tax policy. We used to do it and produce good bills. The distinguished ranking member and the chairman remembers those days. We need to go back to the process whereby we have open and complete debate on tax laws in this country. The final point I will make is that I hope sometime when we come back--after we have had the veto ceremony and the response to the veto ceremony, and everybody has gotten it off their chests, we can come back in September, as the chairman has said, and address the real issue of Medicare, try to look at what amount of money we really need in Medicare. We have a plug number in the Democratic bill of $320 billion. We don't need that much. I don't think we can spend $320 billion more in Medicare and make it any better than it is today. But we can reform it; we can figure out how much money we do need because we do need more money. We can figure out how to craft a program that brings Medicare into the 21st century. It was a great program in 1965. This is approaching the 21st century, and the model of 1965 does not fit what we need to do for the 21st century. We need to reform it and figure out how much money we need for a good, solid prescription drug program, particularly one with catastrophic protection, and try to combine that legislation with a realistic tax bill. I recommend that we also consider doing something on Social Security--certainly a lockbox, a temporary protection, but we need real reform for that program as well. We need to look at the private sector to help increase the return on Social Security investments from what we have right now as part of any real reform effort. I hope that sometime late in September we will have an opportunity to look at trying to combine the business recommendations from all of our Members on Social Security reform and on true Medicare reform, and figure out what we actually need to put into a tax bill that would give real relief to all of these things we are sunsetting right and left, and come up with something that helps people who need the greatest help. I voted for this bill in the Finance Committee to keep the process going forward. I voted for it when it passed the Senate the first time to keep the process going forward. Unfortunately, at this stage the process has now gone backwards. What we have before the Senate is more reflective of the House-passed bill, which I think does not really direct the limited tax help to those who need it the most. It is interesting to note that, with all the trigger mechanisms, it looks like a shooting gallery as far as all the triggers that have to go into effect before the tax bill goes into effect. Add the sunset provisions with the trigger mechanisms, and I doubt that anybody in this body can tell you what the real tax benefits are going to be for the American people. Is it going to be $800 billion, or $545 billion, which is sort of pretty close to what a centrist group recommended of $500 billion. I suggest that we have, at best, a mishmash of differing recommendations and viewpoints about what the tax bill ought to look like. I am not sure, with all the sunsets and everything else we have in here, that anybody can really describe exactly what we are presenting to the American public other than a political issue. We are going to have a great political debate on this from both sides of the aisle. We are going to criticize everything coming from our opponents from both perspectives, but we are going to ultimately be talking about what we didn't do. We are going to be talking about failure, and we are going to talk about whose fault it is that we didn't accomplish anything. That is really unfortunate. I happen to think the American people would much prefer for us to have a debate on success: You did it. We did it. No. You did it. But at least we would be talking about success. We would be talking about something we did instead of debating failure and whose fault it was that we weren't able to come together. We have a divided government. The President is a Democrat. He is going to be there until the next election. And who knows what after that? I conclude by saying that I congratulate our two leaders. They did a terrific job. I greatly respect them for it. Hopefully, we can come back and do it later in a better fashion.

Mr. BREAUX. I also appreciate the chairman's views on this. We are confident that the Treasury can resolve this issue satisfactorily, and we will be following events at the Treasury closely. Mr. NICKLES: I thank the chairman for sharing his views on this important issue. I hope it can be expeditiously resolved.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Act. The reason for the Act is to ensure that all inspectors performing compliance reviews on inter- and intra-state motor carriers are certified to a uniform standard and proficiency. This Act is in part a response to the recent bus accident in Louisiana by Custom Bus Charter, Inc. in which 22 people were killed, and in which the driver was found to have marijuana in his system. In July 1996, just four months after the Federal Highway Administration (``FHWA'') inspected and assigned a Satisfactory rating to Customs Bus Charter, Inc., a private company under contract to the Department of Defense failed Custom Bus Charter, Inc. for not having a drug and alcohol testing program. The absence of a drug and alcohol testing program is a FHWA Critical violation for which the carrier should have been assigned, at best, a Conditional rating by FHWA. Furthermore, 27 percent of motor carriers that were assigned a Satisfactory rating by FHWA, failed to enter the DoD program because of Critical violations discovered by the DoD contractor. These examples demonstrate that FHWA does not have the resources and structure to certify inspectors, and that compliance reviews are not always performed in a consistent or accurate manner. In addition to inconsistent inspection, FHWA cannot possibly collect sufficient safety information on the motor carrier industry. There are estimated to be more than 450,000 inter-state motor carriers licensed to do business in the U.S. The Federal Highway Administration has the resources to conduct only a limited number of compliance reviews annually. While they intend to double the current level of inspections, this will only bring the total to approximately 8,000 inspections annually, less than 2 percent of the estimated motor carrier population, with more than twice that amount entering and exiting the market. Over 70 percent of existing motor carriers have never been inspected by FHWA, and fewer than 5 percent of the inspections conducted could be considered current, within the past three years. Clearly, the problem is twofold: FHWA is in desperate need of more information regarding the compliance level of carriers licensed to do business, and, those individuals that collect the information through inspections must possess some uniform level of competence and consistency. Thus, this Act is needed to certify all Motor Carrier Safety Specialists, both in the private and pubic sectors, so that these professionals can perform consistent compliance reviews and provide safety data on motor carriers to the government, industry, and the public. The Act not only provides for certification and training of federal motor carrier safety specialists, but state, local, and third- party safety specialists as well. Third-party, private auditors can provide additional information to assist FHWA in monitoring carrier performance. Previously, the FHWA has not accepted information from private sources because there is no certification of their proficiency. The Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Certification Board, a non-profit organization, would be formed by technical representatives of the transportation industry, for the expressed purpose of working with the Secretary of Transportation to establish a training and certification program for Motor Carrier Safety Specialists and to serve as a clearinghouse for motor carrier data from third-party auditors. This follows the policy contained in Office of Management and Budget Circular Number A-119 and directs agencies to use voluntary standards where possible and the model used successfully by the Environmental Protection Agency for referring federally-mandated certification to private organizations. Further, FHWA needs accurate and current information on motor carriers in order to target its resources towards problem carriers. Investigations by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General found that FHWA motor carrier data are inadequate and out-of-date, limiting FHWA's ability to identify and target ``at risk'' carriers. Private auditors could provide additional information to augment FHWA's database. The Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Certification Board would establish a program to collect and verify current information on motor carriers, and provide this information to the Federal Highway Administration to augment their database. Finally, the public must play a role in removing unsafe carriers from U.S. highways by considering safety first when hiring a motor carrier. Simply put, if the public does not hire carriers that have poor safety performance, they will be put out of business and off our nation's highways. A media campaign must be implemented to educate the public on their role in increasing motor carrier safety, and about publicly available information systems that provide safety information on motor carriers. Two such internet-accessible systems are the publicly-funded FHWA SAFER system and the privately funded International Motor Carrier Audit Commission (IMCAC). This program can be quickly implemented due to the support of existing groups that are equipped to carry out training, certification and clearinghouse functions, such as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) which currently provides certification for roadside vehicle inspectors, and the International Motor Carrier Audit Commission (IMCAC) which currently provides safety data to the public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. I agree that it is vital that these ongoing agriculture research projects be given much deserved and badly needed attention and consideration by the U.S. Congress. and I join Senator Landrieu in my concern about the urgency to control Formosan termite devastation to privately-owned and public property, to historic preservation, to commerce, and to economic development. Research being conducted at the Agriculture Research Service in New Orleans is vital to controlling the Formosan termite. Formosan termites are unique and are capable of inflicting more damage to more plant species than native termite species. In addition, they have unique biological traits which make them more difficult to control, such as being able to avoid traditional termite controlling toxins by building nests above ground. The fundamental research currently conducted in New Orleans will identify vulnerabilities in termite biology or colony development which can be exploited for the development of new detection methods and environmentally-sound control strategies. The structural foundation of New Orleans and other areas all along the coast will benefit from this research. Also, the ongoing Phytoestrogen research being conducted by the Southern Regional Research Center in coordination with Tulane and Xavier Universities in New Orleans is an exemplary partnership. The Tulane/Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental Research has one of the leading laboratory efforts in the world for the study of estrogenic chemicals, including Phytoestrogens. USDA's Southern Research Center has 54 years of distinguished service to agriculture and science, making this a productive and sensible collaboration. The ramifications of this partnership will be broad-reaching, aiding not only the prevention and treatment of disease in humans, but also the development of safe biological alternatives to conventional pest control. I join Senator Landrieu in looking forward to the continuation of these projects.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Act. The reason for the Act is to ensure that all inspectors performing compliance reviews on inter- and intra-state motor carriers are certified to a uniform standard and proficiency. This Act is in part a response to the recent bus accident in Louisiana by Custom Bus Charter, Inc. in which 22 people were killed, and in which the driver was found to have marijuana in his system. In July 1996, just four months after the Federal Highway Administration (``FHWA'') inspected and assigned a Satisfactory rating to Customs Bus Charter, Inc., a private company under contract to the Department of Defense failed Custom Bus Charter, Inc. for not having a drug and alcohol testing program. The absence of a drug and alcohol testing program is a FHWA Critical violation for which the carrier should have been assigned, at best, a Conditional rating by FHWA. Furthermore, 27 percent of motor carriers that were assigned a Satisfactory rating by FHWA, failed to enter the DoD program because of Critical violations discovered by the DoD contractor. These examples demonstrate that FHWA does not have the resources and structure to certify inspectors, and that compliance reviews are not always performed in a consistent or accurate manner. In addition to inconsistent inspection, FHWA cannot possibly collect sufficient safety information on the motor carrier industry. There are estimated to be more than 450,000 inter-state motor carriers licensed to do business in the U.S. The Federal Highway Administration has the resources to conduct only a limited number of compliance reviews annually. While they intend to double the current level of inspections, this will only bring the total to approximately 8,000 inspections annually, less than 2 percent of the estimated motor carrier population, with more than twice that amount entering and exiting the market. Over 70 percent of existing motor carriers have never been inspected by FHWA, and fewer than 5 percent of the inspections conducted could be considered current, within the past three years. Clearly, the problem is twofold: FHWA is in desperate need of more information regarding the compliance level of carriers licensed to do business, and, those individuals that collect the information through inspections must possess some uniform level of competence and consistency. Thus, this Act is needed to certify all Motor Carrier Safety Specialists, both in the private and pubic sectors, so that these professionals can perform consistent compliance reviews and provide safety data on motor carriers to the government, industry, and the public. The Act not only provides for certification and training of federal motor carrier safety specialists, but state, local, and third- party safety specialists as well. Third-party, private auditors can provide additional information to assist FHWA in monitoring carrier performance. Previously, the FHWA has not accepted information from private sources because there is no certification of their proficiency. The Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Certification Board, a non-profit organization, would be formed by technical representatives of the transportation industry, for the expressed purpose of working with the Secretary of Transportation to establish a training and certification program for Motor Carrier Safety Specialists and to serve as a clearinghouse for motor carrier data from third-party auditors. This follows the policy contained in Office of Management and Budget Circular Number A-119 and directs agencies to use voluntary standards where possible and the model used successfully by the Environmental Protection Agency for referring federally-mandated certification to private organizations. Further, FHWA needs accurate and current information on motor carriers in order to target its resources towards problem carriers. Investigations by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General found that FHWA motor carrier data are inadequate and out-of-date, limiting FHWA's ability to identify and target ``at risk'' carriers. Private auditors could provide additional information to augment FHWA's database. The Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Certification Board would establish a program to collect and verify current information on motor carriers, and provide this information to the Federal Highway Administration to augment their database. Finally, the public must play a role in removing unsafe carriers from U.S. highways by considering safety first when hiring a motor carrier. Simply put, if the public does not hire carriers that have poor safety performance, they will be put out of business and off our nation's highways. A media campaign must be implemented to educate the public on their role in increasing motor carrier safety, and about publicly available information systems that provide safety information on motor carriers. Two such internet-accessible systems are the publicly-funded FHWA SAFER system and the privately funded International Motor Carrier Audit Commission (IMCAC). This program can be quickly implemented due to the support of existing groups that are equipped to carry out training, certification and clearinghouse functions, such as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) which currently provides certification for roadside vehicle inspectors, and the International Motor Carrier Audit Commission (IMCAC) which currently provides safety data to the public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time. It is not unusual that we are doing the sugar amendment again. It seems that we do it about every 2 years. We have been doing it for probably the last 20 years. It is interesting that this time we are doing it on a bill that is designed to help American agriculture, except that I think this amendment is being offered to try to eliminate an entire farm program for only one commodity. But this amendment is on a bill we are working on to try to help American agriculture. So I guess the only thing unusual is not that we are doing a sugar amendment but that we are doing it on a bill that is designed to help American farmers. And, of course, the amendment would do the exact opposite. It is interesting that some of my colleagues said, well, the program only helps a couple of folks in south Florida when in truth the fact is that about 420,000 people earn their living every day either directly or indirectly because of the sugar industry. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii knows its importance in the State of Hawaii. He has been involved not only with sugarcane-producing States but also sugar-beet-producing States. It is a program that has actually undergone a great deal of change and modification and improvement over the years. In the last farm bill, which was in 1986, we made some serious changes in the sugar program. I think most people involved in it said: Look, we are going to try to make the program better than it has been, and we are trying to address some of the legitimate concerns but also trying to provide some protection for this very important American industry, to do it consistent with our international obligations. We have done that. Domestic production controls were eliminated. There is no limit on how much you can produce in beets or in sugar. You can do as much as the market will bear. The guaranteed minimum price was eliminated. It is one of the few commodity crops that doesn't have a minimum guarantee of what the farmer is going to be receiving from the Government. We had a special tax for deficit reduction in the last farm bill, which was increased by 25 percent. This means sugar farmers were actually given an assessment to pay for the Federal deficit. Of course, now that the deficit is gone, it makes a great deal of sense to eliminate the assessment. Minimum imports--talking about not getting enough sugar--in the last farm bill were increased by about 20 percent, a substantial increase over the previous years' pattern on the amount of sugar being imported from about 41 countries that are greatly helped by the program. Forfeiture of sugar crop penalties were imposed. The point is that we made some serious changes to the program in order to improve it. So to come before the Senate, on a bill that is designed to help farmers, and offer an amendment to hurt farmers sort of seems inconsistent. But, well, what else is new? The other point I would make is how many Members of Congress have letters from constituents complaining about the price of a candy bar? How many of us have stacks and stacks of letters complaining about the price of a soft drink, or stacks of letters complaining about the price of a 5-pound bag of sugar in the supermarket? They don't do that because it is not a price that is out of proportion to what it has been in the past. Because of the program, it has not spiked upward or crashed downward but has remained fairly stable so that people can predict what it is going to cost for a 5- pound bag of sugar. It is interesting that the only real complaints about the price of sugar come from the large industrial users and not from consumers in America. I remember my colleague, Senator Craig, was here back in the old days, I would say, when we first started these debates, and Senator Inouye was there, of course. It was the soft drink manufacturers who complained about the price of sugar. It made them charge too much for their soft drinks because they had sugar in them. Then they eliminated the sugar, and the price of the soft drinks went up even more. The actual can of soft drink with no sugar was selling for more than the price of a can of soft drink with sugar. They said, well, the price of sugar is making us raise the price of the soft drink. Then they went to sugar-free drinks, and they charged more for that than they did for the can with sugar in it. They actually increased the price of soft drinks about four times because it said the sugar price went up. Guess what happened when the price of sugar went down? Did they reduce the price of a soft drink? Don't hold your breath. They did not. The price of soft drinks kept going up. The only complaint we have about the sugar program to any extent outside the Chamber is from the professional lobbyists and the large industrial users which, for the most part, have changed over to the use of corn sweeteners and other things in the soft drink industry. I suggest that what we have is a program that works better than most farm programs because it doesn't have any Federal tax subsidy being used to hurt the income for sugar farmers. We use it by trying to regulate foreign companies from dumping cheap subsidized sugar from other countries onto the U.S. market. Some would way that is pretty good. Why don't you let them do that because then the price of sugar would be much lower? The problem with that theory is if they knocked out all of the American beet farmers and sugar cane farmers, the price would be lower for a short period of time, but when they monopolize the market and again control the market, they certainly would have the ability to exercise a sugar cartel and charge whatever they wanted, and we couldn't compete. In summary, we made great changes in 1996. The program is working. Consumers are not complaining. They have a stable price for a very important product. Like we say back home in Louisiana, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Not only is it ``ain't broke,'' but it works very well, and should be maintained.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues who may be watching some of this debate, the last time this amendment was offered--and it is offered to the Senate on an annual basis--was on the Senate Agriculture appropriations bill in 1997. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, at that time moved to table the effort to do away with the program. I remind all Senators we had a recorded vote and 63 Senators voted to table it at that time. I hope people understand the program is working. We made major changes in 1996. It operates at no cost to the taxpayers and has provided a stable floor of prices for the product, sugar, that we import and produce domestically. The point again is, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' It is working as we in the Congress intended it to work. It is working for producers and consumers. This is something that is almost a rarity in agricultural programs. It has been very difficult to come up with a proper balance. This program is working. It is working as Congress intended. We should keep it and not try to kill it when it is working as well as it is. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I inquire as to whether the distinguished chairman has additional time. We can rotate.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, Senator Landrieu.