John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Future Business Leaders of America--Phi Beta Lambda (FBLA-PBL) for fifty-six years of service to America's students, teachers, businesses, and communities. During the week of February 8-14, educators, students, and business professionals across the country recognized National FBLA-PBL Week. I think this is a wonderful time for us to look back on the accomplishments of this organization, whose legacy leaves a strong foundation for education and the future of American enterprise. On February 3, 1942, Dr. Hamden L. Forkner spearheaded the effort to create the first FBLA chapter in Johnson City, Tennessee. Dr. Forkner envisioned a national organization that would train high school students in the real-life aspects of the professional business world, and also develop their leadership, self-confidence, and patriotism. The FBLA concept quickly expanded, and membership grew many times over. In 1958, the benefits of FBLA were extended to postsecondary students with the creation of Phi Beta Lambda. This professional business organization seeks to ease the transition from school to work for thousands of students by providing training in business leadership skills and connecting students with current industry leaders. Over the years, FBLA-PBL has grown to encompass two additional divisions: a Professional Division, founded in 1989, for their partners, supporters and alumni; and the Middle Level, founded just a few years ago, which connects middle school and junior high students with basic leadership and business principles. The mission of the FBLA-PBL is to bring business and education together in a positive working relationship through innovative leadership and career development programs. They accomplish this through a variety of national programs, including seven national leadership conferences, over seventy competitive events, strategic business partnerships, career expos, and community service. Mr. President, in the past fifty-six years, FBLA-PBL has trained literally millions of today's leaders in American business. For fifty years now, Louisiana has benefited from the FBLA-PBL and today, there are approximately 7,000 members in my home state. I am proud to say that the National Phi Beta Lambda President is from Louisiana. This is truly an organization that has made a positive impact on my home state as well as on our country, proving that our youth are ready, willing, and able to take the reins of leadership and help guide us toward a brighter tomorrow. With over 240,000 members annually, FBLA-PBL is a shining example of what makes America great, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize them for their efforts. I would like to take this opportunity for all of us to recognize and remember that FBLA-PBL has done a tremendous service for this country.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Ford) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent attending a funeral.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would suspend the current duty on ink-jet textile printing machinery through December 31, 1999. I would like to make some brief comments about this bill. It is my understanding that this machinery is not made in the United States, so there are no domestic producers that are likely to be harmed by this bill. Furthermore, the revenues currently generated by the duty on these machines are under $500,000 per annum, making it a de minimis amount under budget rules. This being the case, Mr. President, I think my colleagues will agree that this bill is not apt to have any detrimental effects on domestic industry or federal revenue. In fact, I believe such a measure could represent a potential economic benefit for the textile industry. These ink-jet printing machines are used to print patterns and designs on fabrics, and they are indispensable for a large part of our domestic textile industry. They are also extremely costly. It stands to reason that every little bit we can do for our domestic textile producers to reduce their costs of production help them to be competitive in this increasingly global economy. Mr. President, this is a good bill with no substantial costs involved, and I want to encourage my colleagues to support it. 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 legislation that would suspend the current duty on ink-jet textile printing machinery through December 31, 1999. I would like to make some brief comments about this bill. It is my understanding that this machinery is not made in the United States, so there are no domestic producers that are likely to be harmed by this bill. Furthermore, the revenues currently generated by the duty on these machines are under $500,000 per annum, making it a de minimis amount under budget rules. This being the case, Mr. President, I think my colleagues will agree that this bill is not apt to have any detrimental effects on domestic industry or federal revenue. In fact, I believe such a measure could represent a potential economic benefit for the textile industry. These ink-jet printing machines are used to print patterns and designs on fabrics, and they are indispensable for a large part of our domestic textile industry. They are also extremely costly. It stands to reason that every little bit we can do for our domestic textile producers to reduce their costs of production help them to be competitive in this increasingly global economy. Mr. President, this is a good bill with no substantial costs involved, and I want to encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this legislation reflects an effort to reach a compromise within the international ocean shipping industry. It reflects a middle ground among the somewhat dissimilar interests of the ocean carriers and shippers and shipping intermediaries, as well as the interests of U.S. ports and post-related labor interests such as longshoremen and truckers. I have worked with Senators Hutchison, Lott, and Gorton to craft a compromise allowing us to move forward with legislation. I had hoped to be able to move forward with floor consideration before we adjourn, but it appears now that we ran out of time on this bill. I look forward to taking this bill up early in the next session of Congress. It has been very difficult to balance the competing considerations affected by this bill. In fact, I would liken it to squeezing Jell-O, you push in one direction and objections would ooze out in the other direction. However, I feel certain that we are close to achieving a workable agreement that all parties can support. It is safe to say that our ocean shipping industry affects all of us in the United States since 96 percent of our international trade is carried by ships, but very few of us fully understand the ocean shipping industry. International ocean shipping is a half-a-trillion-dollar annual industry that is inextricably linked to our fortunes in international trade. It is a unique industry, in that international maritime trade is regulated by more than just the policies of the United States. In fact, it is regulated by every nation capable of accepting vessels that are navigated on the seven seas. It is a complex industry to understand because of the multinational nature of trade, and its regulation is different from any of our domestic transportation industries such as trucking, rail, or aviation. The ocean shipping industry provides the most open and pure form of trade in international transportation. For instance, trucks and railroads are only allowed to operate on a domestic basis, and foreign trucks and railroads are required to stop at border locations, with cargo for points further inland transported by U.S. firms. International aviation is subject to restrictions imposed and a result of bilateral trade agreements, that is, foreign airlines can only come into the United States if bilateral trade agreements provide access into the United States. However, international maritime trade is not restricted at all, and treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation guarantee the right of vessels from anywhere in the world to deliver cargo to any point in the United States that is capable of accommodating the navigation of foreign vessels. The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is charged with regulating the international ocean shipping liner industry. The ocean shipping liner industry consists of those vessels that provide regularly scheduled services to U.S. ports from points abroad. In large part, the trade consists of containerized cargo that is capable of international movement. The FMC does not regulate the practices of ocean shipping vessels that are not on regularly scheduled services, such as vessels chartered to carry oil, chemicals, bulk grain, or coal carriers. One might ask why regulate the ocean liner industry, and not the bulk shipping industry? The answer is that the ocean liner industry enjoys a worldwide exemption from the application of U.S. antitrust laws and foreign competition policies. Also, the ocean liner industry is required to provide a system of common carriage, that is, our law requires carriers to provide service to any importer or exporter on a fair, and nondiscriminatory basis. The international ocean shipping liner industry is not a healthy industry. In general, it is riddled with trade-distorting practices, chronic overcapacity, and fiercely competitive carriers. In fact, rates have plunged in the transpacific trade to the degree that importers and exporters are expressing concerns about the overall health of the shipping industry. The primary cause of liner shipping overcapacity is the presence of policies designed to promote national-flag carriers and also to ensure strong shipbuilding capacity in the interest of national security. These policies which are not necessarily economically effective include subsidies to purchase ships and to operate ships, tax advantages to lower costs, cargo reservation schemes, and national control of shipyards and shipping companies. A prime example of policies that promote and subsidize a national-flag carrier is one of the largest shipping companies in the world, the China Overseas Shipping Company [COSCO]. It is operated by the Government of China, much in the way the United States Government controls the Navy and is not constrained by considerations that plague private sector companies. Historically, ocean shipping liner companies attempted to combat rate wars resulting from overcapacity by establishing shipping conferences to coordinate the practices and pricing policies of liner shipping companies. The first shipping conference was established in 1875, but it was not until 1916 that the U.S. Government reviewed the conference system. The Alexander Committee--named after the then-chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries--recommended continuing the conference system in order to avoid ruinous rate wars and trade instability, but also determined that conference practices should be regulated to ensure that their practices did not adversely impact shippers. All other maritime nations allow shipping conferences to exist without the constraints of antitrust or competition laws, and presently no nation is considering changes to their shipping regulatory policies. In the past, U.S. efforts to apply antitrust principles to the ocean shipping liner industry were met with great difficulty. Understandably, foreign governments objected to applying U.S. antitrust laws instead of their own laws on competition policy to their shipping companies. Many nations have enacted blocking statutes to expressly prevent the application of U.S. antitrust laws to the practices of their shipping companies. As a result of these blocking statutes, U.S. antitrust laws would only be able to reach U.S. companies and would destroy their ability to compete with foreign companies. With the difficulties in applying our antitrust laws, U.S. ocean shipping policy has endeavored to regulate ocean shipping practices to ensure that the grant of antitrust immunity is not abused and that our regulatory structure does not contradict the regulatory practices of foreign nations. The current regulatory statute that governs the practices of the ocean liner shipping industry is the Shipping Act of 1984. The Shipping Act of 1984 was enacted in response to changing trends in the ocean shipping industry. The advent of intermodalism and containerization of cargo drastically changed the face of ocean shipping, and nearly all liner operations are now containerized. Prior to the Shipping Act of 1984, uncertainty existed as to whether intermodal agreements were within the scope of antitrust immunity granted to carriers. In addition, carrier agreements were subject to lengthy regulatory scrutiny under a public interest-type of standard. Dissatisfaction with the regulatory structure led to hearings and legislative review in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In the wake of passage of legislation deregulating the trucking and railroad industry, deregulation of the ocean shipping industry was accomplished with the enactment of the Shipping Act of 1984. The Shipping Act of 1984 continues antitrust immunity for agreements unless the FMC seeks an injunction against any agreement it finds ``is likely, by a reduction of competition, to produce an unreasonable reduction in transportation service or an unreasonable increase in transportation cost.'' The act also clarifies that agreements can be filed covering intermodal movements, thus allowing ocean carriers to more fully coordinate ocean shipping services with shore-side services and surface transportation. The Shipping Act of 1984 attempts to harmonize the twin objectives of facilitating an efficient ocean transportation system while controlling the potential abuses and disadvantages inherent in the conference system. The Act maintains the requirement that all carriers publish tariffs and provide rates and services to all shippers without unjust discrimination, thus continuing the obligations of common carriage. In order to provide shippers with a means of limiting conference power, the Shipping Act of 1984 made three major changes: First, it allowed shippers to utilize service contracts, but required the essential terms of the contract to be filed and allowed similarly situated shippers the right to enter similar contracts; second, it allowed shippers the right to set up shippers associations, in order to allow collective cargo interests to negotiate service contracts; and third, it mandated that all conference carriers had the right to act independently of the conference in pricing or service options upon 10 days' notice to the conference. Amendments to the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and the passage of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, strengthened the FMC's oversight of foreign shipping practices and the practices of foreign governments that adversely impact conditions facing U.S. carriers and shippers in foreign trade. The FMC effectively utilized its trade authorities to challenge restrictive port practices in Japan, and after a tense showdown convinced the Japanese to alter their practices that restrict the opportunity of carriers to operate their own marine terminals. The changes that will be required to be implemented under this agreement will save consumers of imports and exporters trading to Japan, millions of dollars, and the FMC deserves praise for hanging tough in what was undeniably a tense situation. While we were not able to address all concerns about our new ocean shipping deregulation proposal I would like to elaborate on the progress that has been made toward ultimate Senate passage of legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Hutchison, Lott and Gorton for their efforts on this bill. Additionally, the following staffers spent many hours meeting with the affected members of the shipping public and listening to their concerns about our proposal and I would like to personally thank Jim Sartucci and Carl Bentzel of the Commerce Committee staff, Carl Biersack of Senator Lott's staff, Jeanne Bumpus of Senator Gorton's staff, Amy Henderson of Senator Hutchison's staff as well as my own staffers, Mark Ashby and Paul DeVeau. S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, and the proposed amendment to the committee reported bill, attempt to balance the competing interests of those affected by international ocean shipping practices. One of the major obstacles to change in this area was the need to provide additional service contract flexibility and confidentiality, while balancing the need to continue oversight of contract practices to ensure against anti-competitive practices immunized from our antitrust laws. I think the contracting proposal embodied in S. 414 adequately balances these competing considerations. The bill transfers the requirements of providing service and price information to the private sector, and will allow the private sector to perform functions that had heretofore been provided by the Government. The bill broadens the authority of the FMC to provide statutory exemptions, and reforms the licensing and bonding requirements for ocean shipping intermediaries. Importantly, the bill does not change the structure of the Federal Maritime Commission. The FMC is a small agency with a annual budget of about $14 million. When you subtract penalties and fines collected over the past 7 years, the annual cost of agency operations is less than $7 million. All told, the agency is a bargain to the U.S. taxpayer as it oversees the shipping practices of over $500 billion in maritime trade. The U.S. public accrues an added benefit when the FMC is able to break down trade barriers that cost importers and exporters millions in additional costs, as recently occurred when the FMC challenged restrictive Japanese port practices. The FMC is an independent regulatory agency that is not accountable to the direction of the administration. Independence allows the FMC to maintain a more aggressive and objective posture when it comes to the consideration of eliminating foreign trade barriers. S. 414 also provides some additional protection to longshoremen who work at U.S. ports. The concerns expressed by U.S. ports and port- related labor interests revolved around reductions in the transparency afforded to shipping contracts, and the potential abuse that could occur as a result of carrier antitrust immune contract actions. In order to address the concerns of longshoremen who have contracts for longshore and stevedoring services, S. 414 sets up a mechanism to allow the longshoremen to request information relevant to the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements. It is my feeling that we have before us a package of needed shipping reforms that will allow us to move ahead, and I look forward to passing this bill in the next session of Congress.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act. I believe it is legislation all of our colleagues should support. As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Senator Cochran and I recognize the importance of protecting and conserving migratory bird populations and habitat. Eighty years ago, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which implemented the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between Great Britain, for Canada, and the United States. Since then, the United States, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union have signed similar agreements. The Convention and the Act are designed to protect and manage migratory birds and regulate the taking of that renewable resource. They have had a positive impact, and we have maintained viable migratory bird populations despite the loss of natural habitat because of human activities. Since passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and development of the regulatory program, several issues have been raised and resolved. One has not--the issue concerning the hunting of migratory birds ``[b]y the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area.'' A doctrine has developed in the federal courts by which the intent or knowledge of a person hunting migratory birds on a baited field is not an issue. If bait is present, and the hunter is there, he is guilty under the doctrine of strict liability. It is not relevant that the hunter did not know or could not have known bait was present. I question the basic fairness of this rule. Mr. President, I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I strongly support the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We must protect our migratory bird resources from overexploitation. I would not weaken the Act's protections. The fundamental goal of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act is to address the baiting issue. It is the result of months of negotiation by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting. The Committee has representatives from each of the migratory flyways, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. Under this legislation, no person may take migratory birds by the aid of bait, or on or over bait, where that person knew or should have known the bait was present. It removes the strict liability interpretation presently followed by federal courts. In its stead, it establishes a standard that permits a determination of the actual guilt of the defendant. If the facts show the hunter knew or should have known of the bait, liability, which includes fines and possible incarceration, would be imposed. However, if the facts show the hunter could not have reasonably known bait was present, the court would not impose liability or assess penalties. This is a question of fact determined by the court based on the evidence presented. This legislation would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish, in the Federal Register, a notice for public comment defining what is a normal agricultural operation for that geographic area. The Service would make this determination after consultation with state and federal agencies and an opportunity for public comment. The purpose of this provision is to provide guidance for landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, law enforcement officials, and hunters so they know what a normal agricultural operation is for their region. The goal of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act is to provide guidance to landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, hunters, law enforcement officials, and the courts on the restrictions on the taking of migratory birds. It accomplishes that without weakening the intent of current restrictions on the method and manner of taking migratory birds; nor do the proposed provisions weaken protection of the resource. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act. I believe it is legislation all of our colleagues should support. As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Senator Cochran and I recognize the importance of protecting and conserving migratory bird populations and habitat. Eighty years ago, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which implemented the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between Great Britain, for Canada, and the United States. Since then, the United States, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union have signed similar agreements. The Convention and the Act are designed to protect and manage migratory birds and regulate the taking of that renewable resource. They have had a positive impact, and we have maintained viable migratory bird populations despite the loss of natural habitat because of human activities. Since passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and development of the regulatory program, several issues have been raised and resolved. One has not--the issue concerning the hunting of migratory birds ``[b]y the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area.'' A doctrine has developed in the federal courts by which the intent or knowledge of a person hunting migratory birds on a baited field is not an issue. If bait is present, and the hunter is there, he is guilty under the doctrine of strict liability. It is not relevant that the hunter did not know or could not have known bait was present. I question the basic fairness of this rule. Mr. President, I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I strongly support the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We must protect our migratory bird resources from overexploitation. I would not weaken the Act's protections. The fundamental goal of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act is to address the baiting issue. It is the result of months of negotiation by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting. The Committee has representatives from each of the migratory flyways, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. Under this legislation, no person may take migratory birds by the aid of bait, or on or over bait, where that person knew or should have known the bait was present. It removes the strict liability interpretation presently followed by federal courts. In its stead, it establishes a standard that permits a determination of the actual guilt of the defendant. If the facts show the hunter knew or should have known of the bait, liability, which includes fines and possible incarceration, would be imposed. However, if the facts show the hunter could not have reasonably known bait was present, the court would not impose liability or assess penalties. This is a question of fact determined by the court based on the evidence presented. This legislation would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish, in the Federal Register, a notice for public comment defining what is a normal agricultural operation for that geographic area. The Service would make this determination after consultation with state and federal agencies and an opportunity for public comment. The purpose of this provision is to provide guidance for landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, law enforcement officials, and hunters so they know what a normal agricultural operation is for their region. The goal of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act is to provide guidance to landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, hunters, law enforcement officials, and the courts on the restrictions on the taking of migratory birds. It accomplishes that without weakening the intent of current restrictions on the method and manner of taking migratory birds; nor do the proposed provisions weaken protection of the resource. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of S. 1216, legislation to implement the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. S. 1216 was favorably reported out of both the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees. The issue of unfair foreign shipbuilding practices is very important to my State. Louisiana is one of the premier shipbuilding states in the country. Over 27,000 Louisiana jobs are impacted by constructing or repairing ships. We have almost every conceivable type and size shipyard, from a huge primarily defense oriented yard to smaller and medium sized strictly commercial yards. My interest in this issue spans the entire range of shipbuilding. I believe it's important to state again for the record the historical context that surrounds the OECD Shipbuilding agreement and this implementing legislation. If nothing else, we should learn from history. 1974-1987, saw worldwide overall demand for ocean going vessels decline 71%. United States merchant vessel construction went from an average of 72 ships/year in the 1970's to an average of 21 ships/year in the 1980's. During this period, governments in all the shipbuilding nations, with the exception of the United States, dramatically stepped up aid to their shipyards with massive levels of subsidies in virtually every form. In 1981, the U.S. government unilaterally terminated commercial construction subsidies to U.S. yards. At the same time, U.S. defense shipbuilding increased in an effort to reach a 600 ship Navy. U.S. defense shipbuilding construction went from an average of 79 ships/year in the 1970's to an average of 95 ships/ year in the 1980's. U.S. international commercial shipbuilding, on the other hand, was virtually abandoned to subsidized foreign yards. The end of the 1980's and the end of the ``Cold War'' saw a Department of Defense reevaluation of the need for a 600 ship Navy. The U.S. shipbuilding industry was consequently forced to reevaluate its need to secure commercial ship construction orders in order to stay in business. In June of 1989, the U.S. shipbuilding industry, represented at that time by the ``Shipbuilders Council of America'', filed a section 301 claim against the major shipbuilding countries of the world for unfair subsidies and practices that were injuring the U.S. industry. Later that year, however, U.S. Trade Ambassador Carla Hills, convinced the industry that a better, more effective way to eliminate the unfair foreign subsidies and practices was through multilateral negotiations. The industry decided to give international negotiations a chance and therefore withdrew its Section 301 claim. The U.S. then encouraged the responsible trading partners to enter into negotiations and the five year OECD quest to negotiate the elimination of trade distorting shipbuilding practices had begun. From late 1989 to late 1994, the OECD negotiations were on and off again. During 1993, when the talks had seemingly collapsed, I introduced a bill in the Senate (S. 990) and then Congressman Sam Gibbons introduced a bill in the House (H.R. 1402), that would have unilaterally triggered significant sanctions against ships constructed in foreign subsidized yards when those ships called upon the United States. Despite prompting a flood of domestic opposition from those fearing the bills would start a trade war, the introduction of these bills did help re-ignite the stalled OECD talks. From June 1989 until the present agreement was signed on December 21, 1994, the U.S. objective and the U.S. industry's urgent request appeared to be simple: ``Eliminate subsidies and we can compete.'' When the Clinton administration came into office, to its credit, it proposed a ``Shipyard Revitalization Plan.'' A main feature of this plan was new Title XI financing for commercial export orders. In a Senate Finance Committee, Trade Subcommittee hearing on November 18, 1993, a year before the agreement was signed, Assistant U.S.T.R. Don Phillips described the plan and its relationship to the OECD Agreement as follows: Finally, this five-point program is a transitional program, consistent with federal assistance to other industries seeking to convert from defense to civilian markets. In addition, it seeks to support, not undercut, the negotiations that are currently underway in the OECD. In this regard, we have made clear our intention to modify this program, as appropriate, so that it would be consistent with the provision of a multilateral agreement---if and when such an agreement enters into force. (emphasis added). In all the comments I have heard to date about this agreement, I have yet to hear of a scenario whereby U.S. industry is better off fighting unfair shipbuilding practices without the agreement than it is with the agreement. The ``loopholes'' referred to by opponents will become the rule rather than limited and temporary exceptions. The Congress is not prepared in this time of fiscal restraint to match their subsidies with ours. Concerns about the agreement putting the Jones Act domestic build requirement at risk are contradicted by the fact that the largest ``Jones Act'' carriers in the country, who avidly support this agreement. They say this implementing bill strengthens the Jones Act. If that protection were not enough, we added language providing for an expedited procedure for U.S. withdrawal from the agreement if the Jones Act were perceived to be undermined. Opponents argue that new export orders associated with the current U.S. title XI export financing program will be lost under the agreement. These orders exist, however, because a title XI financing advantage is in place due to the standstill clause in the OECD agreement. If we reject the agreement, we lose the standstill clause, and consequently we lose our current title XI advantage. Considering the European Union routinely provides billions of dollars of direct shipyard aid each year and absent this agreement will soon redirect and increase this aid, matching our U.S. financing program will require minimal EU effort and change. If this debate is really about competing for international export orders, and unless we are prepared to enter into a subsidies race with our competitors, I don't see how we can reject this agreement. Not only is Congress continually faced with dire budgetary decisions, such as cutting Medicare and Medicaid, but the Department of Defense has indicated that it is reluctant and unwilling to fund commercial shipbuilding subsidies through its DOD accounts. Greater competition from our trading partners due to increasing world shipbuilding capacity and the inevitable decrease in demand for new oceangoing vessels, will lead us to the same untenable situation that confronted our industry in 1981 if we do not approve this agreement. We won't have adequate trade laws to protect our industry and we won't have enough subsidies to successfully compete for international orders. Last year, the full House of Representatives considered implementing legislation for the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. A substitute amendment offered by Congressman Herb Bateman passed the Chamber, but was inconsistent with the agreement. The Senate failed to consider an implementing bill before adjournment though we made relentless efforts to address the concerns of opponents and engage them in constructive dialog. Every time opponents have raised an objection, we have tried to address it in a manner consistent with the agreement. First, when they said they needed explicit clarification that the United States would not under any circumstances change its Jones Act, we did it and more. Second, when they said they needed explicit clarification that our national security interests would be protected and that the definitions of ``defense features'' and ``military reserve vessels'' would be decided by the Secretary of Defense, we did it and more. Third, when they said they needed 30 additional months of current Title XI financing terms to cover projects close to having their applications in, we did it and more. In fact, S. 1216, as amended by Senator Lott and myself, meets every legitimate concern raised by opponents. I am including a detailed comparison of this bill with the issues raised in the Bateman amendment. This agreement is not perfect because there is no such thing as a perfect agreement. To overlook its significant features, such as elimination of foreign subsidies while ensuring that the U.S. is the only country of all the signatories able to reserve its domestic market from foreign competition, provides an inaccurate view at best. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there are no opponents to the U.S. shipbuilding and broader maritime industry in this debate today. We simply have different members with different constituencies and different priorities. We must decide as a Senate, however, if we want to provide our own U.S. commercial shipyards the right and ability to compete on a level playing field for international work. I join Senator Lott in promoting the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry. America needs both a competitive U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry as well as a strong defense shipbuilding industry. We can have both if we enact the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement legislation. I look forward to a vote on this agreement in the U.S. Senate before March 1, 1998. The material follows: How S. 1216 (as amended by Senate Finance and Commerce Committees) compares to H.R. 2754 (as amended by Congressman Bateman) Title XI S. 1216 includes Title XI transition language more favorable than the Bateman Amendment. Under S. 1216, the U.S. would be able to keep its current (25-year/87.5% of the project cost) Title XI financing through January 1, 2001. The Bateman Amendment extended such terms through January 1, 1999. S. 1216, like the Bateman Amendment, provides a full three- year delivery ``grace period'' for ships that receive 25-year Title XI financing. Therefore under S. 1216, such ships would have to be delivered no later than January 1, 2004. S. 1216, like the Bateman Amendment, allows for further extending the delivery date in the case of ``unusual circumstances'' (defined the same as the Bateman Amendment). S. 1216 includes a provision not in the Bateman Amendment that allows the U.S. to make the current favorable terms of the Title XI program available to U. S shipyards when competing against bids of subsidized yards in countries that are not signatories to the OECD Agreement. This provision: (1) provides an incentive for such nations to join the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement and, (2) protects U.S. shipyards from unfair competition from subsidized yards in nations that fail to join the Agreement. Jones Act S. 1216 provides extraordinary protections for the Jones Act that fully meet the objectives of the Bateman Amendment. S. 1216 states unequivocally that US coastwise laws are completely unaffected by this Agreement. This provision is virtually identical to the Bateman Amendment. S. 1216 states that nothing in this Agreement shall undermine ``the operation or administration of our coastwise laws''. This provision provides a stronger statement of protection for the Jones Act than the Bateman Amendment. S. 1216 provides a legislative procedure (Joint Resolution) for Congress to initiate US withdrawal from the Agreement if, ``responsive measures'' to U.S. Jones Act construction are taken. This process provides an equivalent alternative to the Bateman Amendment prohibition against counter-measures being filed against the US and which is consistent with the agreement. Responsive countermeasures against the Jones Act are a highly theoretical event. Under the agreement, responsive countermeasures are authorized only when relevant Jones Act construction ``significantly upsets the balance of rights and obligations of the agreement.'' Even the most optimistic projections indicate that relevant U.S. Jones Act construction will represent only a fraction of 1% of the global shipbuilding market. Furthermore, the withdrawal provision in S. 1216 provides a disincentive for a nation to pursue a countermeasure against the U.S. since a successful action would result in U.S. withdrawal from the Agreement. U.S withdrawal from the Agreement would not only moot the countermeasure, it would terminate the Agreement altogether. Finally in a worst case scenario, even if a Jones Act countermeasure were to be authorized and for some reason the US did not withdraw from the agreement, there would still be no real consequence to the U.S. Jones Act shipbuilding industry. Under the agreement, the only countermeasure allowable without the consent of the US would be to offset an equivalent portion of the complaining party's ``Jones Act'' market from US bidding. Because the global market is so vast (2000 commercial ship starts annually), providing so many alternative contracts to U.S. yards, the relatively tiny number of contracts that might be restricted by a countermeasure would not significantly affect U.S. yards. Additionally, the bill would prevent any countermeasures from being taken against other WTO sectors. protection of national security interests S. 1216 provides virtually identical language to that in the Bateman Amendment for the purposes of protecting our essential security interests. S. 1216 preserves the prerogatives of the Secretary of Defense to exempt from the Agreement--``military vessels'', ``military reserve vessels'' and anything he deems to be in the ``essential security interests'' of the United States. S. 1216 allows the Secretary of Defense to exempt all or part of a ship on which National Defense Features are installed, on a case by case basis. The bill would not enable other OECD party nations to question U.S. authority to protect its essential security interests. In a May 29, 1996, letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on National Security, the Department of Defense stated definitively; ``The Agreement will not adversely effect our national security.'' other provisions S. 1216 includes the same conditions for US withdrawal from the Agreement, and the same provisions for the snap-back of US laws changed by this legislation, as the Bateman Amendment. Just like the Bateman Amendment, S. 1216 provides an effective mechanism for ``third party'' dumping petitions. The provision in S. 1216 conforms to the existing US anti- dumping code. S.1216 requires that anti-dumping actions be ``consistent with the terms of the Shipbuilding Agreement''. S. 1216 includes several provisions that would substantially strengthen our monitoring and enforcement capabilities under the Agreement. USTR would be directed to establish a comprehensive interagency compliance monitoring program in conjunction with the U.S. shipbuilding industry and the maritime labor community, and to report to Congress annually. S. 1216 further directs the US Government to vigorously pursue enforcement against noncompliance by other nations. These improvements are beyond the scope of the Bateman Amendment. S. 1216 includes provisions that substantially enhance our ability to secure the accession to the Agreement of other shipbuilding countries including, specifically, Australia, Brazil, India, the Peoples Republic of China, Poland, Romania, Singapore the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. This improvement goes beyond the scope of the Bateman Amendment.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the conclusion of the 1998 football season will mark the end of the most extraordinary and successful coaching career in college football history. Eddie Robinson of Grambling State University, in my home State of Louisiana, will retire as that school's head coach after 56 amazing years in that position. Coach Robinson enters retirement at the pinnacle of his profession, holding the record as the most successful college football coach in history with an impressive 408 victories and only 162 losses to his credit. Fifty-six years ago, when Coach Robinson came to what was then Louisiana Negro Normal, the school's formative football program rested entirely on his shoulders. Unlike college coaches of today, who are often awarded large contracts and lucrative television deals, Coach Robinson had to build his program from the ground up--literally. During prep basketball games, the new coach sold hamburgers so that he could afford to rent a bulldozer that could clear a field on which his team could practice and play. Once, he persuaded the members of his team to pick cotton so that a farmer's son, who happened to be the school's top running back, could join the team. In subsequent years, Coach Robinson built Grambling football into one of the most successful and well-known football programs in the Nation. Today, Coach Robinson and his Grambling Tigers are household names across the country. Throughout the National Football League, the team that Eddie built is known as one the best proving grounds for the NFL stars of the future. More than 300 of his players have gone on to careers in professional football. In 1971 alone, 43 former Grambling players were in NFL training camps. Four of his players--Willie Brown, Willie Davis, Charlie Joiner, and Buck Buchanan--are members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And another former player, Doug Williams, became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl. Mr. President, these are some of the accomplishments of Coach Robinson's extraordinary career. But they don't tell the whole story of the amazing life of this son of a former sharecropper. That is because it is Coach Robinson's example off the football field that has proved just as inspirational. As a devoted husband and father and an exemplary citizen, Eddie Robinson symbolizes what is best about our country. As those of us who know him can attest, he is the very embodiment of the values of integrity, dignity, loyalty, humility, dedication, and excellence that most Americans still wish for their children. In a day and time when heroes are few and far between, I suggest that the young people of America look no further than Grambling State University for a true American hero named Eddie Robinson--a hero not only because of his success on the football field, but because of his winning attitude toward life and the extraordinary content of his character. I know that I speak for every Member of this body when I congratulate Coach Robinson for his many outstanding accomplishments on and off the football field. We wish he and his family every success and happiness in this new and exciting phase of their lives.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor along with Senator Grassley, I am pleased to strongly support the SAVER bill, Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act of 1997. This measure is a bi-partisan effort on the part of my colleague, Senator Grassley, and I to help ensure that all Americans are adequately prepared for retirement. As the ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have learned that there is a critical need to educate Americans on the need to save for their retirement. Mr. President, only one-half of all American workers have pensions. A mere one-third of Americans have ever tried to calculate how much money they need for retirement. And less than one-fifth of the workforce is confident that they have saved enough to live comfortably after they retire. Having become aware of this, Senator Grassley and I have introduced a piece of legislation that takes the first step in educating the public about the need to plan ahead. Mr. President, as my colleague has just told you, our legislation will create an education project to raise public awareness about personal savings. It directs the U.S. Department of Labor to maintain an ongoing program of education and outreach to the public. The program includes public service announcements, public meetings and the distribution of educational materials. It sets up an Internet site dedicated to promoting individual retirement savings. Americans will be able to log on to the site and complete a worksheet to calculate how much they need to save to adequately supplement their projected Social Security benefits when they retire. The SAVER bill also directs the Department of Labor to provide information to small businesses on how they can set up pension programs for their employees. The proposed information includes a plain English description of the common types of retirement savings arrangements available to individuals and employers; a way to calculate estimated retirement savings; and an explanation of how to establish different savings arrangements for workers. Finally, SAVER calls for a national summit on retirement savings to bring the urgency of our Nation's extremely low saving rate to the top of the public agenda. The event would serve as a catalyst for future policy discussion on how to best increase personal retirement savings as well as accessibility and participation in pension plans. The summit will represent the kind of public-private cooperation that is so crucial to preserving successful retirement programs for future generations of Americans. The Department of Labor will work closely with the American Savings Education Council [ASEC] to bring together delegates from all over the country to develop a broad-based public education program on retirement savings. As Senator Grassley correctly pointed out, ASEC is an organization uniquely equipped to assist us in our efforts. Their input in both the logistical and conceptual organization of this event will help us create a top-notch program. At the summit, participants will identify barriers that prevent many Americans from setting aside enough money for their retirement and barriers that discourage employers--especially small business--from helping their employees accumulate more savings for their retirement. Mr. President, as we move forward with reforming Social Security and Medicare, we must also provide more Americans with the incentives they need to better prepare for their retirement. Our SAVER bill not only gives Americans the tools they need to determine how much personal savings they need to supplement their Social Security benefits, it also raises awareness of the responsibility individuals have for planning for their future. Mr. President, I believe that the SAVER bill is the first step that this Congress must take in assisting all Americans in their quest for a comfortable, happy retirement. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this measure.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] are necessarily absent.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member, the Senator from New York, for recognizing me. I take this time just to say a couple of words about the President's nominee to be the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner, Mr. Charles Rossotti, who I enthusiastically support. I think the President has made a good choice. It is interesting to note that this appointment will be the first nontax lawyer to head the Internal Revenue Service since World War II. That might not make a lot of waves in some areas, but I think considering the problems we are experiencing with the Internal Revenue Service that this is a very positive qualification at the current time. I say that because I think that many of the problems that we heard in the days of hearings that we had in the Senate Finance Committee about the Internal Revenue Service were not so much tax problems but human problems; not so much a problem about how much money was being collected and where it was being collected from or where it was not being collected from, but really more evidence was given to us about mishandling of individuals, mistreatment of individuals, setting quotas for Internal Revenue Service agents that they had to meet in order to be considered for an appointment; review processes of Internal Revenue Service personnel that were conducted by Internal Revenue Service personnel themselves whose appointments many times were based on how they defended the Internal Revenue Service. These are not problems that call for a tax attorney but rather cry out for a person who is experienced in the business world, who is experienced with handling large numbers of employees, who is experienced in the management of a company or in the management of a corporation. These are the type of qualifications that I think are needed at this particular time in the history of the Internal Revenue Service. It is a very large agency with over 100,000 employees, and, of course, there are going to be mistakes made. The question is not whether mistakes are going to be made, but rather how we correct those mistakes. I think Mr. Charles Rossotti brings a particular degree of expertise to this position at this particular time. I was interested in some of the answers that he gave when we asked him questions about what he thought needed to be done and how would he approach his job. I think the responses we received were right on target for what is needed at this time. He said that he would not tolerate IRS workers who treat taxpayers abusively and would fire such workers as necessary. I don't know about my colleagues, but as one Member of the Senate, I feel a sense of apprehension when I deal with the Internal Revenue Service, and I am a Member of the U.S. Senate and sit on the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service. Yet, I feel a little hesitant when I deal with the agency for fear of doing something wrong. It is like that knock on the door that comes and someone says, ``It is the IRS,'' and they are here to see you and you go into an absolute panic. That should not be the feeling that Americans have toward an agency that really works for them. They work for the taxpayers of this country, as do we. So I was very pleased to see Charles Rossotti say, ``I will not tolerate IRS workers who treat taxpayers abusively and would fire such workers, if necessary.'' He also said that the practice of evaluating an IRS employee performance based on quotas or based on how many cases they make will not be a determining factor in how well they do within the agency. I think that is important. I think some of our colleagues have probably had experiences in respective States where State troopers were promoted and evaluated based on how many tickets they wrote. It was a quota system. They had to issue so many tickets in 1 day or they were going to be looked upon as not doing their job properly. That is something that I think is a mistake. Mr. Charles Rossotti has indicated that that will not be the basis for evaluating and determining performances by IRS agents. I think that is a step in the right direction. They should not be judged just on how much money they bring in. They should be judged on a whole series of factors on how they perform on their jobs, not the least of which is how they treat the people they work for--the taxpayers of this country. He outlined three principles. These are not tax principles. These are personnel principles, management principles, and that is why I think he is the right man for the job at this time. In talking about management responsibility, he said he would expect managers to keep on top of activities under their authority and quickly halt abuses. These managers will be responsible for the abuses that may or may not occur within their jurisdiction. He said that he was going to be strongly supportive of open communication. He wants to create an atmosphere in which workers are willing to bring problems to the attention of the managers without fear of reprisal. That is a personnel decision. We had people from the agency testifying before our committee behind a screen to separate them from the other IRS personnel for fear of retribution because of their testimony. They actually said they were fearful to tell anybody about the problems that they saw for fear of being retaliated against or demoted or never promoted because of their willingness to come up and say, ``Look, there's something wrong in my section. I don't think we're dealing right with the people that we work for.'' So I was very pleased to see that the nominee addressed the question of open communication. And then, finally, on the performance measurements--and I mentioned this--he said, there will be no revenue quotas or perceptions of quotas in worker evaluation. Instead, he said he wants to create a set of measurements that do in fact measure what we want, including taxpayer satisfaction with their dealings with the agency. I think that that goes a long way. If an agent is of the opinion that he is going to be judged on his performance based on how much money he brings in, there is a certain degree of pressure to go out and do as much as he or she possibly can. That should not be the guiding principles of the Internal Revenue Service agents when they deal with the American public. The final point I make is that I think most of us would agree that the American taxpayer should feel there is someone within this department that is on their side. They know that the 104,000 Internal Revenue Service agents have a job, that their job is to collect the legitimate revenues that are owed by taxpayers so that their country could be a better place, a safer place in which to live. They understand that. But right now they feel that in dealing with this agency of Government, there is no one on their side, that they are against a bureaucracy and that they are really helpless, particularly when they understand that they have to somehow prove themselves innocent if they are ever accused by the Internal Revenue Service. I think that is wrong. I mean, every courthouse in America that I have ever been in, when someone is accused of doing something wrong, the person who is bringing that accusation, whether it be a State's attorney, the district attorney, or what have you, has an obligation to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt and with a preponderance of the evidence in civil cases and beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The person making the accusation has to prove it to various standards according to the court that they happen to be operating in--except here, where the Government can bring down the full bureaucracy of the American Government on an individual taxpayer, and somehow that individual has to come in and say, ``Let me attempt to prove my innocence,'' instead of having the Government prove that something was done incorrectly, improper, or illegally in order to justify a penalty against the American taxpayer. I think that is incorrect. I think that that should be changed. The other point that I think is important to note right now is that we have legislation--I have introduced it with a number of cosponsors; it has been incorporated into the Senators Kerrey and Grassley proposal--which creates this commission, which creates what I will call a Taxpayer Protection Office where when the taxpayer has a problem with the agency, that he or she knows there is some place where he or she can go, either by walking into a district office or using a 1-800 telephone number to explain their side of the dispute and have someone in the agency take the time to learn their side of the issue, so that they can have someone to represent them and their position before their own Government. I think that is important. We have a type of office like that now called the Taxpayer's Advocate, but it really is run by IRS agents. They are only going to be there a short time. Then they will be promoted or demoted, depending on their performance, to some other part of the department at a later date. So those people are just moving through the system. Our legislation says that these people shall not directly be IRS employees, but should be more an organization that looks after the interests of the taxpayer and would be subject to the Commissioner himself's jurisdiction. I think that should go a long way to helping the American taxpayer know that within this bureaucracy there is some department, some division, someone who is actually going to be on their side and help them represent their case to the Internal Revenue Service itself. So I think that is where we are today, and the question before the Senate is, should the Senate confirm this nominee? I enthusiastically lend my support to the nomination. We had an excellent hearing with him. I think what he said was right on target. The fact that he is not a tax lawyer is probably part of his qualifications for this particular title. I support the nomination. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, in light of the disturbing news in the stock market this afternoon, I thought it was appropriate to the bring to the attention of my colleagues that there is good news out there. The United States and Japan have concluded a trade agreement opening up the ports of Japan, ending a longstanding dispute between the United States and Japan. This agreement, when it is signed--and it is agreed to--will bring about changes that will benefit ocean-borne trade of both countries, the United States and Japan. The agreements will reform practices in the Japanese ports, to the benefit of importers, exporters, the ports, the workers, and the consumers both in the United States and Japan. This is good for trade relations between our two countries. The Japanese had for a long period of time prevented our ships from having the same rights to their ports, in terms of bringing our goods to that country, as we have afforded them when they came calling on ports in the United States. Therefore, this is good news for people who are engaged in trade relations and exports and import trade relations with Japan and the United States. I am very optimistic that this will bring about continued growth in those markets, and I want to commend the Federal Maritime Commission, its Chairman, Hal Creel, and members of the administration, particularly Stu Eizenstat, for the good work they have done in bringing this to a conclusion. I yield the floor, and I suggest the regular order.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would just ask, what is the order of business for the Senate?

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if no one else is waiting to speak, that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will just use this time to make a comment about a resolution that is soon to be introduced in a bipartisan fashion, dealing with trade practices between our country and the country of Japan. As many may have recognized recently in the news, we have been involved in a very long and very serious dispute with the country of Japan regarding access, opening up their ports to our industries the same way that our American ports are open to Japanese ships when they call on United States ports here in this country. This dispute has been going on for a number of years. It has gotten to be very, very serious. We will soon be introducing a resolution. We have talked to Chairman Helms and Majority Leader Lott and our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle. I know Senator Hollings is very interested in this as well. We worked on a resolution, which will be introduced, which will commend the administration and also the Federal Maritime Commission for their efforts to date in bringing this 15-year problem with the Japanese port practices to a successful conclusion. Since the press and many of my colleagues have already adequately described the history of the Japanese port practices, I am not going to repeat it here. But I would like to make a few comments on what has happened. First, I think it is very important from this Senator's perspective to recognize that we have been able to work for a successful and satisfactory conclusion of this problem because of the strong, independent action that the Federal Maritime Commission was able to take. As an independent agency, the Federal Maritime Commission has the flexibility to carry out policies that are good for America without having to go through a number of steps and consultations with agencies within our Government that sometimes actually impede the process of quickly and appropriately making decisions that must be made. Because of its independent status, it was able to take this action in a way that should bring about what I think will be a satisfactory conclusion. The second point I would like to make is I think it is appropriate at this time to recognize the decision of our U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, last year, to refuse to commit the United States to an inadequate GATS maritime agreement. Had the United States accepted that proposal last year, which was a so-called standstill proposal, these same Japanese port barriers would have been grandfathered in and would have been recognized as the international law of the land. The Federal Maritime Commission, including the rest of the U.S. Government, would have then been powerless to do anything about them except to try to negotiate them away during subsequent rounds of talks with the WTO starting in the year 2000. No agreement is better than a bad agreement. This is a clear example that what the U.S. Trade Representative did at that time was appropriate and proper. Finally, I believe any agreement on the port practices dispute involving the United States and the country of Japan must include two fundamental points: First, a collection of fines to the extent it shows other countries around the world, not only Japan, that the United States is very serious about reciprocal market access and compliance with our laws; and, second, a vigilant, continued monitoring and enforcement by the Federal Maritime Commission of the changes in port practices promised by the Government of Japan. Both of these two elements are absolutely essential for any type of credible agreement. The Federal Maritime Chairman, Hal Creel, the Federal Maritime Commissioners, Ming Hsu, Del Won, Joe Scroggins and their staffs are to be commended for their extraordinary efforts to resolve this matter in a firm and fair manner. Likewise, I commend our State Department Undersecretary for Economic Affairs Stu Eisenstadt and his staff. They are to be commended for their perseverance in this matter. Now is not the time, however, for congratulations. We are not quite there yet. Negotiations are continuing. But with additional fortitude, consumers and carriers and their customers, both in Japan and the United States, will soon enjoy the fruits of our labors. We have come too far to settle for any type of mediocre agreement. We cannot and should not give up now. I think a solid resolution of this issue is feasible and I expect one to be concluded in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. President, if no one else is seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I'm pleased to cosponsor with Senator Bond the mitigation banking amendment to the highway bill. I thank Senator Bond for his leadership and am pleased to continue working with him on wetlands-related issues. The Bond-Breaux amendment is direct and straightforward. It simply says that mitigation banking shall be the preferred means, to the maximum extent practicable, to mitigate for wetlands or natural habitat which are affected as part of a Federal-aid highway project and whose mitigation is paid for with Federal-aid funds. In addition, the amendment identifies three factors that are to be met in order to use a mitigation bank: first, the affected wetlands or natural habitat are to be in a bank's service area; second, the bank has to have enough credits available to offset the impact; and third, the bank has to meet federally approved standards. So, Senator Bond and I, through this amendment, are simply trying to establish a reasonable, responsible wetlands and natural habitat mitigation policy as part of the Federal-aid highway program. Our proposal has two key components: First, we say give mitigation banking a preference, to the maximum extent practicable, which is reasonable. Second, we say a bank should meet certain conditions to ensure its effectiveness and viability, which is being responsible. Let me emphasize that our amendment does not mandate the use of mitigation banks. Nor does the amendment require their use nor does it say they shall be the sole means or the only method used to mitigate affected wetlands or natural habitat. The Bond-Breaux amendment simply says mitigation banks shall be the preferred means, to the maximum extent practicable, and they must meet certain responsible conditions before they can be used. Louisiana's transportation department officials have said that the State already uses mitigation banks and areas as an option for some of its highway projects. Mitigation banks can offer several advantages when constructed and operated responsibly. They can achieve economies of scale. They can provide larger, higher quality and diverse habitat and they can make mitigation costs less expensive when compared to costs for some isolated mitigation sites which are not part of a bank. The Bond-Breaux amendment certainly is in line with the environmental provisions and direction of the proposed highway bill we have before the Senate, S. 1173. For these reasons, I urge the Senate's adoption of the amendment when it comes up for consideration. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to introduce legislation representing, I think, a very important step in giving American taxpayers an additional tool for them to use in solving problems that they have when they are entering into a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service. My bill would ensure that American taxpayers have someone with real authority and significant resources who will represent their interests when dealing with IRS, a true taxpayer advocacy organization which will be on the side of the American taxpayer and not on the side of Washington bureaucrats. I want to also point out that I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Kerrey-Grassley bill, which is a broader restructuring of the entire Internal Revenue Service, that came about as part of the work that the bipartisan commission studied for over a year's time. The bill, however, that I am introducing today will strengthen the part of the bill dealing with the Office of Taxpayer Advocate by making the advocate's office much more independent than it is now and giving it more muscle in representing the interests of American taxpayers. Last month, our Senate Finance Committee had 3 days of hearings looking at the practices and procedures within the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to hearing from taxpayers who had been mistreated by the Internal Revenue Service, our committee also heard very shocking testimony from both current and former IRS employees. These witnesses clearly underscored the importance of doing some major changes in how the Internal Revenue Service operates. We heard, for instance, Acting Commissioner of IRS Mike Nolan say, ``The IRS is undergoing tremendous change.'' That is very encouraging and also very long overdue. My concern is that there is a big disconnect between the Commissioner's office and over 100,000 IRS employees who work all over America, and even a greater disconnect between some of these employees--not all, but some-- and the American taxpayer. This became very painfully clear as a result of our 3 days of hearings. I want to point out that the IRS is a very convenient political punching bag for many, and speeches condemning the IRS are met with widespread applause at any type of a townhall meeting you want to have. But this is not an issue that we should demagog. Americans want us to solve the problem and not just pass the blame around and blame the other side for their failures. As was the case with the balanced budget amendment, Republicans and Democrats need to come together in a bipartisan fashion and act responsibly to come up with some real changes that are going to help address this problem and protect the American taxpayer. Unless we don't want a national defense or a public highway system or schools and national parks, we have to ask ourselves, what will we have if we just eliminated the Internal Revenue Service? When the Department of Defense, I am reminded, had all of these problems buying $200 toilet seats and $500 hammers, we didn't do away with the Department of Defense, we reformed it. We gave them specific instructions on how they should conduct their business. As a result, we still have a Department of Defense, thank goodness, but it is operating more efficiently and more effectively and not making the type of mistakes that we saw in the past. The bottom line is we reformed it. We have to do the same thing with the Internal Revenue Service. There are many issues to look at when we talk about how to restructure. One is IRS management, how to model a new oversight structure at the IRS that would make it more responsive and accountable to their management problems. There also is a separate issue, and that is how to strengthen the hand of the American taxpayer when they have to deal with the Internal Revenue Service and let our American taxpayers know that somewhere there is someone who is on their side when they have problems with the Federal Government and specifically with the IRS. On the first issue of management, attention has focused on who should sit on the board of directors that runs an IRS and what kind of authority and responsibilities this board would have. I think there is widespread agreement that the management and oversight of the IRS needs to improve dramatically. We need to have more private sector involvement in that board of directors. The Finance Committee is going to have hearings on the restructuring question next week. I hope that we have a fair and open discussion about what needs to be done, because that is the only way a solution will be arrived at. I personally think we should try and model the management of IRS on a real board of directors, a concept that is part of the bill introduced by Senator Kerrey and Senator Grassley and also Congressmen Portman and Cardin in the House of Representatives. I am a cosponsor of their legislation and will be actively participating in getting that done. There is no reason why the Internal Revenue Service shouldn't be just as advanced technologically from an organizational standpoint as any Fortune 500 company in America. Our goal should be to have an oversight board that improves the IRS accountability and also their operations. A better managed IRS will translate into better customer service for taxpayers. But just as important, however, we need to look at ways to improve the everyday outcomes when taxpayers have a problem and have to engage with the IRS. An oversight board may solve some of those, but we need to put in place some independent group that is going to represent the interests of the American taxpayer on a day-to-day basis, and that is what my legislation would do. Currently, the IRS has an Office of Taxpayer Advocate whose job is to represent the American taxpayers in dealings with the IRS. The problem with the current structure, however, is that this taxpayer advocate does not have enough independence. The taxpayer advocate in each district reports directly to the district director of the IRS. Taxpayers need someone who will work for them and represent their interests and not just be an employee of the IRS. My bill would make the taxpayer advocate a great deal more independent by giving it more resources, more authority and more responsibilities. The American taxpayers would then have someone working for them and not just working for the IRS when they need help. My bill would do the following: No. 1: A national taxpayer advocate would be appointed directly by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He or she would not continue to be appointed by the IRS Commissioner. The national taxpayer advocate would also not be selected from the ranks of the IRS, to make sure that person is truly independent. No. 2: The national taxpayer advocate will make the hiring and firing decisions regarding the heads of the local taxpayer advocate office in the IRS district and service centers. No longer would the local taxpayer advocate be hired and fired by the district director. No. 3: The initial contact between the IRS and the taxpayer will include a disclosure that the taxpayers have a right to contact their local taxpayer advocate and information on how to contact them so that the taxpayer will know that this office is there and it is there to protect their legitimate interests. No. 4: The local taxpayer advocate office would have a separate phone number, fax number, and post office box apart from the IRS district office. And finally, No. 5: The taxpayer advocate would also have the discretion not to disclose taxpayer information to IRS employees, another tool which could help taxpayers. All of these measures are designed to give the taxpayer advocate a much stronger voice, a much stronger hand in representing American taxpayers. What taxpayers in this country need is someone who is on their side, not on the Government side, who has the resources to go up against the IRS. I have been working closely with Senator Kerrey and pleased he supports including my provision in the overall bill that they are planning to introduce. So, I think we are making progress. I think we ought to be doing it in a continued responsible fashion, in a bipartisan fashion. If we can get this done, I just suggest that the American taxpayer will now know that there is some office that is on their side representing their interests before their Government.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the President. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Texas. I think what he and Senator Byrd are doing is the correct thing to do. I am proud to be a cosponsor of their amendment and hope that the Senate recognizes that this makes a great deal of sense and is the right policy as well. (The remarks of Mr. Breaux pertaining to the introduction of S. 1308 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to introduce legislation representing, I think, a very important step in giving American taxpayers an additional tool for them to use in solving problems that they have when they are entering into a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service. My bill would ensure that American taxpayers have someone with real authority and significant resources who will represent their interests when dealing with IRS, a true taxpayer advocacy organization which will be on the side of the American taxpayer and not on the side of Washington bureaucrats. I want to also point out that I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Kerrey-Grassley bill, which is a broader restructuring of the entire Internal Revenue Service, that came about as part of the work that the bipartisan commission studied for over a year's time. The bill, however, that I am introducing today will strengthen the part of the bill dealing with the Office of Taxpayer Advocate by making the advocate's office much more independent than it is now and giving it more muscle in representing the interests of American taxpayers. Last month, our Senate Finance Committee had 3 days of hearings looking at the practices and procedures within the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to hearing from taxpayers who had been mistreated by the Internal Revenue Service, our committee also heard very shocking testimony from both current and former IRS employees. These witnesses clearly underscored the importance of doing some major changes in how the Internal Revenue Service operates. We heard, for instance, Acting Commissioner of IRS Mike Nolan say, ``The IRS is undergoing tremendous change.'' That is very encouraging and also very long overdue. My concern is that there is a big disconnect between the Commissioner's office and over 100,000 IRS employees who work all over America, and even a greater disconnect between some of these employees--not all, but some-- and the American taxpayer. This became very painfully clear as a result of our 3 days of hearings. I want to point out that the IRS is a very convenient political punching bag for many, and speeches condemning the IRS are met with widespread applause at any type of a townhall meeting you want to have. But this is not an issue that we should demagog. Americans want us to solve the problem and not just pass the blame around and blame the other side for their failures. As was the case with the balanced budget amendment, Republicans and Democrats need to come together in a bipartisan fashion and act responsibly to come up with some real changes that are going to help address this problem and protect the American taxpayer. Unless we don't want a national defense or a public highway system or schools and national parks, we have to ask ourselves, what will we have if we just eliminated the Internal Revenue Service? When the Department of Defense, I am reminded, had all of these problems buying $200 toilet seats and $500 hammers, we didn't do away with the Department of Defense, we reformed it. We gave them specific instructions on how they should conduct their business. As a result, we still have a Department of Defense, thank goodness, but it is operating more efficiently and more effectively and not making the type of mistakes that we saw in the past. The bottom line is we reformed it. We have to do the same thing with the Internal Revenue Service. There are many issues to look at when we talk about how to restructure. One is IRS management, how to model a new oversight structure at the IRS that would make it more responsive and accountable to their management problems. There also is a separate issue, and that is how to strengthen the hand of the American taxpayer when they have to deal with the Internal Revenue Service and let our American taxpayers know that somewhere there is someone who is on their side when they have problems with the Federal Government and specifically with the IRS. On the first issue of management, attention has focused on who should sit on the board of directors that runs an IRS and what kind of authority and responsibilities this board would have. I think there is widespread agreement that the management and oversight of the IRS needs to improve dramatically. We need to have more private sector involvement in that board of directors. The Finance Committee is going to have hearings on the restructuring question next week. I hope that we have a fair and open discussion about what needs to be done, because that is the only way a solution will be arrived at. I personally think we should try and model the management of IRS on a real board of directors, a concept that is part of the bill introduced by Senator Kerrey and Senator Grassley and also Congressmen Portman and Cardin in the House of Representatives. I am a cosponsor of their legislation and will be actively participating in getting that done. There is no reason why the Internal Revenue Service shouldn't be just as advanced technologically from an organizational standpoint as any Fortune 500 company in America. Our goal should be to have an oversight board that improves the IRS accountability and also their operations. A better managed IRS will translate into better customer service for taxpayers. But just as important, however, we need to look at ways to improve the everyday outcomes when taxpayers have a problem and have to engage with the IRS. An oversight board may solve some of those, but we need to put in place some independent group that is going to represent the interests of the American taxpayer on a day-to-day basis, and that is what my legislation would do. Currently, the IRS has an Office of Taxpayer Advocate whose job is to represent the American taxpayers in dealings with the IRS. The problem with the current structure, however, is that this taxpayer advocate does not have enough independence. The taxpayer advocate in each district reports directly to the district director of the IRS. Taxpayers need someone who will work for them and represent their interests and not just be an employee of the IRS. My bill would make the taxpayer advocate a great deal more independent by giving it more resources, more authority and more responsibilities. The American taxpayers would then have someone working for them and not just working for the IRS when they need help. My bill would do the following: No. 1: A national taxpayer advocate would be appointed directly by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He or she would not continue to be appointed by the IRS Commissioner. The national taxpayer advocate would also not be selected from the ranks of the IRS, to make sure that person is truly independent. No. 2: The national taxpayer advocate will make the hiring and firing decisions regarding the heads of the local taxpayer advocate office in the IRS district and service centers. No longer would the local taxpayer advocate be hired and fired by the district director. No. 3: The initial contact between the IRS and the taxpayer will include a disclosure that the taxpayers have a right to contact their local taxpayer advocate and information on how to contact them so that the taxpayer will know that this office is there and it is there to protect their legitimate interests. No. 4: The local taxpayer advocate office would have a separate phone number, fax number, and post office box apart from the IRS district office. And finally, No. 5: The taxpayer advocate would also have the discretion not to disclose taxpayer information to IRS employees, another tool which could help taxpayers. All of these measures are designed to give the taxpayer advocate a much stronger voice, a much stronger hand in representing American taxpayers. What taxpayers in this country need is someone who is on their side, not on the Government side, who has the resources to go up against the IRS. I have been working closely with Senator Kerrey and pleased he supports including my provision in the overall bill that they are planning to introduce. So, I think we are making progress. I think we ought to be doing it in a continued responsible fashion, in a bipartisan fashion. If we can get this done, I just suggest that the American taxpayer will now know that there is some office that is on their side representing their interests before their Government.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, Senator D'Amato, an important bill that will assist States and localities in working with private industry to foster economic development and provide home ownership opportunities to low-income Americans. Specifically, our bill will increase the private activity tax-exempt bond cap to $75 per capita or $250 million, if greater, and index the cap to inflation. Congress created the private activity- exempt bond decades ago to apply to mortgage revenue bonds and other bonds for multifamily housing, redevelopment of blighted areas, student loans, manufacturing, and hazardous waste disposal facilities. However, Congress unintentionally restricted the growth of this program by imposing a cap on the bond volume of $50 per capita or $150 million, if greater, which has meant States cannot meet the demand for these bonds. Tax-exempt bonds are issued by State and local governments to provide below market interest rates to fund authorized programs and projects. Revenue bond investors accept lower interest from these bonds because the interest income is tax-exempt. Mortgage revenue bonds are issued to help lower income working families buy their first homes with low interest loans from private investment in State and local bonds, significantly lowering the cost of owning a home. In my own State, the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency has issued over $1.1 billion in mortgage revenue bonds for almost 16,000 affordable home mortgages since the program began. In 1996 alone, the agency issued over $112 million in mortgage revenue bonds for nearly 1,200 home loans. That's 1,200 Louisiana families who now know the pride of owning their own home--Louisiana families that earned, on average, less than $28,000 last year. The Louisiana Housing Finance Agency estimates that it alone could have used another $50 million in bond authority. Nationwide, States could have used an additional $7 billion in bond cap for mortgage revenue bonds, student loan bonds, industrial revenue bonds, pollution control bonds, and other worthy investments. Student loan bonds are issued to raise a pool of money at tax-exempt interest rates to fund college loans at lesser interest rates. In my State, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority has issued $745 million in student loan bonds since 1984. These bonds have funded over 80,000 college loans for deserving Louisiana students--students who otherwise might not have been able to afford to attend college. In Louisiana, the roughly $40 million of remaining 1997 volume cap will not come close to fulfilling the $330 million of demand for these bonds. The total 1997 volume cap for Louisiana was $217,500,000. After funding minimal housing and student loan needs, little volume cap remains available for industrial development bonds for manufacturing purposes. Many of the industrial and manufacturing facilities create substantial employment opportunities that are not possible due in part to a deficiency in volume cap. Our bill will correct this woeful situation and improve the ability of States and localities to provide home ownership opportunities to low-income families throughout the United States, to help fund student loans for college students and to help finance industrial and manufacturing facilities. These facilities will, in turn, increase employment and the tax base of local governments. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator D'Amato in this effort.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, Senator D'Amato, an important bill that will assist States and localities in working with private industry to foster economic development and provide home ownership opportunities to low-income Americans. Specifically, our bill will increase the private activity tax-exempt bond cap to $75 per capita or $250 million, if greater, and index the cap to inflation. Congress created the private activity- exempt bond decades ago to apply to mortgage revenue bonds and other bonds for multifamily housing, redevelopment of blighted areas, student loans, manufacturing, and hazardous waste disposal facilities. However, Congress unintentionally restricted the growth of this program by imposing a cap on the bond volume of $50 per capita or $150 million, if greater, which has meant States cannot meet the demand for these bonds. Tax-exempt bonds are issued by State and local governments to provide below market interest rates to fund authorized programs and projects. Revenue bond investors accept lower interest from these bonds because the interest income is tax-exempt. Mortgage revenue bonds are issued to help lower income working families buy their first homes with low interest loans from private investment in State and local bonds, significantly lowering the cost of owning a home. In my own State, the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency has issued over $1.1 billion in mortgage revenue bonds for almost 16,000 affordable home mortgages since the program began. In 1996 alone, the agency issued over $112 million in mortgage revenue bonds for nearly 1,200 home loans. That's 1,200 Louisiana families who now know the pride of owning their own home--Louisiana families that earned, on average, less than $28,000 last year. The Louisiana Housing Finance Agency estimates that it alone could have used another $50 million in bond authority. Nationwide, States could have used an additional $7 billion in bond cap for mortgage revenue bonds, student loan bonds, industrial revenue bonds, pollution control bonds, and other worthy investments. Student loan bonds are issued to raise a pool of money at tax-exempt interest rates to fund college loans at lesser interest rates. In my State, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority has issued $745 million in student loan bonds since 1984. These bonds have funded over 80,000 college loans for deserving Louisiana students--students who otherwise might not have been able to afford to attend college. In Louisiana, the roughly $40 million of remaining 1997 volume cap will not come close to fulfilling the $330 million of demand for these bonds. The total 1997 volume cap for Louisiana was $217,500,000. After funding minimal housing and student loan needs, little volume cap remains available for industrial development bonds for manufacturing purposes. Many of the industrial and manufacturing facilities create substantial employment opportunities that are not possible due in part to a deficiency in volume cap. Our bill will correct this woeful situation and improve the ability of States and localities to provide home ownership opportunities to low-income families throughout the United States, to help fund student loans for college students and to help finance industrial and manufacturing facilities. These facilities will, in turn, increase employment and the tax base of local governments. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator D'Amato in this effort.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, November 8th will be a significant and emotional day for the more than 13,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard. That day will mark the conclusion of the extraordinary and distinguished military career of their beloved adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Ansel ``Buddy'' Stroud. For 17 years, ``Buddy'' Stroud has provided strong and innovative leadership as Louisiana's top guardsman. In fact, anyone familiar with the Louisiana National Guard can attest that today's Louisiana National Guard is better trained, better equipped, and better prepared to defend our Nation than ever before. And much of that high degree of training and preparedness is due to the visionary and determined leadership that General Stroud has always provided. Under General Stroud's able command, the Louisiana National Guard has always enjoyed widespread popular support in my State and has often made the difference in times of crisis and natural disaster in our State. In 1992, when Hurricane Andrew pounded the South Louisiana coast and inflicted heavy damage on a number of communities from New Orleans to Lafayette, General Stroud and his men were on the scene almost immediately. I suspect that without his leadership--and without the dedicated, hardworking guardsmen under his command--Louisiana's recovery from Andrew would have been much more painful and prolonged. The Louisiana military personnel under General Stroud's command also distinguished themselves in another endeavor. During 1990-91, more than 6,400 men and women were activated for duty in Desert Shield/Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf. In all, 2,000 Louisiana Guardsmen saw duty in the Persian Gulf war. Our Nation and the people of Kuwait owe these men and women--and thousands of other guardsmen from other states--our sincere gratitude for their service in this noble cause. Earlier this year, when the rapidly rising Mississippi River threatened to overwhelm our State penitentiary at Angola, General Stroud's guardsmen helped save the day by shoring up the levees. Because of the Guard's immediate response to this potential disaster, a costly evacuation of thousands of prisoners was averted. Under General Stroud's leadership, the Guard has not only been present in times of natural disaster. Buddy Stroud has given thousands of Louisiana high school dropouts a second chance by creating a bootcamp-style program that instills discipline and guides these former dropouts toward the achievement of their high school diploma. Another program created under General Stroud's leadership, the Louisiana National Guard's Youth Challenge Program, was recently honored as the best overall youth challenge program in the United States. Buddy Stroud was born on April 5, 1927 in Shreveport, LA. After his high school graduation, he attended college at Baylor and Texas A&M and graduated with his B.S. degree from the University of the State of New York. His long and distinguished military career began with his enlistment in the Army in 1944. Three years later, in 1947, he began a half century of service in the Louisiana National Guard, which culminated in 1981 with his promotion to the rank of major general. General Stroud served his Nation in a number of other capacities. He is former president of the National Guard Association of the United States and has served on that organization's executive council for the last 4 years. He has also served as president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. Among General Stroud's professional achievements is a 1977 study which he directed for the Department of the Army on full-time training and administration for the Army Guard and the Army Reserve. The study, known as the Stroud Study, was accepted by the Army as a guideline for requirements of the National Guard and Army Reserve for full-time manning programs and was the basis for launching the AGR program. Most recently, General Stroud's unique contributions were recognized by the people of Louisiana when the State legislature directed that the Louisiana Military History and Weapons Museum should now bear his name. While he will no longer serve the Guard in a full-time capacity, I know that retirement will not diminish ``Buddy'' Stroud's dedication to the Louisiana National Guard. In fact, I am certain that, even in retirement, he will find a way to continue making a significant contribution. For many years, it has been my honor and privilege count ``Buddy'' Stroud as a friend. I could begin to count the number of times we worked together on behalf of the Louisiana National Guard, and because of our joint endeavors, I will always have fond memories of the important work that we did--together--for the Louisiana National Guard and the people of Louisiana. Most of all, however, I will always value Buddy's friendship. Mr. President, Buddy Stroud is a truly extraordinary American. I know I speak for all Louisianians and all Americans when I salute him for his more than half century of distinguished service to his country and his State and wish him only the best in his well-deserved retirement.