John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to make technical changes to the Medicare hospice benefit which will ensure that high-quality hospice services will be available to all terminally ill Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation is identical to H.R. 521, introduced by Representative Cardin. Hospices care for and comfort terminally ill patients at home or in home-like settings. There are 2,800 hospice programs in all 50 States and in 1995 they cared for more than 390,000 patients. One out of every three people who died from cancer or AIDS were cared for by hospice. Services provided under the Medicare hospice benefit include physician services, nursing care, drugs for symptom management, pain relief, short term inpatient and respite care, and counseling both for the terminally ill and their families. But terminally ill patients who elect hospice care opt out of most other Medicare services related to their terminal illness. Hospice services permit terminally ill people to die with dignity, usually in the comforting surroundings of their own homes with their loved ones nearby. Hospice is also a cost-effective form of care. At a time when Medicare is pushing to enroll more beneficiaries in managed care plans, hospice is already managed. Hospices provide patients with whatever palliative services are needed to manage their terminal illness, and they are reimbursed a standard per diem rate, based on the intensity of care needed and the location of the provision of care. With 28 percent of all Medicare costs now going toward the care of people in their last year of life, and almost 50 percent of those costs spent during the last 2 months of life, cost-effective alternatives are needed. Studies show hospices reduce Medicare spending. A 1995 Lewin study showed that for every dollar Medicare spent on hospice, it saved $1.52 in Medicare part A and part B expenditures. Similarly, a 1989 study commissioned by the Health Care Financing Administration showed savings of $1.26 for every Medicare dollar spent on hospice. Since 1982, when the hospice benefit was added to the Medicare statute, more and more Americans have chosen to spend their final months of life in this humane and cost-effective setting. Yet in recent years, it has become clear that certain technical changes are needed in the Medicare hospice benefit to protect beneficiaries and ensure that a full range of cost-effective hospice services continue to be available. The bill I am introducing today makes these necessary technical changes. First, the Medicare Hospice Benefits Amendments of 1997 restructure the hospice benefit periods. The basic eligibility criteria do not change. Under this bill, as in current law, a person is eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit only if two physicians have certified that the patient is terminally ill with a life expectancy of six months or less. Patients who elect to receive hospice benefits give up most other Medicare benefits unless and until they withdraw from the hospice program. While this bill does not change hospice eligibility criteria, it does change how the benefit periods are structured. Currently, the Medicare benefit consists of four benefit periods. At the end of each of the first three periods, the patient must be recertified as being terminally ill. The fourth benefit period is of unlimited duration. However, a patient who withdraws from hospice during the fourth hospice period forfeits his ability to elect hospice services in the future. Thus, patients who go into remission, and are thus no longer eligible for hospice because their life expectancy exceeds 6 months, cannot return to hospice when their condition worsens. This bill restructures the hospice benefit periods to eliminate the existing open-ended fourth benefit period and to provide that after the first two 90-day periods, patients are reevaluated every 60 days to ensure they still qualify for hospice services. This restructuring ensures that those receiving Medicare benefits are able to receive hospice services at the time they need them and can be discharged from hospice care with no penalty if their prognosis changes. Second, the bill clarifies that ambulance services, diagnostic tests, radiation, and chemotherapy are covered under the hospice benefit when they are included in the patient's plan of care. No separate payment will be made for these services, but hospices will have to provide them when they are found to be necessary as a palliative measure. This change conforms the statute to current Medicare regulatory policy and does not cost Medicare any additional money because payments are covered by the current per-diem payments. Third, the bill also permits hospices to have independent contractor relationships with physicians. Under current law, hospices must directly employ their medical directors and other staff physicians. This creates a legal problem in some States which prohibit the corporate practice of medicine, and the requirement has made it increasingly difficult to recruit part-time hospice physicians. Fourth, the bill creates a mechanism to allow waiver of certain staffing requirements for rural hospices, which often have difficulty becoming Medicare-certified because of shortages of certain health professionals. Currently, about 80 percent of hospices are Medicare- certified or pending certification. Finally, this bill provides some administrative flexibility regarding certification of terminal illness. Currently, the statute requires that paperwork documenting physician certification of a patient's terminal illness be completed within a certain number of days of the patient's admission to hospice. This bill will eliminate the strict statutory requirements. It gives the Health Care Financing Administration the discretion, as it currently has with home health certifications, to require hospice certifications to be on file before a Medicare claim is submitted. The Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1997 are noncontroversial and should not affect Medicare spending, but they will make important and necessary changes to the Medicare hospice benefit, to enable hospices to provide high-quality, cost-effective care to the terminally ill, and to protect beneficiaries who depend on these services. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to make technical changes to the Medicare hospice benefit which will ensure that high-quality hospice services will be available to all terminally ill Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation is identical to H.R. 521, introduced by Representative Cardin. Hospices care for and comfort terminally ill patients at home or in home-like settings. There are 2,800 hospice programs in all 50 States and in 1995 they cared for more than 390,000 patients. One out of every three people who died from cancer or AIDS were cared for by hospice. Services provided under the Medicare hospice benefit include physician services, nursing care, drugs for symptom management, pain relief, short term inpatient and respite care, and counseling both for the terminally ill and their families. But terminally ill patients who elect hospice care opt out of most other Medicare services related to their terminal illness. Hospice services permit terminally ill people to die with dignity, usually in the comforting surroundings of their own homes with their loved ones nearby. Hospice is also a cost-effective form of care. At a time when Medicare is pushing to enroll more beneficiaries in managed care plans, hospice is already managed. Hospices provide patients with whatever palliative services are needed to manage their terminal illness, and they are reimbursed a standard per diem rate, based on the intensity of care needed and the location of the provision of care. With 28 percent of all Medicare costs now going toward the care of people in their last year of life, and almost 50 percent of those costs spent during the last 2 months of life, cost-effective alternatives are needed. Studies show hospices reduce Medicare spending. A 1995 Lewin study showed that for every dollar Medicare spent on hospice, it saved $1.52 in Medicare part A and part B expenditures. Similarly, a 1989 study commissioned by the Health Care Financing Administration showed savings of $1.26 for every Medicare dollar spent on hospice. Since 1982, when the hospice benefit was added to the Medicare statute, more and more Americans have chosen to spend their final months of life in this humane and cost-effective setting. Yet in recent years, it has become clear that certain technical changes are needed in the Medicare hospice benefit to protect beneficiaries and ensure that a full range of cost-effective hospice services continue to be available. The bill I am introducing today makes these necessary technical changes. First, the Medicare Hospice Benefits Amendments of 1997 restructure the hospice benefit periods. The basic eligibility criteria do not change. Under this bill, as in current law, a person is eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit only if two physicians have certified that the patient is terminally ill with a life expectancy of six months or less. Patients who elect to receive hospice benefits give up most other Medicare benefits unless and until they withdraw from the hospice program. While this bill does not change hospice eligibility criteria, it does change how the benefit periods are structured. Currently, the Medicare benefit consists of four benefit periods. At the end of each of the first three periods, the patient must be recertified as being terminally ill. The fourth benefit period is of unlimited duration. However, a patient who withdraws from hospice during the fourth hospice period forfeits his ability to elect hospice services in the future. Thus, patients who go into remission, and are thus no longer eligible for hospice because their life expectancy exceeds 6 months, cannot return to hospice when their condition worsens. This bill restructures the hospice benefit periods to eliminate the existing open-ended fourth benefit period and to provide that after the first two 90-day periods, patients are reevaluated every 60 days to ensure they still qualify for hospice services. This restructuring ensures that those receiving Medicare benefits are able to receive hospice services at the time they need them and can be discharged from hospice care with no penalty if their prognosis changes. Second, the bill clarifies that ambulance services, diagnostic tests, radiation, and chemotherapy are covered under the hospice benefit when they are included in the patient's plan of care. No separate payment will be made for these services, but hospices will have to provide them when they are found to be necessary as a palliative measure. This change conforms the statute to current Medicare regulatory policy and does not cost Medicare any additional money because payments are covered by the current per-diem payments. Third, the bill also permits hospices to have independent contractor relationships with physicians. Under current law, hospices must directly employ their medical directors and other staff physicians. This creates a legal problem in some States which prohibit the corporate practice of medicine, and the requirement has made it increasingly difficult to recruit part-time hospice physicians. Fourth, the bill creates a mechanism to allow waiver of certain staffing requirements for rural hospices, which often have difficulty becoming Medicare-certified because of shortages of certain health professionals. Currently, about 80 percent of hospices are Medicare- certified or pending certification. Finally, this bill provides some administrative flexibility regarding certification of terminal illness. Currently, the statute requires that paperwork documenting physician certification of a patient's terminal illness be completed within a certain number of days of the patient's admission to hospice. This bill will eliminate the strict statutory requirements. It gives the Health Care Financing Administration the discretion, as it currently has with home health certifications, to require hospice certifications to be on file before a Medicare claim is submitted. The Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1997 are noncontroversial and should not affect Medicare spending, but they will make important and necessary changes to the Medicare hospice benefit, to enable hospices to provide high-quality, cost-effective care to the terminally ill, and to protect beneficiaries who depend on these services. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today with Mr. Bryan, Mr. D'Amato and Mr. Frist to introduce the Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1997, a bill more readily known as All-in-Bond. This bill would streamline the way in which the government collects federal excise tax on distilled spirits by extending the current system of collection now applicable only to imported products to domestic products as well. Today wholesalers purchase foreign bottled distilled spirits in bond--tax free--paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits--nearly 86 percent of total inventory--the price includes the Federal excise tax, pre-paid by the distiller. This means that hundreds of U.S. family-owned wholesale businesses increase their inventory carrying costs by 40 percent when buying U.S. products, which often have to be financed through borrowing. Under my bill, wholesalers would be allowed to purchase domestically bottled distilled spirits in-bond from distillers just as they are now permitted to purchase foreign produced spirits. Products would become subject to tax on removal from wholesale premises. This legislation is designed to be revenue neutral and includes the requirement that any wholesaler electing to purchase spirits in bond must make certain estimated tax payments to Treasury before the end of the fiscal year. All-in-Bond is an equitable and sound way to streamline our tax collection system. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today with Mr. Bryan, Mr. D'Amato and Mr. Frist to introduce the Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1997, a bill more readily known as All-in-Bond. This bill would streamline the way in which the government collects federal excise tax on distilled spirits by extending the current system of collection now applicable only to imported products to domestic products as well. Today wholesalers purchase foreign bottled distilled spirits in bond--tax free--paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits--nearly 86 percent of total inventory--the price includes the Federal excise tax, pre-paid by the distiller. This means that hundreds of U.S. family-owned wholesale businesses increase their inventory carrying costs by 40 percent when buying U.S. products, which often have to be financed through borrowing. Under my bill, wholesalers would be allowed to purchase domestically bottled distilled spirits in-bond from distillers just as they are now permitted to purchase foreign produced spirits. Products would become subject to tax on removal from wholesale premises. This legislation is designed to be revenue neutral and includes the requirement that any wholesaler electing to purchase spirits in bond must make certain estimated tax payments to Treasury before the end of the fiscal year. All-in-Bond is an equitable and sound way to streamline our tax collection system. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would temporarily suspend, through the year 2000, the rate of duty applicable to imports of Diiodomenthyl-p-tolylsulfone, commonly referred to as ``DMTS.'' Commercially, DMTS is known by the brand name AMICAL 48. It is a fungicide/mildewcide that is used in caulks, adhesives, plastics, textiles, and for other purposes. The preservative is of indisputable benefit to a host of industries engaged in the production, storage, and use of products subject to microbial degradation. The current rate of duty on DMTS is 10.7 percent ad valorem. Under the Uruguay Round, this rate is scheduled to decrease by 0.6 percent per year until 2004, when it will reach and remain at 6.5 percent. The proposed legislation would provide for duty-free treatment of imports of DMTS from the date of enactment through the last day of the year 2000, and it is estimated that if this legislation is enacted, the reduction in duty collection will be a de minimis amount of about $250,000 to $350,000 per year. Furthermore, because there is no substitute domestic product currently benefiting from the present rate of duty on DMTS, no adverse impact on the domestic preservatives industry is anticipated. It may also be that such a temporary suspension in the rate of duty will result in savings being passed along to the consumers of AMICAL 48. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would temporarily suspend, through the year 2000, the rate of duty applicable to imports of Diiodomenthyl-p-tolylsulfone, commonly referred to as ``DMTS.'' Commercially, DMTS is known by the brand name AMICAL 48. It is a fungicide/mildewcide that is used in caulks, adhesives, plastics, textiles, and for other purposes. The preservative is of indisputable benefit to a host of industries engaged in the production, storage, and use of products subject to microbial degradation. The current rate of duty on DMTS is 10.7 percent ad valorem. Under the Uruguay Round, this rate is scheduled to decrease by 0.6 percent per year until 2004, when it will reach and remain at 6.5 percent. The proposed legislation would provide for duty-free treatment of imports of DMTS from the date of enactment through the last day of the year 2000, and it is estimated that if this legislation is enacted, the reduction in duty collection will be a de minimis amount of about $250,000 to $350,000 per year. Furthermore, because there is no substitute domestic product currently benefiting from the present rate of duty on DMTS, no adverse impact on the domestic preservatives industry is anticipated. It may also be that such a temporary suspension in the rate of duty will result in savings being passed along to the consumers of AMICAL 48. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1997 with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Conrad, Dorgan, Moseley-Braun, Reid, and Rockefeller. Let me share some tragic facts about colorectal cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer is the second most deadly cancer based on the number of annual deaths. While breast cancer primarily afflicts women and prostate cancer is a disease of men, colorectal cancer strikes both men and women of all races, resulting in the high number of patients and the corresponding high number of deaths. This year alone, 140,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colon cancer and 54,000 Americans will die from the disease. In my own State of Louisiana, 2,200 new cases of colon cancer will be diagnosed this year and it will take the lives of 920 people. Yet, as is the case with most cancers, colon cancer is preventable and curable if detected early. The tragedy of colorectal cancer is that physicians have proven means to detect colorectal cancer early but these tests must be made available to people on a widespread basis. Death from this terrible disease can be reduced significantly by early detection. We know polyps, the initial presentation of early cancers, if detected early can be treated without major surgery while expensive, major surgery in a hospital is the only successful treatment for more advanced cancers. While many private health plans are starting to provide coverage for colorectal cancer screening, Medicare--which covers older Americans who are most at risk--does not. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1997 would make colorectal cancer screening available to Medicare beneficiaries to improve the chance for early detection and diagnosis. The type and frequency of screening I suggest in my bill are compatible with the recommendations of several large physician groups as well as the American Cancer Society. It covers all the procedures that are currently used today but the type of screening process will depend on the patient's risk factors for colon cancer. Patients at higher risk, for example someone whose parent had colon cancer, receive more aggressive screening than someone with a normal risk for colon cancer. Mr. President, this legislation is not procedure specific. Although several screening tests for colorectal cancer are currently available, the best method for early detection has not been determined. Some tests are very simple and can be performed by any doctor. Others, such as barium enema and colonoscopy, are technically more difficult and require special equipment and facilities. Some tests only evaluate part of the colon. My bill basically recognizes that we need to start screening people right away. The Congress should not prevent seniors from getting screened because there is disagreement over which procedures are best. That is a decision best made by doctors, not the Congress. This bill would mandate that seniors on Medicare have access to all the screening methods currently used by doctors. In 2 years, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will report back to Congress on which tests are the best and most cost-effective means of detecting colon cancer. If it is determined that a procedure is being used that is not effective, Medicare will no longer cover it. HHS will also study the needs of African-Americans who are at high risk for colon cancer and have a higher mortality rate. It makes much more sense for the experts in colon cancer, not the Congress, to determine the best, most cost- effective screening techniques all the while making this important service available immediately to Medicare beneficiaries. This kind of preventive tool is critical in our battle against colon cancer. It will improve the quality of life for Medicare beneficiaries and save Medicare money in the long run by reducing the high costs of treating advanced colorectal cancer. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this legislation this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1997 with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Conrad, Dorgan, Moseley-Braun, Reid, and Rockefeller. Let me share some tragic facts about colorectal cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer is the second most deadly cancer based on the number of annual deaths. While breast cancer primarily afflicts women and prostate cancer is a disease of men, colorectal cancer strikes both men and women of all races, resulting in the high number of patients and the corresponding high number of deaths. This year alone, 140,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colon cancer and 54,000 Americans will die from the disease. In my own State of Louisiana, 2,200 new cases of colon cancer will be diagnosed this year and it will take the lives of 920 people. Yet, as is the case with most cancers, colon cancer is preventable and curable if detected early. The tragedy of colorectal cancer is that physicians have proven means to detect colorectal cancer early but these tests must be made available to people on a widespread basis. Death from this terrible disease can be reduced significantly by early detection. We know polyps, the initial presentation of early cancers, if detected early can be treated without major surgery while expensive, major surgery in a hospital is the only successful treatment for more advanced cancers. While many private health plans are starting to provide coverage for colorectal cancer screening, Medicare--which covers older Americans who are most at risk--does not. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1997 would make colorectal cancer screening available to Medicare beneficiaries to improve the chance for early detection and diagnosis. The type and frequency of screening I suggest in my bill are compatible with the recommendations of several large physician groups as well as the American Cancer Society. It covers all the procedures that are currently used today but the type of screening process will depend on the patient's risk factors for colon cancer. Patients at higher risk, for example someone whose parent had colon cancer, receive more aggressive screening than someone with a normal risk for colon cancer. Mr. President, this legislation is not procedure specific. Although several screening tests for colorectal cancer are currently available, the best method for early detection has not been determined. Some tests are very simple and can be performed by any doctor. Others, such as barium enema and colonoscopy, are technically more difficult and require special equipment and facilities. Some tests only evaluate part of the colon. My bill basically recognizes that we need to start screening people right away. The Congress should not prevent seniors from getting screened because there is disagreement over which procedures are best. That is a decision best made by doctors, not the Congress. This bill would mandate that seniors on Medicare have access to all the screening methods currently used by doctors. In 2 years, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will report back to Congress on which tests are the best and most cost-effective means of detecting colon cancer. If it is determined that a procedure is being used that is not effective, Medicare will no longer cover it. HHS will also study the needs of African-Americans who are at high risk for colon cancer and have a higher mortality rate. It makes much more sense for the experts in colon cancer, not the Congress, to determine the best, most cost- effective screening techniques all the while making this important service available immediately to Medicare beneficiaries. This kind of preventive tool is critical in our battle against colon cancer. It will improve the quality of life for Medicare beneficiaries and save Medicare money in the long run by reducing the high costs of treating advanced colorectal cancer. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this legislation this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that will enhance employee ownership in businesses across America. The ESOP Promotion Act of 1997, which I introduce today with my colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, will facilitate employee ownership and retirement savings and enhance the opportunities for America's entrepreneurs to gain improved access to capital. This legislation would both improve and update a number of obsolete operating rules for employee stock ownership programs and would implement the full intent of Congress, which last year passed legislation designed to make ESOP's available to Subchapter S corporations. The ESOP Promotion Act benefits the owners and workers in the 2 million S corporations which exist in every industry in every State across America. As the country's principal corporate vehicle for entrepreneurs and family business startups, S corporations have long been engines of economic growth. Unfortunately, the restrictions placed on these businesses have also resulted, more recently, in reduced capital access for S corporations. For an S corporation which had hit the limit on the number of allowable shareholders or the amount of personal debt that its owners could assume to keep the company in business, there has been a burdensome capital crunch affecting not only these companies directly, but hindering the ability of our entire national economy to realize its growth potential. Last year, as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1997, Congress enabled S corporations to have ESOP's. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that measure, which by allowing S corporation ESOP's did two additional, critical things: it gave S corporations a new way to access funds without putting any new burdens on the Federal tax base, and it gave millions of workers a way to participate directly in the success and growth of the businesses which employed them. But despite the success we marked in 1996, the many S corporations which now want to build ESOP's cannot. The reason: there continues to be a number of largely technical hurdles in the Tax Code that make it difficult, if not impossible, to establish and sustain these employee ownership programs. One example of such a hurdle, is that, under current law, if an S corporation's ESOP distributes stock to its employee participants, and even one employee rolls over his stock into an entity that is not a permissible S corporation shareholder--say, an IRA account--then the company's Subchapter S election will be entirely invalidated. This, of course, is a risk that no S corporation is willing to take, and while the problem seems minor and technical on its face, no S corporation will establish an ESOP under these conditions. Another example of a technical disincentive is that, while S corporations were established in the 1950's as pass-through companies which pay a single layer of taxes, the S corporation ESOP would have to pay two layers of tax--one when the S corporation distributes stock to the ESOP, and the other when the ESOP distributes stock or cash to its participants. The second layer of tax was certainly not envisioned by Congress when we permitted S corporations to have ESOP's last year. Unfortunately, in its current form, this technicality means that an S corporation ESOP participant would pay a nearly 70 percent greater tax on his share of income than he would if he owned the company's stock directly. As such, S corporation ESOP's are not yet viable for employees, though we certainly intended that they would be when we established them. The legislation that we are introducing eliminates these and other technical problems by establishing parity between ESOP's sponsored by S corporations and those sponsored by C corporations; ensuring S corporation ESOP participants that they are subject to only one layer of taxation; and permitting employees to sell certain stock to an ESOP and defer tax on gain. In addition to the important S corporation measures in the legislation, the ESOP Promotion Act would improve the retirement savings opportunities for American workers. The bill would give employees the option to direct employers to retain dividends paid on employer stock in the ESOP/401(k) plan for reinvestment in the employer stock. Employees could then defer income taxes on the dividends and allow them to grow tax-free in their ESOP/401(k) plan until retirement. The bill would also correct an inequity to workers in the current tax law which provides an incentive for employers to pay the dividends to employees in cash, rather than to reinvest them in the ESOP/401(k) plan. Employers currently receive a tax deduction for dividends paid on stock held in the ESOP/401(k) plan only if the dividends are passed through to plan participants or are used to pay off an ESOP loan. The ESOP Promotion Act would provide employers with the tax deduction they currently receive on dividends paid on employer stock that is passed through to plan participants, if the dividends instead remain in the plan for reinvestment. This reinvestment opportunity for employees will enhance their retirement savings and facilitate employee ownership. Congress now has a responsibility for finishing the task we began last year--one that, perhaps, many of us believed we had completed-- when we agreed that S corporations should have ESOP's and enacted a law to that effect. Our bill completes the task by making ESOP's useful and desirable for the millions of workers in S corporations, while ensuring that they are suitable for the companies that wish to sponsor ESOP's. Clearly when Congress enacted the S corporation ESOP provision, we expected that it would be functional by its effective date, which is January 1, 1998. I hope that my colleagues will support our legislation, and ensure that our intent is fully implemented by the end of this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that will enhance employee ownership in businesses across America. The ESOP Promotion Act of 1997, which I introduce today with my colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, will facilitate employee ownership and retirement savings and enhance the opportunities for America's entrepreneurs to gain improved access to capital. This legislation would both improve and update a number of obsolete operating rules for employee stock ownership programs and would implement the full intent of Congress, which last year passed legislation designed to make ESOP's available to Subchapter S corporations. The ESOP Promotion Act benefits the owners and workers in the 2 million S corporations which exist in every industry in every State across America. As the country's principal corporate vehicle for entrepreneurs and family business startups, S corporations have long been engines of economic growth. Unfortunately, the restrictions placed on these businesses have also resulted, more recently, in reduced capital access for S corporations. For an S corporation which had hit the limit on the number of allowable shareholders or the amount of personal debt that its owners could assume to keep the company in business, there has been a burdensome capital crunch affecting not only these companies directly, but hindering the ability of our entire national economy to realize its growth potential. Last year, as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1997, Congress enabled S corporations to have ESOP's. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that measure, which by allowing S corporation ESOP's did two additional, critical things: it gave S corporations a new way to access funds without putting any new burdens on the Federal tax base, and it gave millions of workers a way to participate directly in the success and growth of the businesses which employed them. But despite the success we marked in 1996, the many S corporations which now want to build ESOP's cannot. The reason: there continues to be a number of largely technical hurdles in the Tax Code that make it difficult, if not impossible, to establish and sustain these employee ownership programs. One example of such a hurdle, is that, under current law, if an S corporation's ESOP distributes stock to its employee participants, and even one employee rolls over his stock into an entity that is not a permissible S corporation shareholder--say, an IRA account--then the company's Subchapter S election will be entirely invalidated. This, of course, is a risk that no S corporation is willing to take, and while the problem seems minor and technical on its face, no S corporation will establish an ESOP under these conditions. Another example of a technical disincentive is that, while S corporations were established in the 1950's as pass-through companies which pay a single layer of taxes, the S corporation ESOP would have to pay two layers of tax--one when the S corporation distributes stock to the ESOP, and the other when the ESOP distributes stock or cash to its participants. The second layer of tax was certainly not envisioned by Congress when we permitted S corporations to have ESOP's last year. Unfortunately, in its current form, this technicality means that an S corporation ESOP participant would pay a nearly 70 percent greater tax on his share of income than he would if he owned the company's stock directly. As such, S corporation ESOP's are not yet viable for employees, though we certainly intended that they would be when we established them. The legislation that we are introducing eliminates these and other technical problems by establishing parity between ESOP's sponsored by S corporations and those sponsored by C corporations; ensuring S corporation ESOP participants that they are subject to only one layer of taxation; and permitting employees to sell certain stock to an ESOP and defer tax on gain. In addition to the important S corporation measures in the legislation, the ESOP Promotion Act would improve the retirement savings opportunities for American workers. The bill would give employees the option to direct employers to retain dividends paid on employer stock in the ESOP/401(k) plan for reinvestment in the employer stock. Employees could then defer income taxes on the dividends and allow them to grow tax-free in their ESOP/401(k) plan until retirement. The bill would also correct an inequity to workers in the current tax law which provides an incentive for employers to pay the dividends to employees in cash, rather than to reinvest them in the ESOP/401(k) plan. Employers currently receive a tax deduction for dividends paid on stock held in the ESOP/401(k) plan only if the dividends are passed through to plan participants or are used to pay off an ESOP loan. The ESOP Promotion Act would provide employers with the tax deduction they currently receive on dividends paid on employer stock that is passed through to plan participants, if the dividends instead remain in the plan for reinvestment. This reinvestment opportunity for employees will enhance their retirement savings and facilitate employee ownership. Congress now has a responsibility for finishing the task we began last year--one that, perhaps, many of us believed we had completed-- when we agreed that S corporations should have ESOP's and enacted a law to that effect. Our bill completes the task by making ESOP's useful and desirable for the millions of workers in S corporations, while ensuring that they are suitable for the companies that wish to sponsor ESOP's. Clearly when Congress enacted the S corporation ESOP provision, we expected that it would be functional by its effective date, which is January 1, 1998. I hope that my colleagues will support our legislation, and ensure that our intent is fully implemented by the end of this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President: today I introduce a bill to implement the OECD shipbuilding agreement to end foreign shipbuilding subsidies. This bill is an administration draft that I submit to better focus upcoming congressional discussion of the issues. With Europe just announcing $2.1 billion in new subsidies for its shipyards, the United States cannot afford to delay action on this agreement any longer. The United States has taken a leadership role in pushing for the elimination of unfair subsidies in the international commercial shipbuilding sector. In 1981, the United States unilaterally eliminated its own commercial shipbuilding subsidies. In October 1989, the United States, at the request of the six defense-oriented shipyards and the smaller commercial shipyards, initiated negotiations in the OECD aimed at eliminating trade distorting foreign shipbuilding subsidies. After 5 years of negotiations and constant prodding by the U.S. Congress, the OECD shipbuilding agreement was signed by the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Finland, Norway, and the United States on December 21, 1994. The OECD shipbuilding agreement, which covers over 80 percent of the world's commercial shipbuilding and repair capacity, would prohibit government subsidies to the shipbuilding industry, as well as discipline export credits, set common rules for government financing programs, and establish a mechanism for addressing injurious pricing, that is, dumping. As of June 1, 1996, all signatories, except the United States, had ratified the agreement. In the last Congress, several parties expressed serious concerns about certain aspects of the agreement and the proposed implementing legislation which we were unable to address before the end of the last session. As a result, the agreement's entry into force has been delayed by more than a year. I am hopeful that an agreement on implementing legislation can be reached early this session and I think the bill I am introducing today is a huge step in that direction. I am very concerned, however, that further delay in confirming United States commitment to this agreement will seriously undermine U.S. long- term efforts to eliminate foreign shipbuilding subsidies, especially as other countries face increased pressure to resume the granting of subsidies to their shipbuilding industries. The United States can't afford a shipbuilding subsidies race. We are cutting funding of important domestic programs now. The United States needs to approve and implement the shipbuilding agreement in order to give us the tools to challenge foreign subsidies and protect our shipbuilding industry against unfair foreign competition. I ask you to join the battle against unfair international shipbuilding subsidies by supporting the swift passage of legislation approving and implementing the OECD shipbuilding agreement. 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 with Mr. D'Amato to introduce legislation that will improve the use of tax-exempt bonds as a financing mechanism for small manufacturing facilities and other important uses. The first thing our bill does is give States more flexibility under the annual $50 per capita or $150 million cap. Under current law, if the State designates bond money for a project and, for whatever reason, that project is not started in 3 years the State cannot put the bond money toward another project. This bill would allow States to reallocate that bond money to another type of project needed elsewhere in the State. In addition, the $10 million limit on capital expenditures a company can maintain and still qualify for this industrial bond money would increase to $20 million under our bill. The increase reflects the effects of inflation since 1978 when the program was first created and also corrects for future effects of inflation on a company's real worth. Finally, our bill would further clean up an omission in the current law. The 3-year carryover provision does not apply to small manufacturing facilities. In researching current law, it appears that denying carryover to manufacturing facilities is nothing more than an oversight. The legislation that we are introducing today will correct this error and allow Governors the flexibility to allow tax-exempt authority for manufacturing facilities to be carried over for 3 years in the same way as other activities allocated tax-exempt bonds. Tax-exempt bonds are essential for States to finance industrial development projects, ranging from small manufacturing facilities to pollution control and resource recovery facilities. Our legislation would help States fund industrial development and better allocate their scarce tax-exempt bond authority. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me commend Kent Conrad for his good remarks on the situation in his State and in that part of the country, and also my part of the country. There is no doubt about it because as the snow begins to melt eventually it finds its way down the Mississippi River and causes problems for us. We sympathize with what is going on in his area, and certainly we are willing to participate and help as well. So I commend him for his comments on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes under the time allocated to the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, what I want to talk to the Senate this morning and our colleagues about is the situation that I think is most serious in this Congress. If we balance the budget this year and also come up with tax cuts, I think that this Congress will still go down as a failure if we do nothing to address the very serious Medicare crisis that is facing this country. I think that we must realize that we need to do more than we are attempting to do at this moment. There is no question that Medicare has been a wonderful program for the 38 million Americans that have come under the Medicare Program for all of these years. It has been a success story that I think is unparalleled in the history of government. Before Medicare was passed less than half of the seniors in this country had access to quality health care. Today 99 percent of all seniors in America have quality health care under the Medicare Program. The poverty rate among seniors has dropped largely, on the part of Medicare and Social Security, from about 35 percent of all seniors down to about 12 percent. The United States has about the ninth highest life expectancy of any nation in the world. That is not that great. When you look at the life expectancy of seniors in this country, the United States has the highest life expectancy of all citizens over the age of 65 largely due to the fact they have access to quality health care under the Medicare Program. The problem, however, is that Medicare is about to go broke. We have talked about it. Now I think more and more people are understanding that we must do something to address the problem. The first chart that I have up here really is an indication of how part A, which is the hospital trust fund which pays for the hospital services for seniors, is projected by about the year 2001 to run out of money. We are right here starting to run out of money in the trust fund. And the red line shows that, indeed, this is a very serious crisis that we cannot allow to continue. The President's budget extends the life of the fund to the year 2007. That is a short-term fix when I suggest we should be looking at long-term fixes. Part B, which is the program that pays for physician services, is not in the same situation, obviously, because it is supported by general revenues although the cost of Medicare physician services has increased by 53 percent over the past 5 years. I would like to take a look at chart No. 2 which shows the number of people that are working in order to pay for the Medicare beneficiaries. Back in 1967 there were about 4.4 workers paying for every Medicare beneficiary. Today we are looking at a ratio of about 3.9 workers in 1995 right here. It is a dramatic drop down to the year 2030 when we are talking about only 2.2 American workers working to pay for one beneficiary. So while it started off in a very good ratio back in 1967 it is dropping as more and more people become eligible for Medicare and fewer and fewer workers are working to pay for those services. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that payroll taxes would have to be increased 25 percent a year just to extend the trust fund solvency to the year 2006. I don't know of any Member of Congress that is recommending a 25-percent increase in the payroll taxes, or something that is simply not going to occur. Chart No. 3 shows you how much money we are spending on Medicare as a percentage of our overall Federal budget. In 1975 it is 5 percent, more than double in 1995, and with 11.3 percent of the entire Federal budget now being spent on Medicare. By the year 2020 the estimation is that it will be almost 25 percent; 24-plus percent of our total budget expenditures. That means when you are talking about education, roads, highways, infrastructure, there is not going to be a lot of money left. We will be spending 25 percent of everything we take in just on Medicare. Why is this happening? There are two reasons. No. 1 is the growth of beneficiaries. There are a lot more people on Medicare. People live longer. The population is aging. We are glad they are. We are glad they are living longer. But we have a lot more beneficiaries than we used to. Between now and the year 2010 the number of people on Medicare will grow by about 1\1/2\ percent a year. After that it is going to grow to almost 2.5 percent a year, which is a rate of growth that is just incredible and unreasonable for the cost. The second reason, as I point out on the chart, is the amount of money we are spending per beneficiary. We are spending a lot more. For a self-insured man who earned average wages he will receive Medicare benefits of over $44,000 a year in his lifetime. For these benefits he is only going to contribute about $13,000. He is getting about $32,000 more than he is putting in. We are spending a lot more per beneficiary. In 1995, the average benefit is $80,000 in a lifetime. Their contribution is $30,000. So we are spending a lot more money per beneficiary than we used to, and it is certainly a lot more money than they are contributing. So we know what is happening. Unfortunately, what we are talking about so far in the President's budget and in most proposals is to tinker around the edges. We are talking about, ``Well, let's fix Medicare by cutting the amount of money we give to doctors and cutting the amount of money we give to hospitals.'' I suggest that that is a Band-Aid type of an approach which we have tried time and time again. When we get into these great arguments about cutting or increasing Medicare, truly we aren't fixing anything. We are just tinkering around the edges. We need some fundamental reform and change. If we continue to just reduce the amount we give to doctors and to the hospitals pretty soon doctors and hospitals are going to say, ``Wait a minute. I am not going to treat Medicare patients anymore. You are giving me less than it is costing me to provide these wonderful services that are important to seniors in this country. So I quit. I am out of here.'' You are seeing that happen around the country. Unfortunately, the proposals we have on the board so far this year are simply just the same old same old--simply reducing the amount we pay doctors and hospitals. I think we have to do something more fundamental than that. What I am suggesting is that we restructure Medicare by modeling it on what we have as Senators, what we have as Members of Congress, and what 9 million Federal employees have for their health care package of benefits. I think most people believe that if Congress wrote a plan for themselves it must be pretty good. They are right. It is pretty good. It is much better than what seniors have under the current Medicare plan. I am suggesting that we take the Medicare plan and give people who are on Medicare--the beneficiary--at least the option of having the same benefits that their Senator or their Congressman, or the rest of the Federal work force has which is the Federal employee health benefit plan. With our plan the Federal Government finances about 71 percent of the premium cost for the plan with the participants paying the other remaining 29 percent. We have the option of choosing a Cadillac plan for which we will pay a little bit more, or a less expensive plan that we pay a little bit less for, and the Government pays a little bit less. But you have the flexibility. It is sort of a combination of a defined contribution and benefit plan where the Federal Government says we want some people to offer us some option. It has to meet a minimum standard. And depending on which plan you pick determines how much you are going to have to pay for it. No. 1, the plan would give seniors a greater choice of health care plans than they currently have. It would give them better coverage than they currently have while at the same time curbing the growth in Medicare costs by creating what Medicare doesn't have, and that is real competition. The reason Medicare is increasing at twice the rate of private insurance is because there is no real competition among Medicare beneficiaries and the plan that they have. In the private sector, which is increasing about 4 percent or less, there is competition. They receive more. They pay less under Medicare. We get less and pay more. So I am suggesting that a plan based on the Federal employee health benefit plan would give more competition, more benefits, more information, and more choice to Medicare recipients than they have today. There would be more competition because the current Medicare system of price fixing by the Government here in Washington I think is a disaster. We have people in Washington that work very hard to try to fix prices. But it is not working. The costs are going up higher than the private plans and they are fixing the price. It is not working. So we are the only group that has lost money on managed care. Medicare now offers HMO's because it is under a price structure and price fixing. We are losing money on HMO's. Everybody else who is trying HMO's is saving money because there is competition. But under Medicare, when somebody gets in an HMO, we are still controlling the price. And the Government is losing money under HMO's because of price fixing, and everybody else is saving a substantial amount of money. So we have to change the way we are doing business, and to bring in more competition. The Federal Government OPM negotiates on behalf of 9 million employees. And there is a lot of competition because they can go to the market and say, ``We are going to offer you 9 million workers, and we want you to bid on what health care you are going to provide them. And make sure it is a minimum standard, and see who offers the best deal.'' We have 38 million people in the system. The potential for negotiating a good price is astronomically increased, and it makes much more sense. Right now we are relying on Medicare and arbitrary bureaucratic price regulations and price fixing. The private sector, which relies on competition, more information, and more flexibility, is working and the prices have not gone up. The second thing is we would get more benefits. When we talk to seniors, we say that we want to change it. But we want to give you more benefits than you have right now because what you have is a 1965 model that is like a Chevrolet that has never been repaired since 1965. It wouldn't run very well today. But we are giving them a 1965 model. It was great for a long period of time. But because of the change in the world it is not giving the benefits that the private sector gives other people. Medicare doesn't cover most outpatient prescription drugs. For instance, it doesn't cover generally dental care, or have any catastrophic limits on catastrophic health care and out-of-pocket contributions as private plans do. In fact, Medicare's benefit package is less generous than about 85 percent of private insurance and private sector plans. I think a lot of seniors think that they have a great plan when in truth it is less generous than 85 percent of the private sector health insurance plans. It is not that good of a plan by any stretch of the imagination. The program covers only about 45 percent of the total annual health care bill of the elderly. That is not a particularly good deal by any stretch, if your health care plan is only covering about 45 percent of your annual out-of-pocket expenses. That is what Medicare currently does with our seniors. The plan would also give them more information. They do not get a lot of information under Medicare. They get a card. They say, go to your doctor under a fee-for-service plan, but you do not get a lot of information about which doctors are the best, which hospitals are the best, which services are the most efficient and do the best job. To the contrary, with the Federal plan, every year they publish a guide with information on benefits and premiums. We can improve upon that. We should have a report card for all these plans so they can see how many people were treated, their success ratio, what the failure rate is, and how the plans are working. So we need to give them more information than they currently have. Medicare currently really gives seniors zero information on the quality of the plans under which they operate. That is not fair to the seniors, and it is not helpful to the system at large. Then it gives them more choice. The 9 million Federal employees nationwide have the benefit of looking at about 388 different health insurance plans to see which one that they would like that fits their needs--388 different plans that they can take a look at and say, ``This one is better'' or ``this one.'' That is nationwide. Most of us in Washington look at two or three or four, maybe five different plans and say, ``This one fits my family; I will take this high option,'' or ``I will take the low-option or standard plan.'' It is an easy choice with a lot of information, and, most importantly, it has information that is needed to make the correct choice. All of these plans under Medicare simply continue to rely on the very inefficient Federal price fixing as opposed to how much the market is charging. We have bureaucrats who are trying to do a wonderful job. I do not criticize them. But it is impossible to do what they are attempting to do to make sure we have a better system. Mr. President and my colleagues, I will be talking more about this. We are still working on the details. But I suggest we need to be looking at, fundamentally, restructuring Medicare to make it a better program for the seniors than they are now getting and at a price we can afford. Doing nothing is not an option, because then we destroy the system that has taken care of the needs of seniors for over 30 years in this country. We in Congress have an obligation to fix it and to be able to help educate the seniors that what they have now is not a good deal, it is not as good as most private plans, and we can offer them more choice and more benefits, better information, and do it in a way that allows the marketplace to determine the price. The Office of Personnel Management looks at the top six health plans in the country and comes up with an average price and negotiates based on that average price. It is not Washington fixing prices but the market. When we have that large of a pool of individuals, then you can have the competition that is necessary to get the price down. So what the private sector is getting is a lot more choice, more benefits, and the price is increasing only at about 4 percent a year or less while Medicare has less of everything and the price is increasing at about 8.6 percent a year. So we are going to be talking more about the details. We do not have all the details yet, but this is a concept that I think makes sense. My proposal will allow the current fee-for-service system to stay in place. If they wish to keep the whole system, they would have the option to do that. But I guarantee you, as more and more people understand what this plan will offer them, I think very few will elect to go back to a 1965 model when they have the opportunity to select a 1997 model which makes sense and gives them a great many more benefits. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks by saying we will continue to talk about this, to help educate our colleagues about what we are attempting to do. Others have come up with this plan. We have had groups like the Progressive Policy Institute that has suggested this. The Brookings Institution has suggested this type of approach. The Heritage Foundation has suggested this type of approach. We have liberals, conservatives, and moderates saying we have to fundamentally make some changes. This is the way to go. This is the right approach. I agree with them. I think as we know more about it, more and more of our colleagues will agree with this approach as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I join with several of my colleagues to introduce the Estate Tax Relief for the American Family Act of 1997. Tax policy should meet two criteria. It should provide an effective and efficient way to collect taxes for the operation of our Government and it should encourage positive economic and social policies. This tax does neither. After looking at the current system, I have concluded that Federal estate and gift taxes are not worth the cost to our economy, to businesses and to American families. In 1995, the estate tax generated $14.8 billion in revenue, only 1.09 percent of total Federal revenues. Conversely, the cost of collecting and enforcing the estate tax to the Government and taxpayers was 65 cents of every dollar collected. The effects of the estate tax are felt most by family-owned businesses. More than 70 percent of family-owned businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not survive the third generation. Many families are forced to liquefy their businesses in order to pay the estate tax. There is a definite need to remedy these problem and this bill takes steps in the right direction. The legislation would increase the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million, and allow estate tax-free transfers of certain qualified small business assets. I hope that any tax bill we put forth this year will include estate tax relief based on the principles we have put forth in this bill.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1997,'' a bill more readily known as All-In-Bond. This bill would streamline the way in which the Government collects Federal excise tax on distilled spirits by extending the current system of collection now applicable only to imported products to domestic products as well. Today wholesalers purchase foreign-bottled distilled spirits in bond--tax free--paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits--nearly 86 percent of total inventory--the price includes the Federal excise tax, prepaid by the distiller. This means that hundreds of U.S. family-owned wholesale businesses increase their inventory carrying costs by 40 percent when buying U.S. products, which often have to be financed through borrowing. Under my bill, wholesalers would be allowed to purchase domestically bottled distilled spirits in bond from distillers just as they are now permitted to purchase foreign-produced spirits. Products would become subject to tax on removal from wholesale premises. This legislation is designed to be revenue neutral and includes the requirement that any wholesaler electing to purchase spirits in bond must make certain estimated tax payments to Treasury before the end of the fiscal year. All-In-Bond is an equitable and sound way to streamline our tax collection system. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1997,'' a bill more readily known as All-In-Bond. This bill would streamline the way in which the Government collects Federal excise tax on distilled spirits by extending the current system of collection now applicable only to imported products to domestic products as well. Today wholesalers purchase foreign-bottled distilled spirits in bond--tax free--paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits--nearly 86 percent of total inventory--the price includes the Federal excise tax, prepaid by the distiller. This means that hundreds of U.S. family-owned wholesale businesses increase their inventory carrying costs by 40 percent when buying U.S. products, which often have to be financed through borrowing. Under my bill, wholesalers would be allowed to purchase domestically bottled distilled spirits in bond from distillers just as they are now permitted to purchase foreign-produced spirits. Products would become subject to tax on removal from wholesale premises. This legislation is designed to be revenue neutral and includes the requirement that any wholesaler electing to purchase spirits in bond must make certain estimated tax payments to Treasury before the end of the fiscal year. All-In-Bond is an equitable and sound way to streamline our tax collection system. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, next week working men and women from all over Louisiana will pause to honor a great and visionary leader and a remarkable man who has led Louisiana's AFL-CIO for the past 41 years. On March 10, my good friend Victor Bussie will retire as president of my State's AFL-CIO--marking the end of a truly historic public career during which time he was widely regarded as one of the most powerful and respected men in Louisiana public life. Those of us who have known and admired Vic Bussie for many years understand that his power was not so much derived from the position he held, but from the force of his personality and the deep conviction and personal integrity that he brought to every debate or endeavor. Simply put, Vic Bussie will always be remembered as one of the most honorable and decent men who ever served in public life. Perhaps the greatest testimony to Vic Bussie's extraordinary career is the many tributes paid to him by those who often found themselves on opposing sides in legislative and political battles. Almost without exception, those who fought with Vic Bussie over the issues never had anything but the highest regard for his integrity and his tireless dedication to the cause of Louisiana's working men and women. Always aided by his wife, Fran, Vic Bussie was not only an effective and articulate spokesman for organized labor; he also brought his influence and moral persuasion to bear on a wide variety of issues, including civil rights, education, health care, government reform and economic development. In every case, I believe that the people of Louisiana are better off today because Vic Bussie took an interest in those issues and dedicated himself to making life better for all of our citizens, not just those in the labor movement. Perhaps one of the greatest testimonies to Vic Bussie's influence and power were the many national political leaders who relied on him during his 41 years at the helm of Louisiana's AFL-CIO. From John F. Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson to Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton, presidents of the United States have often sought Vic Bussie's counsel and have relied on him to build public support for their campaigns and their legislative initiatives. In the mid-1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson was attempting to persuade my predecessor, Senator Russell Long, to support his proposal to create the national Medicare system, he called on Vic Bussie. As the story goes, Vic was on the next plane to Washington and it was not long afterwards that Senator Long announced his support for Medicare. As Russell and I have learned so many times, it is awfully hard to say no to Vic Bussie. Mr. President, the late Adlai Stevenson once remarked that ``every age needs men who will redeem the time by living with a vision of things that are to be.'' I suspect that Vic counted Adlai Stevenson as one of his friends. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that Stevenson had Vic Bussie in mind when he uttered those words. As leader of Louisiana's labor movement for the past 41 years, Vic Bussie has certainly redeemed his time well. All working men and women owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude and my wife, Lois, and I are very proud to be part of the chorus of well-deserved praise that is coming his way during the days leading up to his retirement. I know I speak for many others when I say that Victor Bussie will always be gratefully remembered for the outstanding service he has rendered to his State and his Nation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Baucus in introducing the Software Export Equity Act. This legislation is extremely important to maintaining the U.S. software industry's competitiveness and the growth of high-skilled, high-paying software industry jobs in the United States. The Software Export Equity Act has broad bipartisan support and was included in the fiscal year 1998 budget that the President submitted to Congress. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of swift enactment of this legislation. The U.S. software industry is a vital and growing part of the U.S. economy, creating many new high-paying, high technology jobs in the United States. Much of the expansion of the software industry is due to the growth of export sales. The Software Export Equity Act clarifies the application of the foreign sales corporation [FSC] rules to exports of U.S. software. The FSC rules were enacted to address the competitive disadvantages faced by U.S. exporters vis-a-vis exports from other countries that have more favorable tax systems, particularly those that effectively exempt export sales from home country tax. The goal of the FSC provisions was to prevent manufacturing and production jobs from moving out of the United States. Unfortunately, a narrow IRS interpretation of these rules precludes exports of U.S. software from fully qualifying for the FSC incentive. I am very concerned that this problem could cause U.S. software companies to begin examining such options as moving high-skilled, high-paying software development jobs overseas where highly skilled labor is available at much lower wages. The FSC incentive will help offset higher U.S. labor costs by providing benefits on the export of products developed in the United States. Moreover, there is no justification to deny U.S. software exports the FSC incentive. Virtually every other U.S. exporter fully qualifies for these incentives. I believe it is vital to quickly enact legislation that would clarify these rules to reflect the Congress' intent with respect to software, not only to protect U.S. software development jobs, but also to preserve ownership of this technology in the United States.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Baucus in introducing the Software Export Equity Act. This legislation is extremely important to maintaining the U.S. software industry's competitiveness and the growth of high-skilled, high-paying software industry jobs in the United States. The Software Export Equity Act has broad bipartisan support and was included in the fiscal year 1998 budget that the President submitted to Congress. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of swift enactment of this legislation. The U.S. software industry is a vital and growing part of the U.S. economy, creating many new high-paying, high technology jobs in the United States. Much of the expansion of the software industry is due to the growth of export sales. The Software Export Equity Act clarifies the application of the foreign sales corporation [FSC] rules to exports of U.S. software. The FSC rules were enacted to address the competitive disadvantages faced by U.S. exporters vis-a-vis exports from other countries that have more favorable tax systems, particularly those that effectively exempt export sales from home country tax. The goal of the FSC provisions was to prevent manufacturing and production jobs from moving out of the United States. Unfortunately, a narrow IRS interpretation of these rules precludes exports of U.S. software from fully qualifying for the FSC incentive. I am very concerned that this problem could cause U.S. software companies to begin examining such options as moving high-skilled, high-paying software development jobs overseas where highly skilled labor is available at much lower wages. The FSC incentive will help offset higher U.S. labor costs by providing benefits on the export of products developed in the United States. Moreover, there is no justification to deny U.S. software exports the FSC incentive. Virtually every other U.S. exporter fully qualifies for these incentives. I believe it is vital to quickly enact legislation that would clarify these rules to reflect the Congress' intent with respect to software, not only to protect U.S. software development jobs, but also to preserve ownership of this technology in the United States.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, on February 27, 1997, the Macon Ridge enterprise community, consisting of portions of Catahoula, Concordia, Franklin, Morehouse, and Tensas Parishes in Louisiana, is to be awarded the Community Empowerment Award by the American Association of Enterprise Zones. I am very proud to have Louisiana's own Macon Ridge recognized as the best enterprise community in the Nation. The Macon Ridge Enterprise Community is an example to the Nation of the success that can be derived from community-based economic development. The U.S. Department of Agriculture designated the Macon Ridge enterprise community as 1 of the 30 rural enterprise communities across the United States, from some 227 applicants, on December 21, 1994. The enterprise community is administered by the Macon Ridge Development Region, Inc., which is a multifaceted economic development organization serving 11 parishes in northeast Louisiana. The Macon Ridge enterprise community has, in the first 12 months of operation, created or retained 523 jobs, started 3 business incubators, had over 523 residents in job training or literacy programs, and leveraged some $3.316 million in additional funding. The executive director of the Macon Ridge enterprise community, Mr. Buddy Spillers, as well as the Macon Ridge Enterprise Community Advisory Council and the Macon Ridge Board of Directors, are to be commended for their tireless efforts to create the opportunities and partnerships in Macon Ridge which have brought about this progress. In closing, Mr. President, I take this occasion to offer my sincere congratulations to the Macon Ridge enterprise community, not only for meriting this award, but for the vast economic development opportunities which it has created in Louisiana and for the outstanding model which it provides to the State and the Nation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, last year I was shocked to learn of the huge difference that exists between the Federal penalties for trafficking powder cocaine and for trafficking the exact same amount of crack cocaine. Right now, selling five grams of crack cocaine results in the same 5- year mandatory minimum prison term as selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. Selling 50 grams of crack cocaine gets you a 10-year minimum sentence, while you'd have to sell 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to get the same 10 years in prison. While these penalties are vastly different--100 times greater if you sell crack cocaine--the damage caused by these criminal acts are the same. Lives are lost, families are destroyed, careers are ruined, and our Nation itself is seriously threatened. Tough penalties are necessary to send a clear signal that the United States will not tolerate selling illegal drugs. The answer to the problem presented by this wide difference in penalties is not to lower penalties for selling crack cocaine but to increase the penalties for selling powder cocaine. Therefore, my legislation is very simple and very clear. Trafficking--that is the manufacture, distribution, or sale--of 50 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 10-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. Manufacture, distribution or sale of 5 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 5-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass a bill that deters the use of all cocaine--powder and crack.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, last year I was shocked to learn of the huge difference that exists between the Federal penalties for trafficking powder cocaine and for trafficking the exact same amount of crack cocaine. Right now, selling five grams of crack cocaine results in the same 5- year mandatory minimum prison term as selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. Selling 50 grams of crack cocaine gets you a 10-year minimum sentence, while you'd have to sell 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to get the same 10 years in prison. While these penalties are vastly different--100 times greater if you sell crack cocaine--the damage caused by these criminal acts are the same. Lives are lost, families are destroyed, careers are ruined, and our Nation itself is seriously threatened. Tough penalties are necessary to send a clear signal that the United States will not tolerate selling illegal drugs. The answer to the problem presented by this wide difference in penalties is not to lower penalties for selling crack cocaine but to increase the penalties for selling powder cocaine. Therefore, my legislation is very simple and very clear. Trafficking--that is the manufacture, distribution, or sale--of 50 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 10-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. Manufacture, distribution or sale of 5 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 5-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass a bill that deters the use of all cocaine--powder and crack.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, on January 24, 1997, after 36 years of service, Dr. H. Rouse Caffey will retire from Louisiana State University, completing a career of notable accomplishments and a tenure of extraordinary leadership and service. It is most appropriate, therefore, on the occasion of his retirement that the State will proclaim, January 24, 1997, as H. Rouse Caffey Day in Louisiana, a tribute of which he is most deserving. For about 30 of those 36 years, I've known Dr. Caffey personally. I've worked closely with him on many occasions. I will miss him, as will many others who've had the privilege to work with him. Distinguished leadership and service have been the hallmarks of Dr. Caffey's career, including his most recent role as chancellor of the LSU Agricultural Center, a position which he has held for 13 years. His genuine devotion to the LSU Agricultural Center and the people of Louisiana has kept farmers, families, and youth knowledgeable about the most recent information available to help improve their lives. Dr. Caffey's service to this country as national cochair of the International Science and Education Council from 1986 to 1991 and as national cochair of the Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sciences from 1989 to 1995, earned him the respect and admiration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and land grant institutions across the Nation. In addition, Dr. Caffey's international agricultural activities in 30 foreign countries have earned for him, for LSU, for Louisiana, and for the Nation the respect and admiration of leaders abroad and have led to improved and lasting relationships with them. His other LSU appointments have included superintendent of the LSU Rice Research Station at Crowley, LA; associate director of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station in Baton Rouge; vice chancellor for administration of the Center for Agricultural Sciences and Rural Development; director of International Programs; and chancellor of LSU at Alexandria. Throughout Dr. Caffey's career, he has received numerous awards and honors, including the 1993 LSU Alumni Association Alumnus of the year; 1994 Alumnus of the Year for the College of Agriculture and Home Economics at Mississippi State University; and Progressive Farmer magazine's 1986 Man of the Year for Louisiana Agriculture. Dr. Caffey's personality, dedication, knowledge, service, and leadership have left a unique and lasting impression on LSU, its agricultural center, and the agricultural community nationally and internationally. Dr. Caffey will always have my respect and admiration, sentiments which are shared, I know, by the many individuals and organizations led and served so well by him over the years. In closing, Mr. President, I take this occasion to commend Dr. Caffey personally for his lifetime of distinguished leadership and service and to wish him every continued success in the future.