John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

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

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

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask for the reporting of the amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. How much time remains?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I suggest it is time for a reality check by Members of both parties as to where we are and what we are attempting to do. We in the United States in this period of time are in a very unique, and I would also say very unusual, position in the sense that other countries around the world would love to have the problem that is facing all of us in the Senate this afternoon: We are faced with a country that has a $1 trillion surplus. That is a problem that most countries would love to have. It is a problem because we are now faced with the question of what we are going to do with a $1 trillion surplus. Some have said all of it should be used in the form of a tax cut and given back to the American people. We can argue about how they do that. But, for the moment, let's just say they have decided all of it should go for a tax cut. Some on my side of the aisle say, no, we can't do that. It should be a very small tax cut, and the rest should be reserved for other functions of Government. I point out to my colleagues what I think the rest of the American people already fully realize. They know if the proposal on that side of the aisle--an $800 billion tax cut--should pass and get sent to the President, it is clearly going to be vetoed, and nothing will result from this other than a debate. We will end up with nothing more than a political argument to make against each other. If we pass the Republican bill, and it ultimately goes to the President, there will be a big ceremony in the White House where he will veto that piece of legislation. He will then have a powerful political argument to say the Republican Party has wasted the trillion dollar surplus. There are some on the Republican side of the aisle who will say that is a great argument. The White House and administration will blame the Republicans for wasting the trillion dollars and giving an unnecessary and unrealistic tax cut that is targeted to the wealthiest people in this country. That is a great argument for us. While the political parties may have a short-term political gain, I suggest that the real losers, if this is what is going to happen, are the American people because they end up with nothing --no tax cut, no decision on how to spend the surplus, with no money being allocated to real Medicare reform, and no pressure to continue to work on a Medicare reform program. I suggest there is a different way we can look at this problem instead of a political opportunity. We can look at it as a policy opportunity to do something realistic, and that is what the amendment before this body does. It is a $500 billion tax cut that is targeted to people who really need help in this country. There are some arguments that say the polls tell us the people don't want any tax relief. If you explain it properly when you go back, people do need help. People in the middle- income brackets would like to have a greater standard deduction than they have now. People on the edge of being kicked up into the 28-percent bracket would like to stay in the 15-percent bracket and work harder and earn more for their family. People would like to see more tax assistance for education and help for the 43 million Americans who work every day and can't afford to buy health insurance because they work for a company that doesn't provide them health insurance. We have carefully tailored the $500 billion to help those people. Our legislation helps people buy health insurance. It helps people avoid the ridiculous marriage penalty by eliminating it and increasing the standard deduction. That is a tax policy that should have an opportunity to become law, because while we spend $500 billion over the next 10 years to help people who need help the most, we also reserve $500 billion for other priorities of Government, to do something on Medicare, which needs to be reformed. The chairman says we will do something in September, and that is a very courageous position to take. But there will be money to pay for what is needed for Medicare. There will be a $500 billion pot of money to go to cover the very necessary discretionary spending needs in this country. So we are offering something, according to a reality check, that has the potential to become law as opposed to being merely a political statement on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, people in both parties have taken the position: It is my way or no way. We were sent here not to do political statements and take political positions only, but to work together to resolve differences and come to an agreement on public policy. I happen to think public policy is good politics. But good politics is not necessarily good policy. We have a choice today, in the next couple of hours, to determine whether we are going to be interested in good politics in the short term, or whether we are going to try to work together to reach an agreement that can become law and become policy for the American people. There are very few things in life that are either all one way or the other way. Anybody who has been around for a short period of time knows that. Certainly, when we are discussing what to do with $1 trillion, there are a lot of good ideas. But we have to conclude that neither side is completely right. There has to be a blend of different ideas and philosophies in order to come together in a democracy and reach something that can become law and, ultimately, good public policy. Then the argument will be over success, as opposed to an argument over failure. The track we are on now leads us to go back and tell our people it was their fault that nothing was done. That is arguing over failure as opposed to arguing about success and who was able to bring that to the American people. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished cosponsor of the amendment, the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Indiana.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. I will be very brief and comment on the amendment of my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I do not think there is any disagreement that we ought to have prescription drugs in the Medicare program. But it is interesting that the recommittal motion tells the Finance Committee to report it back in 3 days. I guess we could go over the weekend and, on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday write a prescription drug program and modernize Medicare and reform Medicare, but I doubt whether that is humanly possible, unless the senior Senator from New York wants to spend the weekend doing all of this and finishing it up by Monday morning. There is no question that there is a need for prescription drugs in the Medicare program. But I say to my colleagues, that is not the way to fix Medicare. We have a program that is becoming insolvent. It is going broke in the year 2015. Just adding more benefits to the program, without reforming the structure of the program, is like having dessert before you eat your spinach. It is easy to add more benefits to a program. But bear in mind, we have a program that is structurally going insolvent. We spend more money today than we take in. Just adding more benefits, without taking the time to fundamentally reform the program, is not the answer. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee said he planned to actually begin a markup in September on a comprehensive Medicare reform bill which will include prescription drugs, doing it in a timely fashion. I suggest that after that is reported out, that is the time to look at how much money we need, and then pare down the tax cut, combine the two, and have something that can be signed into law. I think, obviously, we cannot do it in the next 3 days. I think the chairman has outlined a program that makes more sense and that I think is really doable. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the distinguished chairman yield?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader of our Finance Committee. It is interesting; I think the action we have taken really means no matter what type of tax bill ultimately comes back to this body after the conference, we cannot make it a permanent tax cut. For those on our side who have argued for permanency in the Tax Code for research and development or tax incentives, that means we cannot do that. It means if we have an increase in the standard deduction and fix the marriage penalty, we can't do that. It means all those things many of us as Democrats have argued should be permanent tax policy, now we are no longer going to be able to make it permanent no matter how good it is. The argument is true for the other side as well. No matter what comes back in the conference report, it cannot be permanent. I think from a policy standpoint this is terrible policy. We literally are telling all the businesspeople in this country and employees in this country, people who save in this country, no matter what the law is today, it is going to fall off a cliff and go poof in 10 years. What kind of roadmap for economic growth is it, when a country says our tax policy is only going to be good for 10 years no matter how good it is? No matter how good a Democratic policy it is or Republican policy, it is only going to last for 10 years. That in itself is very bad policy in this Senator's opinion. At the same time, I recognize we are operating with our hands tied behind our back with regard to bringing up a tax bill through budget reconciliation, with all these rather archaic rules. We ought to be able to debate fairly a tax bill, make it permanent. If you do not like what is in it, vote no; if you like what is in it, vote yes. But we should not be restricted from offering tax legislation that is the permanent policy of this land. We have had meeting after meeting in the Finance Committee, when people have come up and said: You have to make these provisions permanent. I am not sure whether I am going to expand and grow my company if you are only going to allow it for 10 years, and who knows what is going to happen after 10 years. That is not good public policy; it is not good tax policy, and it points to the problem: the fact that we are bringing up tax legislation in this reconciliation scenario that requires us to operate as we are operating. I suggest to folks on both sides of the aisle, if we can't make tax laws in this country for more than 10 years, we have done something that is very terrible for this country. I think it is the wrong thing to do. Let me make a couple of comments on the legislation that is before the Senate. Most countries around the world would love to have the problem we have in this Senate and in this Congress right now. Other countries would look at it as a great opportunity to have the problem we are facing. We cannot seem to come to an agreement on it. That problem is the United States has about a $1 trillion surplus, and all of us are trying to figure out what to do with the surplus. I suggest if we as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, cannot come to an agreement on what to do with a $1.1 trillion surplus, we, in effect, have said we are not very good at governing; that we cannot simply come together, make our points, seek legitimate compromise, and figure out what to do with a $1 trillion surplus. I know there are some who want the President to be in a position to have the Republican tax bill of $796 billion pass and send it down to him at the White House and have a great ceremony vetoing it. His argument will be that it is too large; it is too irresponsible; it is wasteful; it is going to cause the economy to go south; we are going to have an increase in interest rates. He is going to make a lot of good, solid political points when he has that veto ceremony. There are those on the Republican side who I think would love that to happen, in fact, because they will be able to say: No, the President, when he had the opportunity, chose not to give the American people a legitimate tax cut, and he turned his back on the American people; we are fine with that political argument, and we will take that argument into the election. The American people outside Washington, in my opinion, have come to the conclusion that they are getting very tired of those types of political positions being taken by Members on both sides of the aisle. Under the current circumstances, we are headed for a financial train wreck because we are taking positions on both sides of the aisle: It is my way or no way. I suggest that type of position leads to nothing happening. Sure, we will all at the end of the debate have an argument politically about whose fault it was that nothing was done. Some will say it is the Republicans because they were too greedy. Others will say, no, it was the Democrats' fault because they did not want to give a reasonable tax cut to the American people. We will have good political arguments, but we will have no public policy. We will have good political arguments, but we will be arguing about failure and whose fault it was and whose fault it was that nothing was done. We will not have good public policy, which we were all sent here to craft. It is clear that in a divided government under which we operate, no party can have their way all the time. If both parties take that position, we will end up getting absolutely nothing done. There are a number of us who have suggested that somewhere between the $295 billion Democratic proposal and the $796 billion Republican proposal which the President has said he will veto, there has to be some common ground. There has to be a way in which intelligent, hard- working Members are able to come to an agreement somewhere in the middle and come up with a figure that is reasonable and gives a good tax credit to the American people and, at the same time, uses some of the surplus money, the $1 trillion, to address the very serious needs and shortages we have in discretionary programs, such as veterans, health and education, and has some money in it for paying down the national debt, has money in it for Medicare, which is obviously very important. There should be a way both sides can come together and say: We don't have everything we want but, yes, this is good public policy. I suggest the American people are crying out for us to move in that direction. I and others have joined in offering an amendment, which we hope to offer tomorrow, which tries to take the approach of: All right, let's take $500 billion of the $1 trillion and give the American people a good, solid tax cut for those who need it the most, increase the standard deduction for hard-working people, increase the amount that you can earn before you are kicked up into the higher 28-percent bracket so people can keep a little bit more of their dollars. Yes, let's fix the marriage penalty that encourages people, who are two single earners in the same family, not to marry only because of the Tax Code. Yes, let's do something for education and savings, but let's keep it at a reasonable figure of $500 billion, and then we can have the other $500 billion for things that are necessary or are needed. The President has put some 320-odd billion dollars into Medicare. I was privileged to chair the Medicare Commission for a year. I will tell you that no one can tell this Congress how much money we need to fix Medicare. No one can make that assessment today because we have not yet reformed Medicare. How can we say how much we need to spend on Medicare until we reform it, which everybody agrees we ought to do? Yes, ultimately the Roth tax bill will pass the Senate. A similar bill with the same size tax cut has passed in the House. I suggest to our leaders on both sides of the aisle, let's hold back trying to go to conference. Pass these two bills and hold them in abeyance and let all Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, those in the House and in the Senate, go back to their respective States and respective districts and listen to our constituents and ask them what their priorities are. Do not look at the polls that Republican pollsters take and Democratic pollsters take. I can give you the answer when I see the questions they ask. Listen to the people and have town meetings and talk about trying to work together to finish this problem and solve what I think is a real opportunity on what to do with $1 trillion. I suggest that after we spend that time in August, we then come back to our respective bodies, the House and the Senate, and move quickly, as Senator Roth has said he will do, on reforming Medicare, real Medicare reform, coming up with good suggestions about what we need to do with a system that was first established in 1965 which no longer works as it should. When we do Medicare reform, we will then know how much more money we need in order to make that program work. When we find out what that number is, we can then combine it with a reasonable tax cut and have enough money for hard-working Americans and yet have enough money for Medicare reform with a good, solid prescription drug package to go along with it, and then come together, join hands for a very rare moment in bipartisan cooperation to do something which I think is in the national interest, so that at the end of this year we will have more than a political issue about whose fault it was that nothing was done. We will be able to go back to our constituents and say that when we had the opportunity to decide what to do with $1 trillion, we took that opportunity and came up with good public policy. I hope many of our colleagues can say: I think the Democratic bill is a little too low in the tax cut, but I also think the Republican bill is a little too much of a good thing; therefore, I want to find a legitimate compromise. I suggest the word ``compromise'' is not a dirty word. It is something we should be seeking as Members of an elected body which is called upon to make Government work for everyone. I hope when we do offer in a bipartisan fashion the $500 billion tax cut and reserve the other $500 billion for other needs of discretionary spending, to fix Medicare and reform it with prescription drugs, that we will be able to get a strong degree of bipartisan support so we can all work together and hopefully, sometime in September, we can reach an agreement that makes sense and is good public policy. Good public policy is also good politics. I suggest that is the approach we should be taking. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Following up on the Democratic leader's question, when we have passed a bill out of the Finance Committee, the Moynihan bill, the Democratic version, and the Roth version, both for permanent tax cuts, different amounts--ours was $295 billion, the chairman's was $792 billion, but they were both permanent tax cuts--I think the point the Democratic leader makes is a good one. I think I could possibly be for waiving the point of order if it was against this bill that we all know about. But to extend that to a conference report when we do not know what is going to be in that bill I think is probably going further than certainly I would be comfortable going. If it was limited to the bill that is before the Senate where everybody does know what is in it, I could understand that argument. But to say that all points of order against anything that may come back--and who knows what may come back; I have my ideas about what it should be, and others have different opinions. I don't know that we can waive points of order against something we have not yet seen. I was wondering, why does the point of order waiver cover everything that has not yet even been written?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gregg, to engage in a colloquy on a matter of extreme importance to my State and a number of others, and that is the need for more funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, a program of the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as you know, technology is fueling the tremendous economic growth the nation is currently experiencing. However, as is frequently the case, rural states are struggling to participate in this new economy. The EPSCoT program is a competitive matching grants program that reaches beyond the traditional recipients of federal research and development funding. This pioneering initiative brings together the interest of economic development, science and technology, university research, and private business. Although the program is only a couple of years old, it has met with very high enthusiasm in areas such as Louisiana and New Hampshire. Mr. President, there is important work being done through the EPSCoT program. This is a flexible program designed to assist states. Applications may be submitted by state, local, or Indian tribal governments, community colleges, universities, non-profit organizations, private organizations, technology business centers, industry councils or any combination of these entities from the eligible states. The eligible states are those that have received less in federal research and development funding than the majority of the states. Therefore, the program is carefully designed to benefit those states that need more assistance in developing a high-tech economy. Mr. President, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, also a part of the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, runs the Advanced Technology Program. The ATP provides matching funds for high-risk research with broad economic benefits. As a part of the program, grants occasionally are reclaimed by the ATP due to business failures and other such circumstances. These reclaimed monies are used by the ATP to fund new awards. The Committee has provided in the bill that the ATP may use these ``carry over'' funds for new awards in Fiscal Year 2000. Does the Senator from New Hampshire concur that it is the intent of the committee to direct $2.0 million in funds provided to NIST for new ATP awards under the provisions dealing with the use of carry-over funds be used for new grants under the Technology Administration's EPSCoT program?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, does the Senator from South Carolina concur?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I yield.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes. The Government will match it with $100. They can make additional voluntary contributions, up to 1 percent of the total wage base of $72,600, which means they will be able to get a maximum contribution of about $626 from the Federal Government. This is a good plan. It is a solid plan. It restores Social Security viability to the year 2075, and it is something of which we need to take advantage and do it in this Congress. We cannot continue to wait. The big problem is this has always been a political football. This effort, this bill, is bipartisan and it is bicameral. I urge my colleagues to look at the substance of our legislation. I think they, too, will find, when they review it carefully, that this is the right approach, it makes sense, it is balanced and one that can be considered favorably by this Congress this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me first congratulate the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his remarks and his major contribution in this effort to bring to the floor of the Senate a proposal on reforming Social Security that, first of all, is real; it is serious, it is bipartisan. A lot of the credit goes to the Senator from New Hampshire for his diligent work in this area. Previous to the work of the Senator from New Hampshire, we had the words of Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who also joins with all of us as lead sponsors on this Social Security reform legislation. Senator Kerrey has been involved in this issue of entitlement reform for a long time. He chaired the Entitlement Reform Commission and his work in the Social Security area has truly been outstanding. It is interesting that what is happening today on the floor is this is the first time, certainly in my memory and probably in a long time, we have actually had a bipartisan proposal on reforming Social Security introduced in the Senate. Not only is it unique that it is the first time in this body, it is also even more surprising that this proposal, in addition to being bipartisan, is also bicameral. By that, of course, I mean the same proposal has also been introduced on the other side of the Capitol, over in the House, by our colleagues over there, also in a bipartisan fashion. This is truly historic in the sense that Members of both parties and both Houses can join together in addressing an issue as important, yet at the same time as politically divisive, as Social Security has been. Yet we have been able to do that and have been joined by a number of our colleagues, particularly on the Senate Finance Committee. We have come together to make a recommendation on Social Security which I think is one that bears favorable consideration of our colleagues. We just had a very strenuous and sometimes somewhat heated debate on the question of the Social Security lockbox, which we just voted on. We will have future debate on that. I think it is very important for all Americans to know that while we debated on this concept of a lockbox, it does not do a single thing to restore the Social Security program. It does not change the program in any way. It does not make any structural changes to Social Security. It does not increase any American's retirement options. It does not give them any additional choices about how they want to plan for their retirement future. It does not increase widows' benefits. It does not address the problems the Senator just spoke of regarding the female population in the country and the special concerns they have. It does not allow low- and middle-income workers to access any Government contributions to help them in their retirement planning and to build up a larger nest egg. The lockbox does not do anything regarding the current unfunded liabilities in the Social Security program. It certainly doesn't restore the confidence in the Social Security system. We have heard the statements that more young people believe in flying saucers than believe Social Security is going to be there for them. So while we had a great, interesting debate on this lockbox concept, it is very important to know it does not do a single thing to take care of the problems that are facing this country in regard to the Social Security system. But this bill does. This bill has been scored by the people who have to do this for us professionally as restoring solvency to the Social Security program to the year 2075, and that is a fact. There is no debate about that. How we do it, I think, is the substance of our bill. I think it is very positive. Let me point out, why do we have a problem in Social Security? We have been rocking along since 1935 in a pretty fortunate situation. Most people got their Social Security benefits, everything they contributed, back very quickly. If someone retired in 1980, for instance, they got back everything they put into the Social Security system in a little over 2 years. They got back everything they put into the program. Retirees in 1980, at the age of 65, took 2.8 years to recover everything they put into the program. That is a heck of a deal for anyone. I know my father has said many times: I will never get back what I put into Social Security. He got it back in about 2.8 years. It was a very good deal for most Americans, and that is changing. The question is, Why? Very simple: People live a lot longer and there are a lot more of them. Life expectancy--thank goodness and thank medical science and thank God--has dramatically increased over the years so people live a lot longer than they used to. The second point is there are a lot more people. There are 77 million people in the so-called baby boom generation, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964. We have about 40 million people on Social Security today. We are getting ready to add 77 million more people into this program. It does not take rocket science to figure out why we are having problems. We have a lot more people who are living a lot longer and earning retirement benefits through Social Security. We have fewer and fewer people left who are working to pay for those benefits. When Social Security was passed under Franklin Roosevelt, there were about 16 people working for every 1 person who was retiring. Because people live a lot longer now and there are a lot more of them, it is now down to about 3 people working for every 1 person who is earning retirement benefits and getting retirement benefits. We cannot continue on this trend. The so-called lockbox does not do a single thing to help reform the program or allow it to generate more funds to make sure the program is going to be there for the 77 million baby boomers. For those who are on Social Security retirement now, the good news for them is it is there; they do not have to worry about it. We have never missed a payment. They will be guaranteed their payments. Unless we do something, we are in danger of letting the program go broke. We have presented to the Senate today, and it had been presented to the other body earlier, our recommendation in the form of a specific bill that has been scored by the people who do this work as restoring the solvency to this program to the year 2075. How do we do it? It is not that complicated. One of the things we have done is to say that every American who pays Social Security will be required to divert 2-percentage points of their payroll tax--which is 12.4 percent payroll tax of which they pay 6.2 percent--to an individual retirement account, which is strongly supported by most Americans. Almost two-thirds of Americans in the polls I have seen have said yes to the question: Would you like to be able to save a portion of your payroll tax in an individual retirement account that you would be able to control? There is strong support for that. I do not think they want to privatize the whole program, but they would like to have some of the money to invest for themselves, as we do as Federal employees. I do not know if a lot of Americans realize it, those who are not Federal employees, but I can do that as a Member of the Senate. We establish our own Federal employees Thrift Savings Plan, and we can put up to 10 percent in that savings plan. We can earn interest on the market, and we get a lot better return than we get as a Government with Social Security funds. The Federal Government invests the Social Security surplus in Government bonds. It has been earning about 3 percent. That is not a good return in today's market. We need to allow individuals to do a better job with their own tax dollars. Our plan creates a savings plan for people on Social Security where they can put 2 percent of their payroll tax into an individual retirement account which they will own, and when they pass away, it can be inherited. It will be theirs and they can invest it and hopefully get 10 percent or 15 percent or more return on their money, and they will be able to get the advantage of that higher investment when they retire and add it to the rest of their Social Security program. It will put more money into the program. It will strengthen the program. It will allow people to become more involved in their own retirement. A lot of young people do not think it is going to be there. They think the Government does not do it very well. This changes all of that and, I think, in a very important way. Individuals will own those proceeds, and I believe that is extremely important. That is one of the features of our program I wanted to highlight. In addition, we also say you can do more than that. People in lower- and middle-income brackets will be able to put an additional amount of money for an additional $1 over this 2 percent that they would put into their account. The Federal Government would match it with $100.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes under the previous order.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. As a cochair of the Congressional Oil and Gas Forum, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the importance of America's small, independent oil and gas producers and the importance of this oil and gas loan guarantee program to their survival. Over time, oil and gas production in the lower 48 states has become the province of independent producers. The so-called majors are more likely to operate in the offshore deepwater and in Alaska. The independents' share of production in the continental U.S. has increased from about 45 percent in the mid-1980s to more than 60 percent in 1997. Independents are a different element of the oil and gas production industry than majors. Most producers operating in the lower 48 are small producers. They don't have the resources of majors such as refineries and chemical operations to buffer them during periods of low oil prices, such as those over the last year and a half. As a result, independents finance their operations differently than majors. Independents generate 35 percent of their capital primarily from financial institutions. Low oil prices have made banks reluctant to make loans to the industry. This program would unlock the access to capital that is the lifeblood of this industry. Independent producers have suffered significantly from the current price crisis. These statistics show the impact low prices have had since October 1997: Domestic production has dropped below six million barrels per day-- from 6.4 million to 5.8 million barrels per day. That's the lowest production since 1951. More than 56,000 jobs lost out of an estimated 340,000 total industry jobs--that's more than 16 percent. Although prices are improving, an additional 20,000 oil and natural gas jobs are at risk of being lost. Since October 1997, 136,000 oil wells (25 percent of the U.S. total) and 57,000 natural gas wells have shut down. Many will never operate again. Mr. President, $2.21 billion in lost federal royalties and state severance and production taxes. In my state, falling royalty and severance tax revenue have caused Governor Mike Foster to order a $30 million freeze on state government hiring and spending to head off a budget shortfall. The rate of growth in Louisiana sales and personal income taxes has fallen in recent months as laid-off energy workers reduce their spending. Mr. President, $25 billion in lost economic impact associated with shut down oil and gas wells. U.S. production down 651,000 barrels per day to 5.88 million, the lowest level since 1951. Operating rig counts have hit historic lows. From November 1997 through April 1999, the domestic drilling rig count dropped 50 percent. The rig count is a quick measure of the level of activity in the industry. While most of this drop has been in the oil side of the business--about a 60 percent drop--the natural gas side of the industry has seen a 40 percent decline. Capital budgets for oil and natural gas development are down 25-30 percent with the biggest cuts in the U.S. Most independents are drilling new wells. Faced with these stark problems, the oil and gas loan guarantee program provides a two-year, GATT-legal, $500 million guaranteed loan program to back loans provided by private financial institutions to qualified oil and gas producers and the associated oil and gas service industry (drilling contractors, well service contractors, tubular goods, etc.) The OMB estimates that the program will cost $125 million. The cost is fully offset by funds from the Administration's travel budget. Loan guarantees are an approach that the Federal Government has used to help recovery of key domestic industries or cities in times of severe crisis. They have been used for Chrysler Corporation and New York City. The Department of Agriculture operates an ongoing loan guarantee program for farmers that addresses their problems during low commodity prices. Here, the concept would provide bridge financing to allow independent producers and the oil industry supply business to recover from the current price crisis. Independent producers throughout the country continue to suffer severe economic distress. Recovery will be neither quick nor easy. This Emergency Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Program will save jobs and businesses. It will contribute to the continued viability of the independent producing industry and U.S. national security. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, last week Louisiana lost of one its most prominent sons. An era passed into history with the death of former Governor John McKeithen, who served his state with distinction as governor during the turbulent years of 1964 to 1972. When he died at the age of 81 in his hometown of Columbia, Louisiana, on the banks of the Ouachita River, John McKeithen left a legacy of accomplishment as governor that will likely not be matched in our lifetime. As one political leader observed last week, with John McKeithen's death ``we have witnessed the passing of a giant, both in physical stature and in character.'' Indeed, McKeithen was not affectionately called ``Big John'' for nothing. Like most great leaders, he thought big and acted big. Louisiana was blessed with John McKeithen's strong, determined leadership at a time when a lesser man, with lesser convictions, might have exploited racial tensions for political gain. In fact, throughout the South, McKeithen had plenty of mentors had he wanted to follow such a course. But Governor McKeithen was decent enough, tolerant enough and principled enough to resist any urge for race baiting. In his own, unique way, to borrow a phrase from Robert Frost, he took the road less traveled and that made all the difference. John McKeithen's wise, moral leadership at a time of tremendous social and economic transformation in Louisiana stands as his greatest accomplishment in public life. Not only did he encourage the citizens of Louisiana to tolerate and observe the new civil rights laws passed by Congress in the mid-1960s, he worked proactively to bring black citizens into the mainstream of Louisiana's political and economic life. Hundreds of African-Americans will never forget the courageous way that National guardsmen under John McKeithen's command protected them from harm as they marched from Bogalusa to the State Capitol in the mid-1960s in support of civil rights. And generations of African- American political leaders will always have John McKeithen to thank for the way he helped open door of opportunity to them and their predecessors. But racial harmony will not stand as Governor McKeithen's only legacy. All of Louisiana has ``Big John'' to thank for the way our state has become one of the world's top tourist destinations by virtue of the construction in the early 1970s of the Louisiana Superdome. To many--those who did not dream as big as ``Big John''--the idea of building the world's largest indoor arena seemed a folly, sure to fail. But like a modern-day Noah building his ark, McKeithen endured the taunts and jeers of his critics while he forged ahead--sure that his vision for the success of the Superdome was sound. And today, more than a quarter century later, the citizens of Louisiana, particularly those in New Orleans, are only beginning to understand the enormous economic benefits that Louisiana had reaped by virtue of the Superdome and the world-wide attention and notoriety it has brought to New Orleans. Even at that time, Louisiana's citizens recognized that there was something unique and very special about their governor. And so it was for that reason that they amended the state's Constitution to allow him to become the first man in the state's history to serve two consecutive terms in the Governor's Mansion. Senator Landrieu and I doubt that we will never see the likes of John McKeithen again--a big man, with a big heart, who dreamed big dreams and left an enormous legacy in his wake. We know that all our colleagues join us in expressing their deepest sympathy to his wife, Marjorie, his children and his grandchildren.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Graham amendment to the Y2K legislation be designated an amendment to be offered by Senator Torricelli.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, when I first got into this business of being involved in Congress many years ago and also involved in fundraising activities, I remember trying to compose a fundraising letter. I sat down at my desk and drafted one. I thought I put out a pretty good fundraising letter to constituents saying why I thought I was the best person running for a particular office and would they please consider sending a contribution to me because I was obviously the best person for the job. I shared the draft of my fundraising letter with one of the professional people who does this for a living. He looked at it, read it and said: This will never do. I said: Why? He said: It is not outrageous enough. I said: What do you mean? He said: In order to get people to extend money to you in your election, you have to be outrageous in the letter, be as outrageous as you possibly can; don't worry about whether it is totally accurate. Just make sure it gets the people's attention and really scares the you know what out of them in order for them to feel like it is absolutely essential that to save their future, they need to send you a political contribution. I said: I am not going to do that. It doesn't fit how I operate, and I think it is a wrong thing to try and scare people. Apparently, there are organizations in this city that think otherwise. I call to my colleagues' attention one of them called the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. It is a very noble-sounding organization. They sent out this letter, a bright yellow thing, and it came in an envelope that is enough to look like it is from the Internal Revenue Service. It says: ``Urgent Express. Please expedite. Dated material enclosed.'' It would really get your attention if you walked out to the mailbox and received this. But also, if you are a senior, you would be scared to death if you thought what they were telling you was true. It starts off by saying the Breaux-Thomas effort to fix Medicare is going to basically destroy Medicare by giving you a voucher instead of a guaranteed contribution for your Medicare benefits. No. 1, that is absolutely, totally inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, false and anything else you want to call it. What we do is give seniors the same type of system that every one of us as Federal employees, including Members of the Senate, has. Under our plan, it is guaranteed in law that the Federal Government will contribute 88 percent of the cost of whatever plan the seniors take. The seniors would pay about 12 percent. That is what they pay now. That is not a voucher. For them to say it is a voucher is misleading, false, and intended to simply scare people into giving more money. If you look at the rest of their letter, they say you do not get guaranteed benefits. That is not true. The statute clearly says that you will have the same guaranteed benefits that you get under Medicare today. That is in statute. That is guaranteed. What they have to say is false. What they are really trying to do, in addition to scaring seniors, is they are trying to raise money from them; tell them anything to scare them to death and hope they send money. I was underlining all the times they said, ``please send money'' in this letter. It is one after another. It says on page 3: ``. . . we need your signature . . . and your generous special donation . . . .'' Then they go on to say: ``We also need as generous a donation as you can afford. . . .'' They then talk about sending a special donation to help us with our effort, and by making a special donation today, we can help save Medicare; endorsing this with as generous, and then they call it an ``emergency donation''--they go from ``special donation'' to send us an ``emergency donation'' to stop what Breaux and Thomas are trying to do by fixing Medicare. Then they say: [Please] boost our grassroots efforts by including an emergency contribution with your Petition. Your contribution of [$10] or $25, will be used to reinforce [our] message. . . . I've suggested [some] contribution amounts, but anything you can give will help more than you know. Please decide the most you can afford and enclose your check with your signed . . . Petition in the enclosed envelope . . . . Your emergency donation is needed ``along with your contribution of [blank] or [blank] in the envelope provided.'' Mr. President, this is a fundraising letter intended to scare seniors into digging into their pockets, into their retirement funds and funding this operation so they can continue to put out false, erroneous, inaccurate information, information which is simply not true.