John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. This is not the way to fix Medicare, by scaring seniors. They do not mention that under the current Medicare program the premiums are going to double by the year 2007 if we do not do anything to fix it. That should really scare seniors into saying we need to do something to fix the program for our children and our grandchildren. But to send out false information calling the program a voucher, which it clearly is not, and to say it does not have the defined benefits, which it clearly does, all under the guise of scaring seniors into digging into their pockets and sending money that they need for food and groceries and extra Medicare benefits that they do not get now is something they should be ashamed of. I think all of us know what they are trying to do. We just have to stand up and say it like it is and call it what it is. This is shameful.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that we remain in morning business and I be allowed to make a statement.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that will not only promote employee ownership, but also enhance retirement savings. The ``ESOP Dividend Reinvestment and Participant Security Act of 1999'' will grant many workers their long-sought desire to share in the growth of their company while not sacrificing one nickel of their retirement security. This legislation will permit employees to reinvest dividends paid on employer securities held in an ESOP without going through the administrative complexity that companies currently face in order to encourage workers to keep their dividends in the plan. Under current law, an employer may deduct the dividends paid on employer securities in an ESOP only if the dividends are used to repay an ESOP loan or they are paid in cash to participants. This runs counter to one of the most important themes expressed by this administration as well as many others since the passage of ERISA--what to do about ``leakage'' in our retirement programs, or assets coming out of plans prematurely. In short, we need to encourage our nation's workers to keep their money in their retirement plans and not let small amounts drip out over time so that little is left by the time they enter retirement. The bill I am introducing today addresses this issue and would bolster the retirement security of ESOP participants because it would encourage both employees and employers to reinvest their dividends in the company. Not only does the current approach of denying a deduction for reinvested dividends discourage the accumulation of assets for retirement, it also thwarts one of the primary purposes of an ESOP-- providing an efficient means for employees to build an ownership interest in their company. Congress has steadfastly maintained the ESOP dividend deductibility rules for over 15 years in order to encourage employers to establish ESOPs that hold dividend-paying company stock. These rules clearly are intended to provide ESOP participants a broader opportunity to share in the company's growth and to ultimately use such growth to provide retirement assets. Unfortunately, our present rules fall short of the mark. This bill fulfills the promise inherent in the original ESOP dividend deduction provision. The ``ESOP Dividend Reinvestment and Participant Security Act of 1999'' would give employees the ability to retain the dividends paid on employer stock in the ESOP and to reinvest these amounts in the employer stock for continuing growth and accumulation. No employee would then be forced to receive dividends that could instead be used to build retirement savings. And, all employees could receive the benefit of participating in their company's growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that will not only promote employee ownership, but also enhance retirement savings. The ``ESOP Dividend Reinvestment and Participant Security Act of 1999'' will grant many workers their long-sought desire to share in the growth of their company while not sacrificing one nickel of their retirement security. This legislation will permit employees to reinvest dividends paid on employer securities held in an ESOP without going through the administrative complexity that companies currently face in order to encourage workers to keep their dividends in the plan. Under current law, an employer may deduct the dividends paid on employer securities in an ESOP only if the dividends are used to repay an ESOP loan or they are paid in cash to participants. This runs counter to one of the most important themes expressed by this administration as well as many others since the passage of ERISA--what to do about ``leakage'' in our retirement programs, or assets coming out of plans prematurely. In short, we need to encourage our nation's workers to keep their money in their retirement plans and not let small amounts drip out over time so that little is left by the time they enter retirement. The bill I am introducing today addresses this issue and would bolster the retirement security of ESOP participants because it would encourage both employees and employers to reinvest their dividends in the company. Not only does the current approach of denying a deduction for reinvested dividends discourage the accumulation of assets for retirement, it also thwarts one of the primary purposes of an ESOP-- providing an efficient means for employees to build an ownership interest in their company. Congress has steadfastly maintained the ESOP dividend deductibility rules for over 15 years in order to encourage employers to establish ESOPs that hold dividend-paying company stock. These rules clearly are intended to provide ESOP participants a broader opportunity to share in the company's growth and to ultimately use such growth to provide retirement assets. Unfortunately, our present rules fall short of the mark. This bill fulfills the promise inherent in the original ESOP dividend deduction provision. The ``ESOP Dividend Reinvestment and Participant Security Act of 1999'' would give employees the ability to retain the dividends paid on employer stock in the ESOP and to reinvest these amounts in the employer stock for continuing growth and accumulation. No employee would then be forced to receive dividends that could instead be used to build retirement savings. And, all employees could receive the benefit of participating in their company's growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from the State of Texas. Senator Hutchinson, in introducing the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization Act. I believe it is legislation all of our colleagues should support. First, I'd like to outline the problem and then discuss how this legislation helps address it. Oil prices may be in the early stages of recovery, but over the last 17 months, a glut in the world market forced crude oil prices down to their lowest inflation-adjusted levels in 50 years. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates that, since November 1997, when the price of oil began to decline, more than 136,000 crude oil wells and more than 57,000 natural gas wells have been shut down. The U.S. petroleum industry last year lost almost 30,000 jobs because of falling crude prices, according to the American Petroleum Institute's annual report. Despite the recent rise in oil prices, job losses continue. Another 3,600 jobs were lost between February and March. This brings the loss since December 1997 to about 54,400 jobs, a decline of 16 percent. In the first three months of 1999, losses amounted to about 24,000 jobs, or a drop of almost 8 percent. Mr. President, independent producers account for almost a third of Gulf of Mexico oil production on the outer continental shelf (OCS), and almost half of natural gas production. According to the Minerals Management Service, on a per-day basis, the OCS accounts for 27 percent of the nation's natural gas production and 20 percent of the nation's crude oil production. In 1997, production on the federal OCS off Louisiana resulted in $2.9 billion or 83 percent of the $3.5 billion royalties received for all of the OCS. It is not difficult to see that as domestic production falls, so will federal royalty receipts. And, let's not forget the thousands of jobs created in non-energy sectors to service the energy industry: computers, steel and other metals, transportation, financial and other service industries. When domestic oil and gas production increases, so does the number of jobs created in all these sectors. This legislation will provide marginal well tax credits, alternative minimum tax relief, expensing of geological and geophysical costs and delay rental payments and other measures to encourage domestic oil and gas production. It is a safety net. The bill's provisions phase in and out as oil prices fall and rise between $17 and $14 per barrel and natural gas prices fall and rise between $1.86 and $1.56 per thousand cubic feet. It will provide a permanent mechanism to help our domestic producers cope with substantial and unexpected declines in world energy prices. Let's examine how one aspect of this bill--marginal well production-- affects this nation. A marginal well is one that producers 15 barrels of oil per day or 60,000 cubic feet of natural gas or less. Low prices hit marginal wells especially hard because they typically have low profit margins. While each well produces only a small amount, marginal wells account for almost 25 percent of the oil and 8 percent of the natural gas produced in the continental United States. The United States has more than 500,000 marginal wells that collectively produce nearly 700 million barrels of oil each year. These marginal wells contribute nearly $14 billion a year in economic activity. The marginal well industry is responsible for more than 38,000 jobs and supports thousands of jobs outside the industry. The National Petroleum Council is a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. Its sole purpose is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on any matter requested by the Secretary with relating to oil and natural gas or to the oil and natural gas industries. The National Petroleum Council's 1994 Marginal Well Report said that: Preseving marginal wells is central to our energy security. Neither government nor the industry can set the global market price of crude oil. Therefore, the nation's internal cost structure must be relied upon for preserving marginal well contributions. The 1994 Marginal Well Report went on to recommend a series of tax code modifications including a marginal well tax credit and expensing key capital expenditures. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates that as many of half the estimated 140,000 marginal wells closed in the last 17 months could be lost for good. Mr. President, the facts speak for themselves. The U.S. share of total world crude oil production fell from 52 percent in 1950 to just 10 percent in 1997. At the same time, U.S. dependence on foreign oil has grown from 36 percent in 1973 (the time of the Arab oil embargo) to about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever-- economically and militarily--to disruptions in foreign oil supplies. This legislation will provide a mechanism to help prevent a further decline in domestic energy production and preserve a vital domestic industry.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from the State of Texas. Senator Hutchinson, in introducing the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization Act. I believe it is legislation all of our colleagues should support. First, I'd like to outline the problem and then discuss how this legislation helps address it. Oil prices may be in the early stages of recovery, but over the last 17 months, a glut in the world market forced crude oil prices down to their lowest inflation-adjusted levels in 50 years. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates that, since November 1997, when the price of oil began to decline, more than 136,000 crude oil wells and more than 57,000 natural gas wells have been shut down. The U.S. petroleum industry last year lost almost 30,000 jobs because of falling crude prices, according to the American Petroleum Institute's annual report. Despite the recent rise in oil prices, job losses continue. Another 3,600 jobs were lost between February and March. This brings the loss since December 1997 to about 54,400 jobs, a decline of 16 percent. In the first three months of 1999, losses amounted to about 24,000 jobs, or a drop of almost 8 percent. Mr. President, independent producers account for almost a third of Gulf of Mexico oil production on the outer continental shelf (OCS), and almost half of natural gas production. According to the Minerals Management Service, on a per-day basis, the OCS accounts for 27 percent of the nation's natural gas production and 20 percent of the nation's crude oil production. In 1997, production on the federal OCS off Louisiana resulted in $2.9 billion or 83 percent of the $3.5 billion royalties received for all of the OCS. It is not difficult to see that as domestic production falls, so will federal royalty receipts. And, let's not forget the thousands of jobs created in non-energy sectors to service the energy industry: computers, steel and other metals, transportation, financial and other service industries. When domestic oil and gas production increases, so does the number of jobs created in all these sectors. This legislation will provide marginal well tax credits, alternative minimum tax relief, expensing of geological and geophysical costs and delay rental payments and other measures to encourage domestic oil and gas production. It is a safety net. The bill's provisions phase in and out as oil prices fall and rise between $17 and $14 per barrel and natural gas prices fall and rise between $1.86 and $1.56 per thousand cubic feet. It will provide a permanent mechanism to help our domestic producers cope with substantial and unexpected declines in world energy prices. Let's examine how one aspect of this bill--marginal well production-- affects this nation. A marginal well is one that producers 15 barrels of oil per day or 60,000 cubic feet of natural gas or less. Low prices hit marginal wells especially hard because they typically have low profit margins. While each well produces only a small amount, marginal wells account for almost 25 percent of the oil and 8 percent of the natural gas produced in the continental United States. The United States has more than 500,000 marginal wells that collectively produce nearly 700 million barrels of oil each year. These marginal wells contribute nearly $14 billion a year in economic activity. The marginal well industry is responsible for more than 38,000 jobs and supports thousands of jobs outside the industry. The National Petroleum Council is a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. Its sole purpose is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on any matter requested by the Secretary with relating to oil and natural gas or to the oil and natural gas industries. The National Petroleum Council's 1994 Marginal Well Report said that: Preseving marginal wells is central to our energy security. Neither government nor the industry can set the global market price of crude oil. Therefore, the nation's internal cost structure must be relied upon for preserving marginal well contributions. The 1994 Marginal Well Report went on to recommend a series of tax code modifications including a marginal well tax credit and expensing key capital expenditures. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates that as many of half the estimated 140,000 marginal wells closed in the last 17 months could be lost for good. Mr. President, the facts speak for themselves. The U.S. share of total world crude oil production fell from 52 percent in 1950 to just 10 percent in 1997. At the same time, U.S. dependence on foreign oil has grown from 36 percent in 1973 (the time of the Arab oil embargo) to about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever-- economically and militarily--to disruptions in foreign oil supplies. This legislation will provide a mechanism to help prevent a further decline in domestic energy production and preserve a vital domestic industry.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Don Nickles, am introducing legislation today to clarify the tax treatment of commodity derivative dealers and of ordinary business hedging transactions. This legislation, which was proposed by the Administration in its Fiscal Year 2000 budget, is necessary to eliminate the existing tax uncertainties with respect to dealer derivative transactions and hedging transactions. Specifically, Internal Revenue Code section 1221 would be amended to include business hedging transaction in the list of ordinary assets and clarify that activities that ``manage'' rather than only ``reduce'' risk are hedging activities. In addition, derivative contracts held by derivative dealers would similarly be treated as ordinary assets. Current tax and business practices treat derivative contracts held by commodity derivatives dealers as ordinary property. Nevertheless, such derivative dealers are faced with uncertainties regarding the proper reporting of gains and losses from their dealer activities, unlike dealers in other transactions. Finally, supplies used in the provision of services for the production of ordinary property would be added to the list of ordinary assets in section 1221. Such supplies are so closely related to the taxpayer's business that ordinary character should apply. The Treasury Department has promulgated numerous regulations that affect derivatives contracts and our bill merely clarifies current law treatment of dealer activities. I urge my colleagues to support this important and much needed legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Don Nickles, am introducing legislation today to clarify the tax treatment of commodity derivative dealers and of ordinary business hedging transactions. This legislation, which was proposed by the Administration in its Fiscal Year 2000 budget, is necessary to eliminate the existing tax uncertainties with respect to dealer derivative transactions and hedging transactions. Specifically, Internal Revenue Code section 1221 would be amended to include business hedging transaction in the list of ordinary assets and clarify that activities that ``manage'' rather than only ``reduce'' risk are hedging activities. In addition, derivative contracts held by derivative dealers would similarly be treated as ordinary assets. Current tax and business practices treat derivative contracts held by commodity derivatives dealers as ordinary property. Nevertheless, such derivative dealers are faced with uncertainties regarding the proper reporting of gains and losses from their dealer activities, unlike dealers in other transactions. Finally, supplies used in the provision of services for the production of ordinary property would be added to the list of ordinary assets in section 1221. Such supplies are so closely related to the taxpayer's business that ordinary character should apply. The Treasury Department has promulgated numerous regulations that affect derivatives contracts and our bill merely clarifies current law treatment of dealer activities. I urge my colleagues to support this important and much needed legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, Louisiana is today mourning the loss of a giant in the news media, Douglas Manship, Sr., the chairman emeritus of the Baton Rouge Advocate and the founder of WBRZ-TV in Baton Rouge. Douglas Manship devoted nearly all of his 80 years to providing the citizens of Louisiana with timely, objective and thorough coverage of the day-to-day events of our state. In the process, he and his family have always set the standard for excellence in news reporting in Louisiana, winning dozens of statewide, regional and national journalism awards. For most of this century, the Manship name has been synonymous with journalism in Louisiana. In fact, the school of mass communications at our state's flagship institution of higher learning, Louisiana State University, bears the Manship name and has already trained a generation of young journalists to follow the example of journalistic excellence set by Douglas Manship and his family. Those of us who knew Douglas Manship knew him as someone totally committed to his community and just as dedicated to the daily dissemination of fair and objective news. In almost every way, Douglas Manship was what a journalist should be. He believed that a public given the facts on a particular issue would invariably make the right decision. And he fought tirelessly through his newspaper to throw open the closed doors of public bodies all over Louisiana so that citizens could become better informed about the important business that was being conducted in their behalf. Of course, Douglas Manship's imminent fairness and objectivity didn't stop him from expressing his opinion and using his newspaper to champion a cause when he believed his state and his community could do better. In the early 1960s, long before other southern media leaders recognized the need for racial integration, Douglas Manship used his position at WBRZ-TV to bring Baton Rouge community leaders together to discuss ways to peacefully achieve racial integration. WBRZ's courageous advocacy on behalf of desegregation resulted in threats of violence against Manship and his station. But he never backed down. And I believe that Baton Rouge made great strides because of principled leaders like Douglas Manship who put the well-being of his community ahead of his economic interests. Nothing distinguished Douglas Manship more than the strength of his character and his strong sense, as he put it, of who he was. ``If there is any attribute that I have that has any meaning,'' he once said, ``it is that I know exactly who I am. That's where you get into trouble . . . when you think you are something you are not. I believe that after all these years I have learned who I am, what my limitations are.'' Mr. President, today we remember Douglas Manship as a principled community leader, a courageous and fairminded journalist and a loving father and husband. I know that I join with the entire journalistic community of my state in saying that his presence and leadership will be sorely missed.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to make comments about the very unfortunate situation that occurred in Denver, CO, yesterday at Columbine High School. I know that our entire Nation mourns and grieves for the students and the teachers who lost their lives in the very tragic occurrence that happened just yesterday. I, and I know all of my colleagues, hope for a day when the young people, our Nation's children, will never again have to fear for their safety anywhere in this country--but especially in their own schools that they attend each day. I certainly want to join with others who have extended their sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of those children who lost their lives. We hope for the very best for their families as they deal with this very tragic situation. I express my desire that they know our prayers are with them and their families. As I, along with millions of Americans, watched on television yesterday the carrying out of something that used to be only in theatrical performances and in the movies--the tragic situation--I was drawn to the men and women of the Denver Police, Colorado law enforcement officials, members of the SWAT team, and the emergency medical personnel who were all working so diligently to spare people from suffering grave damages that were being inflicted on the victims in that community. They were doing everything they could to minimize the loss of life and human suffering and misery that was being brought about by the tragic actions of two apparently very disturbed and deranged young students who carried out these dastardly deeds. I was also reminded of all of the people in my home State of Louisiana who, at the same time, have been working every day, night, week, and month to try to do something about the abnormal crime rate that has affected my own State of Louisiana. I report to my colleagues and to the people of our State that there is, indeed, some good news. The good news is contained in a report I saw just yesterday while this tragic event was going on in Colorado. The good news was that violent crime in the city of New Orleans, for example, has fallen 21 percent just since the month of January. This is the 11th consecutive quarter in which total crime--and particularly violent crime--was down. This is not something that just happened. It happened because of the joint efforts of Mayor Marc Morial and the city council, along with the police force and, in particular, the superintendent of police in New Orleans, Superintendent Richard Pennington, and all the men and women of the New Orleans police force who have been working very diligently in a joint and cooperative effort to try to reach the success that now is becoming more and more apparent. Since Chief Pennington took over the New Orleans Police Department, violent crime has dropped 55 percent. Overall, crime has fallen 33 percent. Murders are down 30 percent. Armed robberies, which numbered 1,200 every quarter, are now down to the 390s. Assaults are down 15 percent compared to the first quarter of 1998. The New Orleans story is truly a real success story in confronting violent crime and doing something about it and doing something that has been enormously successful. Chief Pennington has said this success is a result of ``saturating the streets with more officers and putting them in key places'' and improving the investigations of repeat offenders. I remember, for many months, we talked about President Clinton's proposal that the Congress adopted regarding community policing. This is a real example of the fact that community policing does in fact get the job done when you have people who believe in it. This administration can be justifiably proud of their proposal, and the States that implemented it and benefited from it can justifiably be pleased with the results. Chief Pennington has not only worked with Mayor Marc Morial and the city council to hire more people, he has been able to use the COPS program to hire 200 additional officers. New Orleans has received $8.6 million through this Federal program, dollars that have paid the salaries of extra and new police officers-- obviously, money that has been well spent. Also, Chief Pennington has installed Comstat, which uses block-by-block data to track crime and find so-called hot spots in the community. Using this data, the chief and his enforcement officials can move his offices from quiet areas to those areas that need more attention and need more police presence. Obviously, the bottom line is these strategies and community policing programs are working. We now see actual indications and statistics which say that New Orleans is today a much safer place than it used to be, so that the thousands and thousands of people who regularly visit our cities for the numerable festivals, activities and celebrations which are part of our Louisiana culture, and particularly part of the New Orleans culture, can come to our city knowing it is a much safer place than it used to be. I am particularly reminded of the next two weekends. We celebrate the jazz festival in New Orleans, and literally thousands of people from all over this country and literally from all over this world will be visiting our city. The good news is that they now know that when they visit these cities it is much safer than it has been in the past because of the actions of so many people who are dedicated, just as the people in Denver, to making their communities a safer place. While we remember the tragedies in one city today in our Nation, we can also take great pride in knowing that activities by dedicated people are making a difference and that things in most communities are getting better. New Orleans is one example of that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to introduce legislation to restore America's estuaries. Our bill is entitled the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.'' In the 105th Congress, on October 14, 1998, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 1222, the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998.'' I joined with Senator Chafee and 15 other Senators to introduce the bill on September 25, 1997. On July 9, 1998, I testified on its behalf during hearings held by Senator Chafee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am pleased that the Senate gave its unanimous approval to the bill's passage in the last Congress and look forward to such consent in the 106th Congress. Estuaries are a national resource and treasure. As a nation, therefore, we should work together at all levels and in all sectors to help restore them. Other Senators have joined with Senator Chafee and me as original cosponsors of the bill. Together, we want to draw attention to the significant value of the nation's estuaries and the need to restore them. It is also my distinct pleasure today to say with pride that Louisianians have been in the forefront of this movement to recognize the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, an organization which is well-known for its proactive work on behalf of the Louisiana coast, has been from the inception an integral part of the national coalition, Restore America's Estuaries, which has proposed and supports the restoration legislation. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's Estuaries are to be commended for their leadership and initiative in bringing this issue to the nation's attention. In essence, the bill introduced today proposes a single goal and has one emphasis and focus. It seeks to create a voluntary, community- driven, incentive-based program which builds partnerships between the federal government, state and local governments and the private sector to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration projects. In Louisiana, we have very valuable estuaries, including the Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems. Louisiana's estuaries are vital because they have helped and will continue to help sustain local communities, their cultures and their economies. I encourage Senators from coastal and non-coastal states alike to evaluate the bill and to join in its support with Senator Chafee, me and the other Senators who are original bill cosponsors. I look forward to working with Senator Chafee and other Senators on behalf of the bill and with the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore American's Estuaries. By working together at all levels of government and in the private and public sectors, we can help to restore estuaries. We can, together, help to educate the public about the important roles which estuaries play in our daily lives through their many contributions to public safety and well-being, to the environment and to recreation and commerce.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to introduce legislation to restore America's estuaries. Our bill is entitled the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.'' In the 105th Congress, on October 14, 1998, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 1222, the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998.'' I joined with Senator Chafee and 15 other Senators to introduce the bill on September 25, 1997. On July 9, 1998, I testified on its behalf during hearings held by Senator Chafee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am pleased that the Senate gave its unanimous approval to the bill's passage in the last Congress and look forward to such consent in the 106th Congress. Estuaries are a national resource and treasure. As a nation, therefore, we should work together at all levels and in all sectors to help restore them. Other Senators have joined with Senator Chafee and me as original cosponsors of the bill. Together, we want to draw attention to the significant value of the nation's estuaries and the need to restore them. It is also my distinct pleasure today to say with pride that Louisianians have been in the forefront of this movement to recognize the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, an organization which is well-known for its proactive work on behalf of the Louisiana coast, has been from the inception an integral part of the national coalition, Restore America's Estuaries, which has proposed and supports the restoration legislation. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's Estuaries are to be commended for their leadership and initiative in bringing this issue to the nation's attention. In essence, the bill introduced today proposes a single goal and has one emphasis and focus. It seeks to create a voluntary, community- driven, incentive-based program which builds partnerships between the federal government, state and local governments and the private sector to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration projects. In Louisiana, we have very valuable estuaries, including the Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems. Louisiana's estuaries are vital because they have helped and will continue to help sustain local communities, their cultures and their economies. I encourage Senators from coastal and non-coastal states alike to evaluate the bill and to join in its support with Senator Chafee, me and the other Senators who are original bill cosponsors. I look forward to working with Senator Chafee and other Senators on behalf of the bill and with the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore American's Estuaries. By working together at all levels of government and in the private and public sectors, we can help to restore estuaries. We can, together, help to educate the public about the important roles which estuaries play in our daily lives through their many contributions to public safety and well-being, to the environment and to recreation and commerce.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce a bill that would make a technical change in the Internal Revenue Code. We often talk about the need to simplify the Tax Code. The change I propose today would do that. This change is small but very important. It would not alter the substance of current law in any way. It would, however, greatly simplify a common corporate transaction. This small technical change will alone save corporations millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses and economic costs that are incurred when they divide their businesses. The Treasury Department agrees that there is a technical problem with the drafting of the Tax Code and has agreed to work with me on this proposal. In fact, the President included a similar provision to correct this problem in his budget. I am introducing today the same bill I introduced during the last session of Congress, but expect to work with Treasury to perfect the language and make sure that corporations are not further hampered by this problem. Corporations, and affiliated groups of corporations, often find it advantageous, or even necessary, to separate two or more businesses. The division of AT&T from its local telephone companies is an example of such a transaction. The reasons for these corporate divisions are many, but probably chief among them is the ability of management to focus on one core business. At the end of the day, when a corporation divides, the stockholders simply have the stock of two corporations, instead of one. The Tax Code recognizes this is not an event that should trigger tax, as it includes corporate divisions among the tax-free reorganization provisions. One requirement the Tax Code imposes on corporate divisions is very awkwardly drafted, however. As a result, an affiliated group of corporations that wishes to divide must often engage in complex and burdensome preliminary reorganizations in order to accomplish what, for a single corporate entity, would be a rather simple and straightforward spinoff of a business to its shareholders. The small technical change I propose today would eliminate the need for these unnecessary transactions, while keeping the statute true to Congress's original purpose. More specifically, section 355 (and related provisions of the Code) permits a corporation or an affiliated group of corporations to divide on a tax-free basis into two or more separate entities with separate businesses. There are numerous requirements for tax-free treatment of a corporate division, or ``spinoff,'' including continuity of historical shareholder interest, continuity of the business enterprises, business purpose, and absence of any device to distribute earnings and profits. In addition, section 355 requires that each of the divided corporate entities be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business. The proposed change would alter none of these substantive requirements of the Code. Section 355(b)(2)(A) currently provides an attribution or ``lookthrough'' rule for groups of corporations that operate active businesses under a holding company, which is necessary because a holding company, by definition, is not itself engaged in an active business. This lookthrough rule inexplicably requires, however, that ``substantially all'' of the assets of the holding company consist of stock of active controlled subsidiaries. The practical effect of this language is to prevent holding companies from engaging in spinoffs if they own almost any other assets. This is in sharp contrast to corporations that operate businesses directly, which can own substantial assets unrelated to the business and still engage in tax- free spinoff transactions. In the real world, of course, holding companies may, for many sound business reasons, hold other assets, such as non-controlling (less than 80 percent) interests in subsidiaries, controlled subsidiaries that have been owned for less than five years (which are not considered ``active businesses'' under section 355), or a host of nonbusiness assets. Such holding companies routinely undertake spinoff transactions, but because of the awkward language used in section 355(b)(2)(A), they must first undertake one or more (often a series of) preliminary reorganizations solely for the purpose of complying with this inexplicable language of the Code. Such preliminary reorganizations are at best costly, burdensome, and without any business purpose, and at worst, they seriously interfere with business operations. In a few cases, they may be so costly as to be prohibitive, and cause the company to abandon an otherwise sound business transaction that is clearly in the best interest of the corporation and the businesses it operates. There is no tax policy reason, tax advisors agree, to require the reorganization of a consolidated group that is clearly engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business, as a condition to a spinoff. Nor is there any reason to treat affiliated groups differently than single operating companies. Indeed, no one has ever suggested one. The legislative history indicates Congress was concerned about non- controlled subsidiaries, which is elsewhere adequately addressed, not consolidated groups. For many purposes, the Tax Code treats affiliated groups as a single corporation. Therefore, the simple remedy I am proposing today for the problem created by the awkward language of section 355(b)(2)(A) is to apply the active business test to an affiliated group as if it were a single entity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important bill for small businesses in Louisiana and throughout our country that I also introduced during the 105th Congress. My bill would restore the 80 percent deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, thus eliminating a tax burden that has seriously hampered many small businesses in our country. Small business is a powerful economic engine, both nationwide and in Louisiana. Small businesses have helped to create the prosperity that we have all enjoyed in the last few years. They are leaders in the innovation and technology development that will sustain our economy in the 21st century. Nationwide, small business employs 53 percent of the private work force, contributes 47 percent of all sales in the country, and is responsible for 50 percent of the private gross domestic product. For these reasons, I believe the tax code should encourage, not discourage, small business development and growth. For the more than 225,000 self-employed and for the thousands of small businesses in Louisiana, business meals and entertainment take the place of advertising, marketing, and conference meetings. These expenses are a core business development cost. As such, a large percentage of these costs should be deductible. For many years, businesses were allowed to deduct 100 percent of business meals and entertainment expenses. In 1987, this deduction was reduced to 80 percent. The deduction was further reduced in 1994 to 50 percent because of the misconception that these meals were ``three martini lunches.'' Contrary to this perception, studies show that the primary beneficiary of the business meal deduction is not the wealthy business person. Studies indicate that over two-thirds of the business meal spenders have incomes of less than $60,000 and 37 percent have incomes below $40,000. Low to moderately priced restaurants are the most popular types for business meals, with the average check equaling less than $20. In addition, 50 percent of most business meals occur in small towns and rural areas. In 1995, just one year after the deduction was reduced to 50 percent, the White House Conference on Small Business established the restoration of the deduction as one of its top priorities for boosting small business. In Louisiana alone, it is expected that the positive economic impact of this proposal could exceed $67 million in industries, such as the travel and restaurant industry, that employ over 120,000 people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce a bill that would make a technical change in the Internal Revenue Code. We often talk about the need to simplify the Tax Code. The change I propose today would do that. This change is small but very important. It would not alter the substance of current law in any way. It would, however, greatly simplify a common corporate transaction. This small technical change will alone save corporations millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses and economic costs that are incurred when they divide their businesses. The Treasury Department agrees that there is a technical problem with the drafting of the Tax Code and has agreed to work with me on this proposal. In fact, the President included a similar provision to correct this problem in his budget. I am introducing today the same bill I introduced during the last session of Congress, but expect to work with Treasury to perfect the language and make sure that corporations are not further hampered by this problem. Corporations, and affiliated groups of corporations, often find it advantageous, or even necessary, to separate two or more businesses. The division of AT&T from its local telephone companies is an example of such a transaction. The reasons for these corporate divisions are many, but probably chief among them is the ability of management to focus on one core business. At the end of the day, when a corporation divides, the stockholders simply have the stock of two corporations, instead of one. The Tax Code recognizes this is not an event that should trigger tax, as it includes corporate divisions among the tax-free reorganization provisions. One requirement the Tax Code imposes on corporate divisions is very awkwardly drafted, however. As a result, an affiliated group of corporations that wishes to divide must often engage in complex and burdensome preliminary reorganizations in order to accomplish what, for a single corporate entity, would be a rather simple and straightforward spinoff of a business to its shareholders. The small technical change I propose today would eliminate the need for these unnecessary transactions, while keeping the statute true to Congress's original purpose. More specifically, section 355 (and related provisions of the Code) permits a corporation or an affiliated group of corporations to divide on a tax-free basis into two or more separate entities with separate businesses. There are numerous requirements for tax-free treatment of a corporate division, or ``spinoff,'' including continuity of historical shareholder interest, continuity of the business enterprises, business purpose, and absence of any device to distribute earnings and profits. In addition, section 355 requires that each of the divided corporate entities be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business. The proposed change would alter none of these substantive requirements of the Code. Section 355(b)(2)(A) currently provides an attribution or ``lookthrough'' rule for groups of corporations that operate active businesses under a holding company, which is necessary because a holding company, by definition, is not itself engaged in an active business. This lookthrough rule inexplicably requires, however, that ``substantially all'' of the assets of the holding company consist of stock of active controlled subsidiaries. The practical effect of this language is to prevent holding companies from engaging in spinoffs if they own almost any other assets. This is in sharp contrast to corporations that operate businesses directly, which can own substantial assets unrelated to the business and still engage in tax- free spinoff transactions. In the real world, of course, holding companies may, for many sound business reasons, hold other assets, such as non-controlling (less than 80 percent) interests in subsidiaries, controlled subsidiaries that have been owned for less than five years (which are not considered ``active businesses'' under section 355), or a host of nonbusiness assets. Such holding companies routinely undertake spinoff transactions, but because of the awkward language used in section 355(b)(2)(A), they must first undertake one or more (often a series of) preliminary reorganizations solely for the purpose of complying with this inexplicable language of the Code. Such preliminary reorganizations are at best costly, burdensome, and without any business purpose, and at worst, they seriously interfere with business operations. In a few cases, they may be so costly as to be prohibitive, and cause the company to abandon an otherwise sound business transaction that is clearly in the best interest of the corporation and the businesses it operates. There is no tax policy reason, tax advisors agree, to require the reorganization of a consolidated group that is clearly engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business, as a condition to a spinoff. Nor is there any reason to treat affiliated groups differently than single operating companies. Indeed, no one has ever suggested one. The legislative history indicates Congress was concerned about non- controlled subsidiaries, which is elsewhere adequately addressed, not consolidated groups. For many purposes, the Tax Code treats affiliated groups as a single corporation. Therefore, the simple remedy I am proposing today for the problem created by the awkward language of section 355(b)(2)(A) is to apply the active business test to an affiliated group as if it were a single entity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important bill for small businesses in Louisiana and throughout our country that I also introduced during the 105th Congress. My bill would restore the 80 percent deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, thus eliminating a tax burden that has seriously hampered many small businesses in our country. Small business is a powerful economic engine, both nationwide and in Louisiana. Small businesses have helped to create the prosperity that we have all enjoyed in the last few years. They are leaders in the innovation and technology development that will sustain our economy in the 21st century. Nationwide, small business employs 53 percent of the private work force, contributes 47 percent of all sales in the country, and is responsible for 50 percent of the private gross domestic product. For these reasons, I believe the tax code should encourage, not discourage, small business development and growth. For the more than 225,000 self-employed and for the thousands of small businesses in Louisiana, business meals and entertainment take the place of advertising, marketing, and conference meetings. These expenses are a core business development cost. As such, a large percentage of these costs should be deductible. For many years, businesses were allowed to deduct 100 percent of business meals and entertainment expenses. In 1987, this deduction was reduced to 80 percent. The deduction was further reduced in 1994 to 50 percent because of the misconception that these meals were ``three martini lunches.'' Contrary to this perception, studies show that the primary beneficiary of the business meal deduction is not the wealthy business person. Studies indicate that over two-thirds of the business meal spenders have incomes of less than $60,000 and 37 percent have incomes below $40,000. Low to moderately priced restaurants are the most popular types for business meals, with the average check equaling less than $20. In addition, 50 percent of most business meals occur in small towns and rural areas. In 1995, just one year after the deduction was reduced to 50 percent, the White House Conference on Small Business established the restoration of the deduction as one of its top priorities for boosting small business. In Louisiana alone, it is expected that the positive economic impact of this proposal could exceed $67 million in industries, such as the travel and restaurant industry, that employ over 120,000 people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I support the Senator's sense-of-the- Senate resolution. I will start off by saying that sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are pretty senseless, because it really is not making law; it is just an expression of what people think. To that extent, it is very important. Let me just start off by saying that if the debate on Medicare is whether we want a tax cut or whether we want to reform Medicare, we will never reform Medicare. Medicare has been here since 1965, and it has been a political football every year. Every year that we run out of money with Medicare, we fix it by using the SOS approach--same old, same old. Every year when there was a shortfall, we simply tried to reduce reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and said, ``Well, we fixed it because we gave them less money to treat 40 million Americans who need health care in this country.'' The President's budget this year again talks about approximately $20 billion in further cuts to the Medicare program. That is $20 billion less that is going to be available to provide medical benefits to 40 million seniors. That, I would suggest, is not reform. That, I would suggest, doesn't fix anything. That, I would suggest, just makes the problem greater and not less. The reason I call into question the concept that a 15-percent transfer of the surplus in the form of IOUs to the Medicare trust fund is not what it seems to be is that, in fact, it is not. The GAO came to the Senate Finance Committee and they testified very specifically on this proposal. What they said, in bipartisan, unequivocal economic language that I think everyone can understand, is the following. They said this transfer ``. . . has no effect on the current and projected cash-flow deficits that have faced the [Medicare program] since 1992--deficits that taxpayers will continue to finance through higher taxes, lower spending elsewhere or lower pay downs of publicly-held debt than the baseline. Importantly, the President's proposal would not provide any new money to pay for medical services.'' So the concept of saying we are going to fix Medicare by taking 15 percent of the surplus and putting IOUs in the trust fund and that somehow we have fixed the problem is nonsensical. It does not make any sense economically. It is not good policy. It gives us a false sense of security that somehow we have solved Medicare by loading up the trust fund with IOUs. That is not reform. That is not saving the program. That is not giving the program one nickel more in money. It is merely giving the trust fund more IOUs. We are in effect transferring publicly held debt from one account and putting it in another account and saying we fixed the program. I could not live with that, because I don't think it does anything. It doesn't help the program. It doesn't hurt the program, but it doesn't fix the program. This resolution says in essence that we are going to have to work in a bipartisan fashion to look at real reform. Our National Bipartisan Commission worked on this for a year. We have a recommendation which will be submitted in the form of legislation. We will have hearings in the Senate Finance Committee. I would like them to report on exactly what we send over there. But if they don't, hopefully it will be something similar. Hopefully, it will be real reform. Hopefully, it will be something that we can quit arguing about--whether we want tax cuts, or whether we want to save Medicare. The program needs more money. There is no question about that. But it desperately needs reform. The 1965 model runs like a 1965 car, and putting more gas in an old car, it is still an old car. And putting more IOUs in the Medicare trust fund doesn't make it a modern, efficient delivery system for health care in this country. I think the resolution is a good resolution. It is offered in a bipartisan fashion. It is a sense of the Senate. Big deal. I don't think it will change public policy. But it is so important that it needs a discussion on how we solve this particular issue. It says that Congress should move expeditiously in a bipartisan fashion to reform the program. Yes; we should. It says that Congress should continue to work with the President as he develops and presents his plan to fix the problem with the Medicare program. Yes; he should. We are not going to fix it. We are going to be looking for issues to beat each other over the head once again. That is the old way of doing it. That is old politics. And people are sick and tired of it on both sides of the political spectrum outside of Washington. Maybe in Washington we love to play political games. We beat them up, they beat us up, and nothing gets done. We end up arguing about failure: It is their fault we didn't fix it. No; it is your fault we didn't fix it. And absolutely nothing is ever fixed with that kind of a procedure. How much better would it would be for us to gather and work together and fix it? And we can always argue the political argument about who fixed it: We fixed it. No; they fixed it. But at least we are arguing about success about fixing something instead of trying to argue about whose fault it is that nothing gets done on something as important as Medicare, and trying to figure out which wedge issue we are going to use this week and which wedge issue they are going to use next week. Is it not time that we kind of come together and say, ``Look, we have a big problem''? Today, we spend more money in Medicare than we take in in revenues to pay for it. Today, not in 20 years. Today. If you use all of the revenues in the trust fund, plus the revenues coming in, we are totally insolvent in the year 2008. My fear is that in the year 2007 we are going to still be arguing about whether we want to fix Medicare or whether we want to have a tax cut. That is not the appropriate argument. That is not the discussion we should be engaged in. We can argue whether we need a tax cut, and how we should craft it, and who should benefit from it. That is a separate argument. We should concentrate now on how to reform Medicare in a bipartisan fashion. I think this sense-of-the-Senate resolution suggests that. It makes the point that the 15-percent surplus is nothing more than IOUs in the trust fund. It does not add a nickel to the trust fund. That is a correct statement, and that is why I support the resolution. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I do not necessarily disagree with everything the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has pointed out. It is important for everyone to understand that the suggestion of the administration of 15 percent of the surplus in the form of IOUs into the Medicare trust fund does not give the trust fund one nickel, one dime, one dollar more money. It only gives the trust fund IOUs in the form of Treasury securities on which, in the future, Medicare can go to the general fund and make a claim. That is all it does. Basically, that is the same situation as we have today because it is an entitlement program. People are entitled to it. The question I have is, are we going to have no limit on how much of the general fund is going to be used to finance Medicare? Madam President, 37 percent of the money today comes out of general revenues. It was supposed to start off as a payroll tax and that was how it was to be funded. Are we going to go to 40 percent without any concern? Are we going to go to 50 percent without any concern? How much of the general revenues are going to finance Medicare to the detriment of the national defense or anything else that we have as a nation? I suggest to use this transfer of IOUs without making formal decisions and having serious debate about it is not good policy because it doesn't help Medicare at all. That is why it is important to understand it does not provide any new money to the Medicare program at all. We should have that debate. We suggested a way of looking at it, but I think just saying 15 percent of the surplus solves the Medicare problem to the year 2030 is very, very erroneous. It is incorrect. We should not rely on that as a way of saving Medicare. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this month marks the end of a distinguished and remarkable career in public education for the president of my state's flagship university. At month's end, Dr. Allen A. Copping will be retiring, leaving the post of president of the Louisiana State University System that he has held since March of 1985. Dr. Copping's retirement is significant for several reasons. Under his able and dedicated leadership, the LSU System has enjoyed enormous growth and development and is recognized around the country as a leader in educational excellence in numerous fields of academic pursuit. Dr. Copping's fourteen-year tenure is significant for another reason: He will always be remembered as the first health scientist to hold the position as LSU president. Allen Copping is a native of New Orleans, born in 1927 and educated in the city's public schools. After graduating from Loyola University with a Doctor's degree in Dental Surgery in 1949, Dr. Copping entered the U.S. Navy and served our country with distinction during the Korean Conflict. After the war, he returned to New Orleans, where he began a very successful dental practice and also landed on the faculty of the Loyola University School of Dentistry. In 1968, Dr. Copping joined the faculty of the newly created LSU School of Dentistry as an associate professor and, six years later, he was appointed the second dean of the LSU School of Dentistry. As dean, Dr. Copping's leadership ability and his vision quickly caught the eye of the LSU Board of Supervisors, which chose him to head the LSU Medical Center as Chancellor in 1974, a position he held with distinction for the next eleven years. During his years at the helm of the Medical Center, Dr. Copping helped initiate a remarkable expansion in both the curricular offerings and in the physical facilities at the Center. On March 18, 1985, Allen Copping became the third president of the LSU System and the fifteenth LSU president, a job that entailed the leadership and supervision of the eight campuses in the system and management of an annual budget of over two billion dollars. During his tenure as LSU president, Dr. Copping guided the system through some very challenging years, highlighted by the development of the world-renowned Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Baton Rouge and the addition of the Health Care Services Division of the LSU Medical Center. Throughout his years at the helm of the LSU System, Dr. Copping enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as a man of extraordinary loyalty, honesty, compassion and sincerity who is unalterably devoted to public education and the well being of his native state of Louisiana. Mr. President, on behalf of the citizens of my state, I wish to congratulate Allen Copping on a well-deserved retirement and offer my profound gratitude for the leadership that he has provided the LSU System over the past fourteen years. He will be missed, but I know that I and other public officials will continue to benefit from his wisdom and his commitment to providing a quality education that meets the needs of our country's most precious commodity--our young people. I wish Allen and Betty and their family all the best in this next and very exciting phase of their lives.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine and Senator Grams in introducing the ``Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act of 1999.'' My primary reason for sponsoring the bill is to make the federal Clean Water Act equitable by requiring that it apply to and be enforced against the federal government. Currently, states, local governments and the private sector do not have immunity from the act's enforcement. By the same principle, the federal government should not be granted such immunity from the clean water statute and this bill provides that parity. The bill also provides that the federal government would be subject to all the same enforcement mechanisms that apply to states, local governments and the private sector under the Clean Water Act. Fairness, safety, public health and environmental protection all dictate that Federal agencies should be held to the same standards for water pollution prevention and control as apply to states, local governments and the private sector. Equity is ensured by our bill because all levels of government and the private sector would be treated the same under the Clean Water Act's enforcement programs. No one would be allowed immunity. To paraphrase a well-known adage, what's good for states, local governments and the private sector in terms of clean water should be good for the federal government. In addition to the provisions stated previously, the bill reflects the adage's fairness principle in another fashion. The bill would hold the federal government accountable to comply not only with its own clean water statute, but also with state and local clean water laws. Again, equity would be upheld. And, safety, public health and environmental protection would be strengthened. Other provisions are contained as well in the legislation which Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine, Senator Grams and I are introducing today. For example, the EPA administrator, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Transportation would be authorized to pursue administrative enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act against any non-complying federal agencies. It also includes provisions for federal employees' personal liability under the act's civil and criminal penalty provisions and a requirement that the federal government pay reasonable service charges when complying with clean water laws. Over the years, the United States has made dramatic advances in protecting the environment as a result of the Clean Water Act. We have all benefitted as a result. Today, I encourage other Senators to join Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine, Senator Grams and me as cosponsors of the bill to bring equity to the clean water program and to make possible the expansion of its public and private benefits.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine and Senator Grams in introducing the ``Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act of 1999.'' My primary reason for sponsoring the bill is to make the federal Clean Water Act equitable by requiring that it apply to and be enforced against the federal government. Currently, states, local governments and the private sector do not have immunity from the act's enforcement. By the same principle, the federal government should not be granted such immunity from the clean water statute and this bill provides that parity. The bill also provides that the federal government would be subject to all the same enforcement mechanisms that apply to states, local governments and the private sector under the Clean Water Act. Fairness, safety, public health and environmental protection all dictate that Federal agencies should be held to the same standards for water pollution prevention and control as apply to states, local governments and the private sector. Equity is ensured by our bill because all levels of government and the private sector would be treated the same under the Clean Water Act's enforcement programs. No one would be allowed immunity. To paraphrase a well-known adage, what's good for states, local governments and the private sector in terms of clean water should be good for the federal government. In addition to the provisions stated previously, the bill reflects the adage's fairness principle in another fashion. The bill would hold the federal government accountable to comply not only with its own clean water statute, but also with state and local clean water laws. Again, equity would be upheld. And, safety, public health and environmental protection would be strengthened. Other provisions are contained as well in the legislation which Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine, Senator Grams and I are introducing today. For example, the EPA administrator, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Transportation would be authorized to pursue administrative enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act against any non-complying federal agencies. It also includes provisions for federal employees' personal liability under the act's civil and criminal penalty provisions and a requirement that the federal government pay reasonable service charges when complying with clean water laws. Over the years, the United States has made dramatic advances in protecting the environment as a result of the Clean Water Act. We have all benefitted as a result. Today, I encourage other Senators to join Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine, Senator Grams and me as cosponsors of the bill to bring equity to the clean water program and to make possible the expansion of its public and private benefits.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, with the passing this week of Louisiana state Representative Avery Alexander, our nation and my state of Louisiana lost one of its most legendary and respected citizens. For most of his 88 years, Reverend Alexander gave himself selflessly and completely to the service of others--as a dedicated and caring minister, as a fearless and principled civil rights leader and as a tireless and thoroughly honorable public servant. To those who knew him, ``The Rev,'' as he was called, was a nothing short of a living legend and the very embodiment of the courage, passion and vision that characterized the civil rights movement of the 1950s and l960s. In a day and time when standing up for your rights as an American meant taking your life into your hands, Avery Alexander and his allies took to the streets and helped transform our nation. Avery Alexander and his contemporaries in the civil rights movement helped give our nation a new birth of freedom and for that we are internally grateful. Yet long after the great civil rights marches and protests of the 1960s and well into his ninth decade of life, Reverend Alexander was still as passionate and committed to the cause of human rights as he had always been. It wasn't that long ago--three years to be exact--that the people of Louisiana were treated to the familiar image of Avery Alexander on a ticket line in Baton Rouge, protesting changes to the state's affirmative action laws that he believed were unfair and unwise. When Avery Alexander believed in something, especially civil rights, he gave it his all. And he knew better than most that the civil rights laws of the 1960s were only a beginning, not an end, of a great national journey for every citizen, black, white, Hispanic or Asian. Whatever one might have thought about him, and however one might have disagreed with him, I know of no one who would have ever thought of questioning Avery Alexander's motives. He was a supremely principled man, led by conscience and an innate sense of mission and morality to serve always as a voice for those who had lost or had never been given the right to speak for themselves. If you were down and out, forgotten, discriminated against, despised or rejected by society, then Avery Alexander was your friend. I have known few people who lived up to the Biblical admonition to love unconditionally as well as he did. Avery Alexander will be missed. But he will also be long remembered for the ways he taught and inspired us to love, to care, to serve and, most of all, to look beyond skin color and gender and age and creed and to see that which is best, noble and God-given in each of us. We will all miss the ``Rev!''