John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for yielding his time. Mr. President, my colleagues, amendments to the Constitution cannot be passed by the Congress alone. It is a partnership arrangement. The process must also include ratification by the various States. Three- fourths of the States, 38 States, must also join with the Congress in ratifying any proposed amendment to the Constitution before it comes part of the Constitution. In order for me to justify not even voting to send this proposal to my State of Louisiana and the various other States for them to debate and to vote on this measure, I must be convinced that on its face this amendment is such bad public policy that it must die here in Washington. Is this amendment perfect? No, it certainly is not. Its faults are many and they raise serious concerns in a number of areas. No. 1, can unelected Federal judges who are appointed for life raise taxes and cut programs to enforce this measure? The Nunn and Johnston amendments address this particular question. I understand that there are those this morning who are willing to correct it with the adoption of the Nunn amendment which would go a long ways to correcting this very serious problem. The question of how can the States cast an intelligent vote on ratification without having the right to know in advance, for instance what will happen to them if it is ratified, is a very serious concern that needs further debate and consideration. Are programs, such as those that have trust funds as a means of funding programs, like the Social Security Program, in danger of being cut under this amendment? There needs to be further discussion and further debate on that particular issue. The answers to these questions are not clear and more debate, not less, must occur. It is an issue that has generated a great deal of justified emotion. National polls and polls of my State of Louisiana indicate that approximately 75 percent of American people support a balanced budget amendment. But the polls also indicate, at the same time, that they do not support the balanced budget amendment if it means that there will be cuts in Social Security, or there will be cuts in Medicare, or there are likely to be cuts in some other favorite program of our constituents. I voted for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in the past as I believe the long-term debt of our Nation is a critical problem that, so far, we have been giving to our children and to our grandchildren. We have made good efforts on reducing the deficits, as we have in 1993 in adopting President Clinton's deficit reduction plan which cut the deficit by $500 billion over 5 years. I might add we made that very difficult decision without a single Republican vote. But more needs to be done, and if this amendment passes there will be many more and difficult decisions to make. It will not be easy. I cannot vote to kill this effort today, here in Washington. Our States must be involved. They should have the right to bring this measure up in our State legislatures, debate it, and then have the right and indeed the obligation to vote on it. For me to vote no here in Washington is to say to my State of Louisiana, and the other States, that I know so much more than you on this particular issue that I now vote no so that you cannot vote at all. I will not do that. So today I will vote yes on the balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification and consideration. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to clarify the implementation of a law that we adopted in 1993. One of the provisions included in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act removed the exemption from payment of the diesel fuel tax that recreational boaters previously had. At the same time, the 1993 Budget Act modified the collection point for all of the fuel taxes and imposed fuel dying requirements. The combination of these two changes have made the implementation of the fuel tax a disaster creating a situation where many recreational boaters cannot find any fuel to pay tax on. Under the 1993 changes, fuel that is subject to taxation is clear and fuel that is exempt from taxation is dyed. The problem for boaters arises because most marinas have only one fuel tank, however, they provide fuel to both commercial and recreational boats. Commercial boat fuel is exempt from any tax and therefore commercial boat operators seek to purchase dyed fuel. Recreational fuel is taxable and recreational boaters want to purchase clear fuel. For those marina operators with only one fuel tank, they must decide if they will offer clear, taxable fuel for the recreational boaters or Most marina operators in my State of Louisiana, find that their primary customer base is made up of commercial boaters and they are choosing to sell the dyed fuels. Thus, recreational boaters have no place to purchase the clear fuel. Mr. President, this is a clear case of unintended consequences. The boaters are willing to pay the tax, they simply cannot find the place to buy the fuel and pay the tax. My bill is very simple. It modifies the collection process for diesel boating fuel. It allows marina operators to purchase dyed, exempt fuel and then collect the tax directly from recreational boaters and remit the tax to the Government directly. Mr. President, I believe that this is a very simple solution to this very difficult problem. I urge the Senate to act on this important issue as soon as possible.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I reintroduce legislation that would resolve a long-standing inequity in the rules that govern eligibility under the Social Security Act's coverage of disabled individuals. The so-called disabled adult child benefit under title II of the Social Security Act provides benefits to the disabled children of individuals who receive old age or disability insurance benefits. Eligible individuals receive a cash benefit and Medicare coverage. Very often the Medicare coverage that individuals receive is more important than the cash benefit, because the severely disabled recipients have nowhere else to go to get insurance that would cover their preexisting, often severe disabilities. Under current law, individuals who receive the disabled adult child benefit automatically lose their benefits if they get married, regardless of their income. This penalty is archaic and should be removed from the law. When these provisions were originally enacted society had a different view of the disabled than it does today. The notion was that, upon marriage, disabled individuals would leave their dependence relationship with the Social Security program only to enter into a dependence relationship on a spouse. Today, we have come to realize that disabled people can be productive members of society in their own right. They can and should be free to marry, and raise families and engage in the pursuit of happiness like everyone else in this country. This automatic loss of benefits, especially of the all- important Medicare coverage--is a huge obstacle for disabled adult child recipients who want to do so. Mr. President, the bill I am reintroducing today would repeal the provision which requires that these individuals lose their benefits when they marry. Several years ago, a constituent of mine named Jimmy Rick drove his wheelchair all the way to Washington, DC, and Capitol Hill from his home in Amide, LA, in order to bring this matter to my attention. Mr. Rica has been paralyzed from the neck down since he was 3 years old and has had a series of incredibly painful and debilitating operations over the course of his 46 years. Every night of his life he must sleep in an iron lung. Somehow, he still managed to pilot his wheel chair the 1,100 miles from Aide, LA, to Capitol Hill to explain the effect that the marriage provision has had on his life. Mr. Rick and his wife, Dona, had to wait 7 years before they could get married and adopt children. He was completely dependent on the Medicare coverage he had as a beneficiary and could not have gotten insurance anywhere else. Jimmy and Dona could not get married until she found a job with the U.S. Postal Service that carried the kind of health insurance coverage that Jimmy absolutely needed in order to survive. Since their marriage in May 1990 the Ricks have adopted two children, and they would like to adopt more. They are a happy, productive and stable family. The archaic marriage penalty in the Social Security law only served to delay this happy circumstance for 7 unnecessary years. This Congress will be the third Congress in which I have introduced this legislation. In June 1992, the Senate Finance Committee approved a provision based on this legislation as part of a larger measure that would have liberalized the Social Security earnings limit. Unfortunately, the provision was stripped before the legislation passed due to conflict with the Budget Committee's interpretation of rules related to on-budget versus off-budget financing. Try to explain that to constituents whose day to day lives were drastically affected by an unreasonable provision of the law. Mr. President, I hope that this legislation, which will strengthen the concept of the family and allow thousands of disabled persons to marry who cannot now do so, receives the favorable into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, and my colleagues, I would think that if any government is presented with evidence that their country is under a national security threat that they would institute immediately a full- scale investigation to determine what the threat is and what action is needed to prevent that threat from becoming an all-out emergency, or a conflict that we could not ultimately solve. That is the purpose of government. Ultimately to protect the security of the citizens of our country. Therefore, when I read a release that I received today from the U.S. Department of Commerce which clearly states that they have made a finding that growing U.S. reliance on oil imports threatens the national security of the United States by making it vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies, I would immediately gather all of my advisers around me and say, ``All right, what are we going to do about this?'' I am deeply disturbed that as I read the release and talk to people who know about this problem and find that, essentially, nothing is being done. I think we as a nation are making a terrible mistake. Let me try and point out what I think the problem is in a very clear fashion. If we in this Nation were suddenly told that we are now importing 50 percent of all of the food that we consume in this country, and much of it from nations that are very undependable as far as being allies of the United States, I would predict that the next day there would be lines of people surrounding the White House and surrounding this Capitol saying, ``My goodness, this is a terrible threat that we are now having to import half of the food that we consume from countries that are not dependable as allies of the United States.'' Yet this is exactly what is happening when it comes to energy security. I will tell Members how this came about, Mr. President. That is, that the Department of Commerce, under existing rules and regulations, were responding to a petition that was filed by the Independent Petroleum Association of America that was filed on March 11, 1994, alleging that ``Increasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil threatened the national security of the United States.'' They pointed out in their request that imports of crude oil products were estimated through 1994 to average 8.8 million barrels of foreign oil coming into the United States every day. This represents a 200,000- barrel-a-day increase compared to 8.6 million barrels a day in 1993. The estimated import ratio has now, for the first time ever, broken the ``peril point level'' of 50 percent of foreign imports coming into this country. There is no dispute about that fact. The IPAA presented information. No one objected to that. The Commerce Department finds, after looking at all this information, clearly that U.S. reliance on oil imports now threatens national security by making us vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supplies. The Commerce Department recommended, however, that the President not use his authority that he has under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to adjust these foreign oil imports through the imposition of tariffs, because the economic costs of such a move outweigh the potential benefits and because current administration energy policies will limit the growth of imports. Mr. President, I disagree with that, and I disagree with it strongly. I think current administration energy policies in this administration, in the last administration and in the administration before that, in Republican administrations and in Democratic administrations, have clearly allowed us to get to the point where today we are importing half of the oil that we use in this country. I guess it has been an easy thing for administrations to do because we have been getting cheap oil, but does anybody remember what happened in the early 1970's when we had lines of Americans sitting in their cars waiting to buy the precious gas that was left at the stations to run their cars and run this country? Because at that time, the Middle Eastern oil suppliers turned the faucets off just a little bit and literally brought this country to our knees, because at that time, we were importing about 30 percent of the oil we use. Today, we are importing 50 percent, and just turning that faucet a little bit in 1995 will bring this country to our knees in a much more serious fashion than we were brought to our knees in 1973. Unfortunately, it seems that all the administrations since then did not learn the lesson, and the lesson is very simple: That we should never be dependent on something that is important to our national security; we should never be dependent on other nations to supply it, particularly nations that are not necessarily our friends nor our allies, that we cannot trust to be reliable when we have a need for a product that they have, whether it be food, as I mentioned earlier, or whether it be energy to run our plants, our factories, to heat our homes, to cool our homes in the summer, to run our cars, to run our trucks, to keep up with the commerce demands of a great Nation. Yet today, for all of those needs, we are now dependent on foreign nations for over half of those energy needs. And the thing that bothers me the most is that after recognizing that there is a national security threat--and these are not my words, these are the words of the Commerce Department when they made the findings--that the situation today presents a national security threat to the United States but we are not going to do anything in terms of setting a tariff to try and reduce the amount of imports coming in in order to encourage greater domestic exploration and production right here in this country. I think that that is something that is not acceptable, because there are some things that we can do. I do not suggest that maybe oil import tariffs are the only answer. I have advocated them for that they could have said we are going to recommend that needs to be done, other than just saying we are going to rely on current policy. Because, folks, it is clear that current policy has us in the predicament we are in. Current policy has allowed us to have imports increase up to the point where they now constitute 50 percent of all the energy we have in this country. Imports increased this year from last year by 200,000 barrels a day more than the year before. That is under current policy. And to say that we are going to continue to stay with current policy, there is no trend line to suggest that is going to solve the problem. The trend line is that imports will continue to increase under current policy. So I suggest to my friends in this administration that they take the Commerce Department's findings that there is a national security threat to make some recommendations on new things that should be done in order to prevent a national catastrophe from falling on this country. I suggest that there are a number of things that I would have hoped that the administration would have been able to say we are recommending instead of maintaining the status quo. First, they could have recommended that the administration will actively support what the industry calls geological and geophysical expensing, which simply says that oil and gas operators in this country would be able to expense the cost of exploring and producing a well, whether that well is a dry well, a dry hole, which they can do now, or whether it is a producing well. That would encourage a substantial increase in domestic production in this country to reduce that 50 percent number to what would be a more acceptable number. I look over the recommendations and that is not there. They could have, second, suggested that we move toward and support OPRA 90 reform. OPRA is the Oil Pollution Act that this Congress passed in 1990, but the way it is being implemented is not the way this Congress intended it to be implemented, and legislation is necessary to clarify what we meant. Here is the simple problem: Congress never intended when we passed that Oil Pollution Control Act that onshore facilities would have to carry insurance of $150 million per well. We were talking about major offshore activity that had the potential to pollute if a catastrophic event occurred. We never intended that any facility onshore that may be very, very small, with only very limited potential to cause any pollution, would also have to have $150 million of liability insurance. But that is how our folks in the bureaucracy have interpreted it. An amendment, a legislative fix for this problem would allow independent operators who produce oil onshore to do it in a fashion that they could afford. We are going to run independents out of business if we do not do something legislatively to fix this problem. That would have been the second thing that could have been recommended and should have been recommended. The third is to have recommended some type of broad-based royalty reform to encourage exploration and production in difficult areas where it is more expensive to find oil, where many times a day it costs more to explore than it would pay them if they found a producing well, because the price of oil per barrel, partly because of cheap foreign imports, is less than it costs to find that oil. Broad-based royalty relief would have made a major impact on helping to increase domestic production. But there is no recommendation for that type of activity. The fourth is to do something about the Alaska export ban on oil that is produced in Alaska. When Congress passed that law saying that oil that is found in Alaska could never be exported outside the United States, it probably made sense at that time. But it does not make sense today. If oil from Alaska can be sold in other areas at a higher price, it would give companies greater amounts of money to explore for and find additional fields domestically in North America--in Alaska, in the gulf coast area--which would increase the domestic production and thereby lower that 50 percent import figure that we have. Mr. President, not one of those proposals, not one of those initiatives is found in the Commerce Department's finding and recommendation as to what should be done. I will just close by saying that it is insufficient, in my opinion, for a department of our Government to make a finding that there is a national security threat to this Nation, which they have made, and then to say we are not going to recommend anything new to address that threat. That is an abdication of responsibility. It is unacceptable. This Member, and I know other Members, will take their finding and offer constructive suggestions to, in fact, address what is now clearly established as a national security threat to the United States of America. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and I be allowed to speak out of order.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, are we still in morning business?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would like to use just a couple of minutes in morning business to comment on a very important vote that the Senate will engage in, sometime around noon today. That is on the motion which I guess will be made to table the right-to-know amendment or to send it back to committee, and why I think it is very important that this body adopt a right-to-know amendment so that the people back in the respective States, when their legislators have to vote on this very important balanced budget amendment, will know what they are voting on. I support a balanced budget amendment. I have supported it in the past. I have voted for it in the past. I hope to be able to vote for it again. The thing that really concerns me is that we would expect that someone who proposes a balanced budget amendment, like our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, one would expect if they propose this, they would have an idea about how they will do it; that they have a plan that allows them to get, in the year 2002, to a balanced budget. Surely, they are not just proposing a balanced budget amendment without any plan, or without any idea as to how they are going to get there. I have not seen the plan. That is what I think the American people are entitled to. Is there a secret plan on how to balance the budget that they do not want to share with the American people, that they do not want to share with the Governors of the respective States who will have to live by it, as well as us? Is there a secret plan they do not want to tell the members of the legislatures about, because if they see it, it may be so devastating they will not vote for it? Is there a secret plan to reach the year 2002 that cuts Social Security, slashes spending on Medicare, health programs for the elderly? Is there a secret plan, for instance, which wipes out State highway programs? I do not know. I do not think anybody knows. Surely those who propose a balanced budget must have in their heads an idea of how to get there. The only thing that we are suggesting is that before we send the balanced budget amendment to the States and say, ``Vote on it,'' that we share with them the secret plan. If there is a plan that proposes how we get there, let Members see it. What is wrong with it? If the balanced budget amendment is a good thing, and I think it is, certainly how we get to that balanced budget is something that is equally important. It may be that there is a golden secret plan that does not cut defense, that does not have any tax increases, that does not cut Social Security, that does not cut Medicare, that does not cut highway programs, and yet gets to a balanced budget by the year 2002. If there is such a plan, let me see it. Let me show it to the States so that when they vote on it they will know exactly what they are voting on. I think the bottom line, Mr. President and my colleagues, is that the American people not only have a right to know, but in the real world, they have a need to know. I want my legislators in Louisiana, when they vote on this balanced budget, to say, ``Now we know how it will be achieved. Here is what we have to do as a State in order to make it work.'' This is a partnership, I say to my colleagues. We are not doing this by ourselves. This is a partnership arrangement between the Congress, the Federal Government, and the States. We all will have to share in it. Maybe States will have to increase taxes. It might be they will have to slash State programs that the Federal Government cannot assist, as in the past, with many of these programs. But the bottom line is that the only protection the American people have is the right to know what we are talking about. I will say, once again, that surely the people who have proposed a balanced budget have a plan. It should not be a secret plan, it should be a public plan. The only thing that we are asking is that it should be made part of this effort so that when the States are called upon to act on this, they will be able to do it intelligently, and not have to do it in the dark.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the minority leader for yielding. I would just say this, as we come down to the critical point of the vote: You would think that when someone proposes a balanced budget amendment, they must have a plan to get to it after the balanced budget amendment passes. The only thing I am suggesting is that they should share that information with the American public. They should share it with the States. If there is a secret plan that they have to balance the budget, does it include massive cuts in Social Security? Or does it include massive reductions in veterans' pension plans? Or does it include the dismantling of the highway assistance programs for the States? I am not sure what it includes. But if there is a secret plan to reach this balanced budget, I would suggest that it should be secret no longer. If it let the States see it. Let them have an opportunity to vote knowing how we are going to balance that budget. How can we send this amendment to the States and not let them know what the plan is as to how we are going to achieve it? Oh, perhaps, maybe there is a golden secret plan they have that does nothing with regard to cutting Social Security and does not increase taxes and increases defense spending and yet still balances the budget. Maybe they have that type of a plan. But let us see it. I mean, somebody over there who is proposing this must have a plan on how to get to the end result. How are you we doing to ask the States to be able to pass this amendment unless they know what that plan is? And that is what the right-to-know amendment is all about. I think the people of America have a right to know how they are going to do this. How are we all going to do it, because it is a collective effort. It is going to be a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. And the States are not going to be able to vote unless they see what plan they are going to be voting on. I think we need a right-to- know amendment. I think America needs it.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am today introducing--for the fourth Congress in a row--legislation that would grant States the authority to regulate the flow of solid waste across their borders and meet the environmental objectives of increased recycling and waste reduction. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the shipment of garbage across State lines for the purposes of disposal is a form of commerce and thus entitled to protection under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Due to the fact that States cannot control shipments of imported garbage, the States have no ability to plan for the disposal of solid waste generated within their own borders or to preserve landfill capacity for their own future needs. The only way for States to regulate the flow of garbage is for Congress to explicitly grant them that authority. That is what the legislation I am introducing today would do. For years now, the United States overall landfill capacity has been shrinking. From 1988 to 1991 the number of operating landfills dropped from 8,000 to 5,812, a 27-percent decrease. At the same time, the amount of solid waste that is shipped across State borders for disposal has grown. The more heavily populated regions of the country produce more solid waste and have less capacity for additional landfill sties. These States have been shipping solid wastes out of their own jurisdictions and into landfills in States, like my State of Louisiana, which, for the moment, have some capacity to receive it. However, this capacity will continue to disappear so long as States have no ability to control the amount of waste that comes into their territory for disposal. My State of Louisiana has had some experiences of its own related to the interstate shipment of municipal wastes. The most infamous incident was that of the so-called poo poo choo choo that brought 63 carloads of municipal waste--in this case stinking Shriever, Labadieville, and Donaldsonville, LA in 1989. These 63 open cars full of rehydrated sludge were to be disposed of in a landfill. Instead, they sat on sidings near these towns for weeks. Finally, the private landfill operator in question found an alternative disposal site and the train cars headed out of town. The legislation I am introducing today would provide States with the authority they need to regulate incoming shipments of garbage in return for a commitment by the States to plan for the disposal of their own wastes and a commitment to increased recycling and waste reduction efforts. Each State would be required to develop a solid waste management plan that would include a 20-year projection of how solid wastes generated within their own borders would be managed. The plan must demonstrate that solid waste will be managed in accordance with the following priorities; First, States must take steps to reduce the amount of waste generated within their own borders; second, States must encourage recycling, energy and resource recovery. Only as a third and final option should States consider landfills, incinerators and other options of disposal. Each State will be required to demonstrate that is complies with this waste management hierarchy and has issued all appropriate permits for capacity sufficient to manage their own solid wastes for a rolling period of 5 years. The Federal Government, working with the States, will be required to provide technical and financial assistance to local communities to meet the requirements of the plan. Any out-of-State wastes must be managed in accordance with State plans and may not impede the ability of States to manage their own solid waste. Only after a State has an approved plan in place, will it be granted the authority to refuse to accept waste from out-of-State sources and to charge higher disposal fees for a load of garbage based on its State of origin. Half of the proceeds from high out-of-State fees will go the locality where the garbage is being disposed of and may only be used for solid waste management activities. Mr. President, a number of similar bills have been introduced on this same subject over the last several years. Most of these measures did not adequately address all of the issues surrounding the disposal of solid waste and shipments across State borders. I strongly believe that a planning process and the priorization of waste reduction, recycling and disposal options on a State-by-State basis should be a part of the solution to the ongoing controversy over interstate garbage shipments. I hope that we will be able to finally dispose of this issue this year. I encourage my colleagues to address it in the comprehensive manner outlined in this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the point that the editorial attempts to make, and I think does a good job of doing, and the point I have been trying to make is that we are, in effect, by this amendment, without the right to know accompanying it, sticking it to the States and doing it in the dark. We are saying to the States that you should trust us to do the balanced budget efforts that are necessary in Congress in a way that you are going to like or a way that you can handle it or in a way that you can support, but do not make us tell you how we are going to do it. We are saying, we are going to give you the balanced budget and you should ask your State legislators to vote for it, make it part of the Constitution. And then sometime later, the Congress is going to tell you, after you have already voted for it, after the fact, we are going to tell you what it is going to mean to your State. But I suggest at that point it is too late, they will have already voted. They will have already voted to cut programs, they will have already voted to have to raise taxes, if they are going to keep a level of program funding for their respective States. But then it is going to be too late. So I say, what is wrong with trying to require that, when we submit the balanced budget amendment to the respective States, it is accompanied with a budget resolution that says to the States that if you adopt this, here is what it is going to mean to your State? Like the editorial said, they might not vote for it, they may make the wrong decision, but at least they will have made the decision knowing what the implications are. I asked the National Governors Conference when I spoke to them last week: ``Governors, how are you going to answer the question of your speaker of the house or your president of the senate when he or she comes to you and says, `Governor, if I ask our colleagues to vote for this, what is it going to mean to the people of our State?''' And the Governor is going to have to say: ``I don't know. Trust Congress.'' That is not a sufficient answer. It is like Ronald Reagan used to say when he talked about the Soviets, he said trust, yes; trust but verify. I suggest that if the only verification we can give the States is to tell them how we are going to reach that time in the year 2002, in effect achieve a balanced budget in 7 years, what is wrong with telling them how we are going to do it? Some of our colleagues say, ``We can't do that, we can't do a 7-year balanced budget amendment; it is too difficult, it is too hard to do it.'' I suggest we did it 2 years ago when we passed a 5-year reconciliation. We cut the Federal deficit by over $500 billion. It was not easy. Not a single Republican voted for it, but we did it for 5 years. And if my Republican colleagues say, ``Well, we can't do it for 7; that is just impossible,'' how about 5? Make me an offer. Let us do it for 5. I will go along with 5. But at least give the States some information so they can cast an intelligent vote when we ask them to vote for the balanced budget amendment. Like the editorial said: We cannot support the notion that what the people don't know won't hurt them. I suggest that as the States become more concerned about what this really means, they will demand that the Congress give them an indication of what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, before we ask them to vote for it. I think that is fair. I think it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that charts a promising new way to enlist the private sector's help in preserving and improving the country's stock of affordable housing. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill, entitled the ``Low-Income Housing Preservation Act.'' All of us are aware from our trips home that there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in this country. All one has to do is look at the number of homeless in towns throughout the country to know this, but the statistics tell the story as well. A 1992 Harvard study estimated that there were 4.1 million units of HUD or privately owned, publicly assisted units, while there are 13.8 million households eligible to receive HUD-funded housing assistance if the assistance were available. Clearly we need a new approach, one that does a better job of leveraging private resources, and bringing the discipline of the marketplace to bear, while recognizing that the resources that the Federal Government can expend are severely limited. The bill I am introducing today does this by encouraging the investment of private capital to improve the condition of the Nation's stock of existing rental housing for low-income tenants. By relying largely on the private sector, rather than HUD, for the necessary funding it reduces the necessary level of Government involvement to a minimum. It is very cost-effective, because of the way the bill's tax proposals have been drafted. At the same time, it will save the Government a great deal of money that otherwise would have to be expended to fund existing or new HUD-grant programs to achieve the same end. This is the problem. Much of the rental housing that is currently occupied by low-income tenants is not public housing, but privately owned apartment houses. HUD assistance reduces the amount of monthly rent paid by eligible tenants. This stock of affordable housing is in crisis. Many of these projects are 10 to 25 years old, or more. Their continued physical and financial stability is threatened, as the projects age and private investors have no incentive to invest additional capital to rehabilitate them. While the needs of these projects have been widely recognized for some time by both the Federal Government and the private sector, little has been done to address the problem. If these projects disappear because the private owners are no longer able to maintain the units, the already short supply of affordable housing will be further reduced. It is therefore vital to preserve and improve this important source of housing for low-income tenants. This is especially so in light of the considerable interest in Congress this year in making major changes in the way HUD operates. These proposals would place greater reliance on private-sector alternatives to public housing, while at the same time reducing the size and number of HUD's traditional programs to assist privately owned housing. The private sector cannot continue to provide the low-income housing needed unless Congress corrects some of the current disincentives in the tax laws that discourage the preservation of this inventory of affordable housing. The value of these projects has been severely depressed by the 1986 changes to the tax laws. As a result, the current owners have no way to raise additional capital to rehabilitate the structures, as has become inevitably necessary with time. Because the projects' market values are so depressed, the current owners cannot receive enough cash upon sale to pay the capital gains taxes they would owe. Nor is there interest among new investors under current conditions in purchasing the projects and investing needed capital in them. As a result, these aging projects are locked into a long, slow, downward spiral. It is essential that something be done before more of these projects go into bankruptcy or fall altogether out of the Nation's stock of affordable housing. I believe that the bill I am introducing provides a solution to the problem that will work and that is very cost-effective. Except for some technical refinements to tighten the bill's provisions, the bill is the same as the legislation I introduced last year as S. 1986. In the first place, the bill targets the projects which are most at risk. These are projects assisted by HUD under the old section 221(d)(3) below market rate interest rate program or the section 236 program, or projects insured under the section 221(d)(3) market rate or section 221(d)(4) programs, and assisted under section 8. In all cases, the projects must be at least 10 years old and at least a majority of the units in the projects must be occupied by tenants whose income was no more than 80 percent of the area median income when they first became tenants. According to HUD, there are almost 1 million units in the affordable housing projects that meet the bill's criteria. These projects are located in every State in the country. The bill offers special tax benefits to new investors who agree to buy these affordable housing projects, invest the necessary capital to fix them up, and maintain them for low-income tenants. It will be the responsibility of HUD in each case to determine how much new capital must be invested in the project to make it financially and physically sound, but in no event may the capital improvements equal less than 10 percent of the adjusted basis of the rental property. In exchange, the bill reduces from 27\1/2\ years to 15 years the depreciation schedule for eligible projects purchased after the bill's effective date. It also provides that any investor in the project may claim annually up to $50,000 of losses from such projects without regard to the passive loss rules. Any project will lose its special tax benefits if it ceases to serve low-income tenants. The Low-Income Housing Preservation Act specifically provides that any project claiming benefits under its provisions could not also benefit from the low-income housing tax credit, which provides tax credits and limited passive loss relief to those investing in low- income housing. As a practical matter, the tax credit has not been widely used to preserve the existing projects targeted by the bill I am introducing today. Under the low-income housing tax credit, the amount of tax credits available to each State is limited by law and I understand that State and local authorities have chosen as a general matter to use their credits on the construction of new projects rather than the preservation of existing projects. This bill will compliment the low-income housing tax credit by providing a deduction specifically for those investing in existing projects. Mr. President, it is clearly in the public interest to help ensure the continued existence of these projects. The tenants will benefit as the existing owners are replaced with new owners with new capital, and a new willingness to preserve and improve the projects. The local community and the local economy will benefit from the work done in the neighborhood improving the projects, from the general improvement in the appearance of the neighborhood, and by the lower crime rates that go along with refurbished buildings. The taxpayer benefits because the number of projects that go into bankruptcy and end up in HUD's portfolio will be reduced, and because HUD will find it earlier to dispose of projects already in its portfolio. Over the longer run, the taxpayers will save the cost of directly funding the needed capital improvements to the existing projects, or the cost of constructing new units that must be built when the existing projects are lost from lack of financial support. I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask the Chair notify me when I have consumed 14 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this is probably one of the most important issues we are going to be asked to debate in this Congress, or maybe several Congresses. I suggest if the Senate today was debating whether Members of the Senate should be allowed to have lunch with a lobbyist, the press gallery would probably be overflowing. They would be listening to every word we say on whether we should have lunch with lobbyists when we come to Washington. But here we are, talking about amending the Constitution of the United States, a decision that can affect every single individual American today--the press gallery looks like a hurricane has just blown through it. This is an incredibly important decision we are embarking on, taking on in a relatively short period of time--to amend the Constitution of the United States. The balanced budget amendment, it is like apple pie and motherhood and the San Francisco Forty-Niners, everybody loves it in concept. But the devil is really in the details of what we are talking about, and I suggest the details are well hidden. Details about what this means are still in the dark and I suggest that is not the way the U.S. Senate and Congress of the United States should legislate. I think we have an obligation to be honest and frank with the American people, and tell them what we are getting ready to do to them and to the respective 50 States of the United States. I will start off by saying I support the balanced budget amendment. I have supported it in the past. I have voted for it in the past. I think it is incredibly important that the Federal Government do what most of the States do, although they differ and do it in a very different fashion with the type of budgets they have to keep in balance. They have a capital budget and an operating budget. If the Federal Government had a capital budget and an operating budget, it would be a lot easier for us to balance the budget. We do not have that luxury like most of the States have. We have only one budget and everything is put in. So an effort to balance the budget by the year 2002 is a noble idea, one I support, but one that is not going to be very easy. My point is everybody is for this in concept but nobody knows the details. So many, in fact, are concerned about what the details really mean and how we are really going to go about doing it that the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, when they asked him what about spelling out the details of how you are going to do this so the people can see it, suggested that we really cannot talk about the details because if we do it nobody will vote for it. Is that not a heck of a statement to make in the Congress of the United States? That the details are so difficult, and what we are asking the American people to face having happen to them is so difficult to face we cannot tell them about it because, guess it. What kind of principles does that stand for? What does that say? We have to pass this in the dark because if we open it up nobody will vote for it? Are we telling the 50 State legislatures if we tell you exactly what this means you will never pass it so we are not going to tell you what it means, we are just going to give you a title and the title says we are going to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002? If it is good enough to do it is good enough to do in the daylight. Why do we have to do it in the dark? What is wrong with telling them what a balanced budget by the year 2002 really means? We have to understand in Washington that this balanced budget amendment is not something we are doing here by ourselves. We cannot balance the budget in Washington, amend the Constitution in Washington with a balanced budget amendment, without a partnership arrangement with the States. They have to ratify the amendment that we send to them; 38 States have to analyze it, take a look at it, and say: Our legislators say this is good policy; we will vote to put a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Constitution. So they have to be involved. It is a partnership between the Federal Government and the various States in amending the Constitution of the United States. Therefore I suggest the States need to know exactly what this is going to mean-- not in Washington, but what it means in the various State capitals around the United States. And I suggest it is not enough for us to say, ``trust us,'' here in Washington--a very novel idea at best. Trust us to do what is right. Trust us to pass this in a way that you are going to be very happy with, trust us to do the right thing that is not going to abnormally affect your States and your citizens. Trust us to make it in a way that you will like. But do not, do not ask us to tell you what it is all about, because you know if we tell you what it really involves you may not vote for it and, boy, would that not be terrible? So please trust us. President Ronald Reagan used to have a great line when he was talking about the Soviet Empire and all the meetings they had. All the meetings were going fairly well and Reagan would get up in the press conference and say, ``trust but verify.'' It was a great line. It made sense. We wanted to make sure that, yes, we trusted the Soviets to do what was right because that is what they told us, but he also said yes, but let us verify. Let us make sure the trust is more than a promise to do it right, that we actually see in writing what they are going to do. Trust but verify. The right-to-know amendment that we are suggesting to be added to this balanced budget amendment is really that: Trust but verify. Tell the States what it is going to mean when that balanced budget amendment hits the capital steps in the various State capitals. What does it mean? I spoke to the National Governors' Conference the other day and I asked the Governors, I said, Governors: What are you going to say to the President of your senate or the speaker of your house when this amendment hits the steps of your capital and you submit it for them to ratify and those gentlemen or ladies come up and say: Governor, what does it mean for us to vote yes to ratify this amendment? What does it mean to my State of Louisiana? Does it mean we are going to have programs cut and if so which ones are we going to have to cut or eliminate or change? Governor, does it mean we are going to have to increase taxes on the State level if the Federal Government quits giving us these moneys for these programs? Under the current suggestion of our Republican colleagues, do you know what the answers would be of the Governor? ``I don't know. They didn't tell me. They just said we are going to balance the budget. I don't know how we are going to do that. They never told me that. I'm sure they are going to do it right. Trust them.'' I suggest any State legislature that is comfortable with the concept of trusting Washington to do something that makes them feel good and solves their problems without giving them an unnecessary burden has not been in State office very long. Trust but verify. I looked at the Department of the Treasury. These are folks who crunch numbers, that wear the green eyeshades, and they really work on numbers all the time. They are not political appointees. These are economists who have probably been through several administrations. Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, the past president of the National Governors Association, has done a tremendous job in this area. He was concerned, just as I am, and he wrote the Treasury Department. He said, ``Can you tell me, making various assumptions, what a balanced budget amendment would mean to the various States?'' That is a partnership idea. Remember? It is not just us doing it. The States want to know how it is affecting them. Governor Dean wrote to the Treasury Department and said, ``Give me a projection as to what it means to the various 50 States if the Congress passes a balanced budget amendment which requires a balanced budget by the year 2002.'' He got an answer from the Treasury Department. He mentioned all 50 States. I am particularly interested in one State, the State of Louisiana, that I represent. They said this--this is really important information--about the impact of the balanced budget amendment and the Contract With America on the State of Louisiana. They said that for all calculations if a balanced budget is achieved by the year 2002 through across-the-board spending cuts that exclude defense and Social Security--that is probably a fairly reasonable assumption. Our colleagues on this side are talking about increasing defense spending. I think in some areas we need to increase. I would agree with them in some areas. We just had our colleague from Nevada saying do not cut Social Security. Does anybody believe that this Congress or the next Congress or any Congress is going to slash Social Security in order to balance the budget? I doubt it. So I think this assumption is fairly significant, and probably pretty reasonable. Here is what it said about my State. A balanced budget amendment would reduce annual Federal grants in Louisiana State government by $2 billion. There is $1.5 billion per year in lost funding for Medicaid. My State has a $750 million shortfall in Medicaid this year without the balanced budget requirement being in effect. It would mean $94 million per year in lost highway trust funds. What is going to happen to the roads of Louisiana? Are they going to crumble and fill up with water? There will be $48 million per year in lost funding for welfare programs, AFDC for our children; $324 million per year in lost funding for education, for job training, and the environment, housing, and other areas. Talk about the devil is in the details. This is really devil in the details. Then it said Louisiana would have to increase State taxes by 27.8 percent across the board to make up for the loss in grants. A 27- percent tax hike? I think not. Louisiana is not going to raise taxes 27 percent. They are not going to raise them 2 percent. The conditions in the State do not allow it. It is not good fiscal policy. Some of my particular colleagues said that is just the Treasury Department's assumptions, and that is not correct, and you cannot depend on that. Fine. Tell them what they can depend on. If it is not these assumptions that are going to go into play, let us know what these assumptions are. Tell us by showing the States what we are going to have to do to get to that point in the year 2002 when the budget is in balance so that when that State legislature, when the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, goes to the other legislators and asks them, ``Bob, Susan, Bill, I need your vote on this,'' they will say, ``Well, you know, if it is going to mean we have to raise taxes 27 percent, I do not think that is a great idea. I am not going to vote for that,'' because they will have the right to say the Federal Government is getting ready to stick it to the States, getting ready to stick it to them in the dark because we are not telling them what it is all about. I would suggest very simply, if these numbers that the Treasury Department have presented here are not accurate, then, fine. But we in the Congress have an obligation to give them accurate figures as to how we are going to Here is the resolution that the Governors have adopted, the Democratic Governors. Everybody was all for it. They thought they were going to make us do something that was uncomfortable. Now they are figuring out how it directly affects them. They are saying, ``Wait a minute.'' The Democratic Governors said: We support a federally balanced budget amendment. The Democratic Governors believe the citizens of this country also deserve the right to know the implications of a federally balanced budget amendment. Congress must detail its plans to balance the budget before sending the resolution to the States for ratification. I think that is at least the minimum that we can do here at the Federal level as we debate this particular resolution. I suggest that it is important for us to let the States know what we are talking about doing to them. Final point: Some of my colleagues on this side have said, ``Well, we cannot do that. We do not know what it is going to be like 7 years from now.'' I mean we do not know the economic conditions. We cannot project out 7 years. Last year and the year before last we passed the budget reconciliation bill. We did exactly what we are talking about doing today for 5 years. Would my colleague, since they cannot go 7 years, at least tell the States what they can expect for 5 years? We do that all the time. Every bill we bring up has a 5-year glidepath. How much are we going to lose in taxes? How much are we going to raise? What kind of programs are going to have to be cut to meet certain goals? Let me ask my colleagues who say we cannot do it for 7, would you go 5? Would you consider we do a budget resolution for 5 years and spell it out for 5 years as part of this balanced budget amendment? At least the State of Louisiana would know what it is going to be like for 5 years. I will go 5 years if we cannot go 7. Do not tell them we cannot go 5 because we do that all the time. When we passed the budget reconciliation years ago, we cut the deficit by one-half trillion dollars. Not one Republican colleague stepped up to the plate to support that because it was tough. I would simply suggest that it is not that we cannot do it, but rather that we will not do it. It is easy to pass a balanced budget amendment in general terms, but this Congress, I would suggest, does not have the courage or the wherewithal or the strength to tell the States what it really means to them. How is it going to affect them? A budget resolution accompanying this balanced budget amendment would let the States know what we are really getting ready to do to them. Shifting the burden of taxation is really easy. It is real easy. I will tell you. If I was a State, I would want this Congress and any Congress to accompany that balanced budget amendment with a budget resolution that spells out exactly what it is going to mean. Without that, we do not have a partnership. Without that, they do not have the information to make the right decision. I want to give it to them. I think that they ought to look at it and decide whether that is what they want to ratify. But do not ask them to do it in the dark. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to comment on the event that occurred this weekend on Saturday and congratulate the President of the United States for calling, for the first time, a bipartisan summit on the issue of welfare reform. The President of the United States, President Clinton, spent almost 5 hours sitting in an all-day meeting at the Blair House, and in that meeting were Republican Governors, Democratic Members of the House, Democratic Members of the Senate, as well as Republican Members of the Senate. It was truly a bipartisan effort to discuss, I think, one of the most pressing problems that is facing this Congress today; that is, how do we fundamentally reform a system that I think everybody agrees is fundamentally flawed. I think everyone in that room agreed that welfare as we know it today does not serve well the people who are on it nor does it serve very well the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers of the United States. I think that we found in that meeting that there was a great deal of common agreement about some of the things that we should embark upon to try to fundamentally reform welfare. I think the Governors said essentially, ``We would like to have more responsibility. Let us be innovative. Let us try to suggest things that work in a particular State,'' like my State of Louisiana that may not work in Vermont or in Mississippi or in California or any other State in the country. ``Let us be innovative. Let us come up with solutions to welfare that fit the people in our respective States.'' I think there is a common sense of agreement around that particular proposition. There was also, I think, common agreement that there should be time limits; that people should not be able to be on public assistance forever if, in fact, they are able to perform work in the private sector or even in the public sector. But I think, Mr. President and my colleagues, that something has happened, particularly since the November election. I think we have lost the proper focus of what welfare reform should concentrate on. We have heard wonderful speeches about illegitimacy and the problem that it is, and it is. We have heard speeches about crime related to welfare. We have heard speeches about the breakup of the family which is a result of welfare programs. We have heard speeches about teen pregnancy and what we should do to try to eliminate it in the problem areas in which we see it occurring. But I think the fundamental focus of welfare reform should be work. The fundamental focus should be how do we get a person who is a welfare recipient into a job, because I believe that the best social program that we could ever write is a good job. You could talk about how to solve the problems of illegitimacy and crime and breakup of the family and all of these other very important issues, but the fundamental focus, I think, has to be on how do we refocus our attention on work and how do we get that person from dependency into the work force. Now, the President's first proposal in this area was a good start. He said, ``Look, there should be a time limit on welfare. It should be no more than 2 years. And then we should increase the opportunities for education and training.'' But he did not provide the missing link, which is: How do we, after we reach that point, get the person from welfare into the work force? One of the first Republican proposals really just suggested a time limit--2 years, and that is it--but it did not address the fundamental problem of getting the person on welfare after that 2 years into the work force. The latest Republican proposal seems to say, ``Let's have block grants and give it to the States.'' I addressed the Governors Conference this weekend, both the Democratic Governors and the National Governors Conference. I suggested to them to be careful. Do not let Congress put all of the welfare problems in a box and send the box to the States and say, ``Here, it's yours.'' And then, when the Governors and the legislators on the State level open up that box, they see a lot of problems, but they do not see any solutions and they do not see any money to help them solve the problems. I suggest that is not a solution. That is passing the buck through a block grant to the States. What I think we have to do is recognize that we on the Federal level who raise taxes to pay for these programs have a fundamental responsibility to see to it that these tax dollars are used in a way that truly improves welfare as we know it, that provides real answers and suggestions on what should be done. Yes, of course, maximize the flexibility to the States. I support that very strongly. But also work with the States. Do not walk away from our responsibility as Federal legislators, who have a responsibility to the Federal tax dollar to see that it is used wisely and not wasted, who have a real responsibility to come up with some ideas and suggestions as to what needs to be done. Let me suggest one approach that has been developed by myself, along with others, including the Progressive Policy Institute of the Democratic Leadership Council, which spent a great deal of time working on this effort, together with Republicans who have commented on it. The Hudson Institute, essentially a Republican think tank, is one, I believe, that likes this idea. I have discussed this with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Hank Brown, who I believe will hopefully be joining with me as a cosponsor of this effort. Here it is: I suggest that there is a missing part of the puzzle, there is a missing link, if you will, between the welfare recipient and the job. How do we get this person into this position, which I happen to think is the best social program that we could ever devise. I suggest that we consider taking existing welfare subsidies and use them to create job placement vouchers. When a welfare recipient comes into his State welfare office seeking assistance, he enters into a contract arrangement with the State welfare office and receives a voucher that is good for payment. He gets a list of organizations, both public and private, that are in the job placement business. That welfare recipient enters into a contract arrangement with one of these corporations to help them find a job. Some of these organizations will interview this welfare recipient and say, ``They are ready to go into the workplace right now. They have the training. They are just down on their luck. We can find this person a job tomorrow.'' And they put that person in that job the next day. Others will look at a welfare recipient and say, No, this person needs more training or education or on-the- job training. We know just the job that fits this person's ability. We are going to put them in it because that job has on-the-job training, on-the-job skill training and education that will fit this particular welfare recipient's needs. We can put them in this job next week. Others will look at the welfare recipient and say, No, this person really needs to brush up on reading and writing and arithmetic and basic English skills. They are going to have to have 6 weeks or 6 months of training, but then I know exactly where I can place that person after that particular period of time. Now, the essential feature of this is that we are talking about privatizing the job placement portion of finding a welfare recipient a job. There are a number of institutions that are doing this right now. Let me refer you to America Works, which has programs in New Jersey and New York. Let me talk about Cleveland Works, which has a similar program in the city of Cleveland. The Goodwill Industries work program in the State of Florida and also in the State of Louisiana is this type of program. Here is the good feature about this particular suggestion. That private sector corporation, when they enter into that contract with the welfare recipient and receive a voucher to find them a job, only is going to get paid when that welfare recipient gets the job, No. 1, and stays in that job, No. 2, for a certain period of time. Somewhere between 7 months to 1 year has been suggested. Let me tell you what that does to both parties. It creates a tremendous incentive for that job placement service to find that welfare recipient a job that is a good job and one that they stay in, because they know they do not get paid unless they put that person in a job situation that meets their skills and allows them to stay in it for a year or more. Many of our welfare recipients will take a job, they will stay there 2 days or 2 weeks, and they quit. They are back on welfare, because they have not been put in the right circumstances that meets their ability to perform. think, provides the missing link or the missing part of the puzzle between a person who is on welfare and the job they need to be put into. If you tell a company that they are only going to get paid if they find that welfare recipient a job that they stay in for a year, then one important thing happens. They pay a lot of attention to getting that person into the right job, because they know if they put them in the wrong job and that only lasts for 1 week, they are not going to get paid. So they make sure that the person has the proper skills and training to fit into a particular job that will allow them to stay in that job for a year or more. I would suggest, Mr. President, that in places where this type of program has been tried, a number of good things have happened. No. 1, we have saved the State a lot of money, because if a person gets into a job position, he is earning a salary, paying taxes and is no longer on welfare. The State who has contracted with these private placement centers are paying the private placement center a lot less than they are paying the welfare recipient when he or she is on welfare. Therefore, the concept of privatizing the missing link between the welfare recipient and the job that he or she needs is provided by this concept that we are suggesting today. Mr. President, I think that welfare should not and cannot be a partisan issue. If it is, we will never solve it. We have to reach out to our Republican colleagues, and they to us, to sit down and come up with real solutions to a very serious problem in this country. All of these other problems that I talked about--illegitimacy and teen pregnancy and breakup of the family, the increase in the crime rate--I think if we resolve the welfare issue in this country we will have created the best social program that we could ever create: That is, a good job. And a good job brings about responsibility and creates opportunities and helps solve the other tangential problems which are very, very serious indeed. I am suggesting that the missing part of the puzzle can be replaced with a job placement voucher. We will be introducing such legislation that still allows the State maximum discretion that they need to tailor the needs of their respective State. I think if we move in this direction, we will have taken a giant step toward doing what the American people would like Members to do. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in morning business.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and my colleagues, I remember when I was practicing law in Louisiana as a very young lawyer. One of the senior lawyers was explaining to me how we should proceed in a courtroom. His suggestion was, If you don't have the facts on your side when you are arguing your case, well, you should talk about the law. But if you do not have the law on your side and you are handling a case in court, you should talk about the facts. He went on to suggest if you do not have either one on your side, you ought to just stand up and shout and walk around the courtroom and act like you know what you are talking about. Mr. President, I would suggest that some of the Republican rhetoric that I have heard in talking about national service takes the approach if you do not have the facts on your side, just make them up and say whatever you want about a program in order to try to show that it is not a good program. I think it is very important that we stick to the facts when we talk about programs and things we do in Government. I think the public gets so much misinformation that it is very important to try to point out when the facts are wrong when we talk about programs. I start off by making these comments because I was really very surprised by the Senator from Iowa, who was on the floor earlier, his remarks regarding national service that I read in the Congressional Record. I supported the program. It was the type of initiative that the President ran on 2 years ago, the type of program that I think is a good program. When I read the gentleman's statements in the Congressional Record, I was flabbergasted. I said, This cannot be true. In essence, what the Senator was saying was that the AmeriCorps Program, part of the National Service Program, was costing $70,000 per student--$70,000 per student--in order to help kids go to college. I said that is ridiculous; I am not going to spend $70,000 a year to send kids to college. I found out some serious mistakes, in my opinion, were made about characterizing this program that is costing $70,000 a student in Pennsylvania, in the city of Philadelphia. What I found out was that the mistake that was made in using these facts was the fact that they did not take into consideration private law firms that were contributing to this individual's salary; they did not take into consideration the Philadelphia Bar Association's contribution in this particular area. When he added up what the private sector was going to do with up to 11 full-time workers, he came up with the figure of $70,000, when in truth the Federal Government's contribution and the cost to the taxpayers was only $4,911. That is a big difference from $70,000. The AmeriCorps Program, the National Service Program, is really what I think Republicans have always been talking about. Let us get away from giveaway programs. Let Members terminate programs, and just give money away from Washington to get people to do certain things. The essence of what AmeriCorps is all about--and we have had up to 200,000 young men and women in this country volunteer to participate in the AmeriCorps Program. It is a wonderful concept. It builds on the Peace Corps Program. By the way, Peace Corps Program volunteers get a stipend; they are paid. Just like the Vista Program has young men and women in this program, that participate in the program and do wonderful things, they get a small salary, as well. The concept of AmeriCorps, and why I think Republicans and Democrats alike should be supportive of it, is because it is a partnership between the Government and the citizens of this country. It talks about community, responsibility, reciprocity; it talks about saying if the Government is going to help me to go to college, I have an obligation to reciprocate and give something back. What they give back in the AmeriCorps Program is doing community work, doing legal work in the communities, working in a law enforcement program, in a drug rehabilitation program, in a nursing program, an environmental cleanup program, as they are doing in my State of Louisiana, as we are doing in Louisiana where we have young AmeriCorps students who are working in the sheriffs department and local law enforcement. Mr. President, they are giving something back to a Government that has helped them go to college. It is a partnership. It is not a giveaway program. It does not cost $70,000 for one young student to be able to participate in this program. It is asking the local community to say, do you need these types of students working in your local town? Most of them are saying, Yes, we need some help. We need some help in the environment. We need some help in drug enforcement programs and drug rehabilitation programs. So the AmeriCorps Program is not a giveaway program; it is a program that encourages young people to participate. We have an all-volunteer army. They get paid, too. They get a salary so they can survive and so they can live. I do not think they detract from an all-volunteer military. The basic fact is we should be encouraging young men and women to give something back to a Government that has helped them get an education. As President Clinton has said so many times in this country today, what you earn is going to be based on what you learn. The facts are dramatic, that a young person, a young male in this country that graduates from a 4-year college earns about 83 percent more in his lifetime than a person who has not been able to go to college; 83 percent more in a lifetime. That is not just pie in the sky. That is real facts. That is something that we as a nation should be encouraging. And we do not encourage it under national service by a giveaway program; we encourage it to be a partnership by saying to that young man or young woman that if you would like to go to college and you need some help, we will help you pay for your tuition. But it is not free; it is not free. You have an obligation to try to give something back to your Government--not in India, not in Japan, not in Europe, not in a Third- World country, but right here in America. That is why it is called AmeriCorps. It is not a foreign aid program. We are not sending kids to other nations to help them solve their problems. We are saying that if you accept this challenge, we will let you work in your local community, back where people know you, where you may ultimately end up working as a citizen in a partnership with your local citizens in your local community. [[Page S1132]] That is why when someone says, well, this program costs $70,000 a student, it is absolutely not factual. It does not cost $70,000 for the taxpayers of this country. What we have in Philadelphia in this instance is a situation where the local bar association and several law firms in the country have helped put up money to pay the salaries for up to 11 AmeriCorps students who will be working in that community as lawyers and as law students, helping people that have problems, helping people understand the Government and this system. The Federal Government is going to put out $4,900 to allow that student to work in that community. We have helped them get a college education and they are paying back with their services, and getting enough of a stipend from the Federal Government to at least survive and to be able to continue that work and do it full time. We are talking about full-time workers. This is not a giveaway program. Does it cost anything? Of course, it costs. But how much does it cost to build a prison? We spend $300 million for a national program to try to get people to have a partnership with their Government, to get a college education, and give something back to the community. We spend billions of dollars, I suggest, building prisons in this country and running prisons in this country, to incarcerate young men and women who have gone by the wayside, maybe because they did not have a National Service Program, because nobody cared. Nobody told them they have a reciprocal obligation to give something back to a Government that has helped them get a college education. I have heard Speaker Gingrich in the other body talk, time and time again, about communities, family, and service, and giving something back to the communities. This program is an example of giving something back to the communities, of national service, of saying: I want to help my Government do better. If my Government helps me get a college education, I am pleased, but I also recognize that it is not free. I will give back to my Government in the same ratio that they have given to me. I think that produces a stronger community. I think that produces stronger families. I think that produces a sense of what America is all about. So I would suggest when we talk about national service, let Members first get our facts straight. Let Senators first understand the real cost. I suggest, second, let Senators join together if there are problems, and let us improve the program. Let us not, by incorrect factual information, try to kill a program that I suggest is in keeping with what America is all about. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have just heard a very profound and a very significant statement by the senior Senator from my State of Louisiana, very significant in what it means to my State of Louisiana, significant in what it means to this Senate by his announcement--very profound, indeed, because of what it says about an individual and what his priorities are and what he thinks public service is all about. When our State looks back over the long history of service by my colleague, people will remember a number of tremendous contributions and contributions yet to be made in the last 2 years of his term in the Senate. I look back and remember the David Duke campaign and a Bennett Johnston who stopped him in his tracks. I look at projects throughout our State of Louisiana: The Red River project, which would clearly not be there except for his strong commitment and never-ending determination to see it started and completed, and it will be because of his effort. I look back and see ideas like risk assessment, which is a very popular idea in 1995, that my colleague championed even before it was an idea in most of our minds. It is now on its way to being the law of the land. I look back and see a number of universities that today, tomorrow, and in the future will be doing research in science projects which will benefit not only this generation but generations to come because of the wisdom of my senior Senator in seeing that Federal dollars were wisely spent in those areas. I look back and see the very essence of our State of Louisiana through his efforts in wetlands restoration and wetlands protection that literally future generations will have a State to live in and to enjoy because of his great efforts today and yesterday in devising Federal programs to help those wetlands remain a part of our great State. Indeed, his services will stand as a monument to all those young men and women who today perhaps are a little turned off by the concept of public service, who think that somehow if you are there, you are not doing the work of the average citizen. Bennett Johnston's effort has always been to help people in our State to live a better life and to have a better future. So I think that his service will stand as a monument and an incentive to encourage other young people, men and women, to become involved in public service because public service is epitomized by his career, and he still has 2 very important years remaining. Public service is more than just being a critic. It is more than just being someone who complains about the status quo. Public service, as Bennett Johnston has carried it out, is public service that means helping to solve problems and helping to construct things that help people and to do things in a very positive sense. In his service in the Senate--and it has been my privilege to be his junior colleague for so long--he will always be remembered as a doer and a person who believed in this institution and who believed in making things happen for the good of all of us. His service will be a shining monument of that type of attitude, of what public service is all about. I congratulate him and his family for what I know must have been a difficult decision, but I applaud him for having the courage to make it and to serve with all of us over these years in such an exemplary fashion. It gives us a lot after which to pattern our lives and careers.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would each vote ``nay.''

Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent because of Illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce four separate bills that will help create jobs in the U.S. domestic energy industry and will help achieve domestic energy security. These four bills are: deepwater production tax incentives, clarification of the tax treatment of geological and geophysical costs, marginal well production tax incentives, and clarification of the financial responsibility requirements under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Mr. President, oil imports are still too high. We continue to import over 50 percent of our oil needs. The warning signals are here. We can change politics as usual--the politics of crisis management--and we can work now to avert an energy crisis in the future. The domestic energy industry continues to decline. Thousands of oil industry workers have been laid off and it looks like many more may become unemployed in the near future. Over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the oil and gas industry in the last 10 years; by some estimates, 40,000 to 50,000 may have been lost in 1992 alone. Our national security depends on access to dependable domestic energy reserves. Unfortunately, our domestic oil and gas industry cannot turn on a dime. There is no magic spigot that can be turned on when the need for secure domestic oil reserves become acute. The expertise needed to develop oil and gas is highly skilled and trained, particularly now that the remaining domestic reserves are increasingly more difficult to recover. Unless we take steps today to help preserve a viable domestic industry, the next energy crisis may be chronic and very damaging to our economy. Unless we act to preserve a core of talent and capital in the United States, the domestic industry may not be able labor necessary to quickly add large increments to our overall domestic supply of oil and petroleum products. The jobs in the oil industry today are very different than those of yesterday. The reserves that are fast and easy to recover through simple hard labor are no more. Increasingly extraction of oil and gas requires very sophisticated technology that requires skilled and highly educated work force. The energy industry of today creates the kinds of jobs we want for tomorrow--high technology, high paying jobs. This country would never allow us to import over 50 percent of our food supply. Why is our energy supply any less important? Let's not forget the oil shocks of the 70's and let's not forget that several years ago we sent our young Americans to the Persian Gulf to protect our strategic interest in the oil there. These four bills are simple and easy steps that can be accomplished now that can help maintain a viable domestic energy industry. This is not just an oil and gas state issue. This is a national interest concern. Energy fuels our cars, heats our homes, runs our factories in every part of the country. Also, let's not forget the thousands of jobs that are created in other non-energy related sectors to service the energy industry: computers, metals, transportation, financial and other service industries. When domestic oil and gas producing increases so do the jobs created in all of these sectors. My bills address four major areas. First, to encourage production in the frontier areas of production, I am introducing legislation to provide a tax credit for deepwater Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] production, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, to help all producers afford sophisticated exploration technology, I am introducing legislation to allow for the immediate expending of geophysical and geological costs. Third, to prevent the needless plugging of marginal and stripper wells and to encourage new stripper and marginal well production, I am introducing legislation to provide tax incentives for existing and new marginal well production. Finally, to prevent the shutting down of onshore and offshore oil and gas producers because they cannot meet onerous Federal financial responsibility standards, I am introducing legislation to clarify the financial responsibility requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. More detail on each of these bills will follow. deepwater production incentives The first bill I am introducing today would provide a $5-per barrel tax credit for oil and gas produced from deep water production--defined as 400 meters or more. This legislation is vitally needed to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, reduce the trade deficit, maintain a vital infrastructure, create jobs, and minimize the risk of oil spills. An important part of our strategy to assure the availability of domestic supply is the development of the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS], in particular areas in the deep water, well over 1,200 feet. The OCS contains almost one quarter of all estimated remaining domestic oil and gas reserves; much of the reserves are in deep water. According to estimates from the Department of the Interior, there are 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Gulf of Mexico in waters of a depth of 200 meters or more. The costs of finding and producing oil and gas in deep water areas is astronomical; for example, a state-of-the-art rig in deep water, over 3,000 feet, can cost more than $1 billion, as opposed to $300 million for a conventional fixed leg platform in 800 feet of water. Based on similar large-scale projects, the development of the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico would create tens of thousands of jobs in the oil industry and a multiple of that in the general economy. The investment required to find, develop, and produce 5 to 10 billion barrels of oil could range from 50 to 100 billion dollars. Since various studies have estimated that every billion dollars worth of investment could create 20,000 jobs; a large scale effort could ultimately create up to one million jobs. Under current economic conditions, most oil and gas potential in the deep water Gulf of Mexico will not attract investment, due to the high cost of finding and producing hydrocarbons in a hostile deep water environment. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to provide a $5-per-barrel credit for production of qualified fuels, defined as domestic crude and natural gas produced from a property located under at least 400 meters of water. Unlike the general business credit, the deep water credit cannot be carried back 3 years. Unused credits can be carried forward 15 years. The credit could be used to offset the corporate alternative minimum tax since many companies in the oil production and services industries are subject to the minimum tax. Mr. President, I must emphasize that I have designed the credit to minimize revenue loss to the Government. Since there is typically 5 to 8 years between discovery and production of oil and gas in commercial quantities, there should not be a negative near-term impact on tax revenues. In fact, in the first years, the deep water credit could raise revenue. During this interim time period, significant investments will be made to assure that the oil and gas be brought to market. Suppliers, contractors, and employers will pay taxes on the additional income generated by these development activities. Their increased spending will increase the earnings and stimulate employment in many industries throughout the United States. Also, contrary to popular belief, oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf is environmentally sound. The most recent data obtained from the Minerals Management Survey shows that only 2 percent of the world's oil spills are the result of Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] development. In contrast, 45 percent of the world's oil spills come from transportation related, or tanker spills. The more we import, the higher risk there is of large oil spills. geological and geophysical expenses One very important fact about the domestic oil and gas industry that is too often overlooked, is that it is an extremely high-technology industry. Particularly now that reserves are harder to recover, exploring and producing these remaining reserves requires very sophisticated technology. Some of the most sophisticated technology used in any industry, even more sophisticated than that used in the air and space industry, is the use of 3-D seismic technology by the oil and gas industry. The basic purpose of these tools are to survey and interpret subsurface geology. Obviously, this very sophisticated technology is extremely costly. Currently, this kind of technology is the most economically viable for the major oil and gas producers. Independent oil and gas producers, who produce 31 percent of domestic crude oil and about 60 percent of domestic natural gas production, need greater financial access to this type of equipment. Therefore, this legislation that I am introducing today would allow oil and gas producers that incur geological and geophysical [G&G] costs to expense those costs rather than capitalize them regardless of whether a will is producing or dry. I understand the administration is also considering supporting a similar initiative on which I hope to work with them. marginal well production Last spring, a bipartisan group of House and Senate Members met with President Clinton to outline our concerns about the domestic energy industry. The president was given a list of proposals that was developed in consultation with the energy industry. That list included the deepwater credit, the G&G proposal and also a new idea for a marginal well production credit for new and existing wells. The third bill I am introducing today would create a new set of tax incentives for marginal production. Mr. President of the nation's 600,000 oil wells, more than 450,000 produce less than 3 barrels per day. These small wells are extremely sensitive to oil prices. Between October 1993 and March 1994, oil prices plunged more than 40 percent placing in jeopardy these wells. Energy policy is needed that protects this vital source of production during periods of low prices. There are two main elements of this proposal. First, for existing wells, the bill would provide a maximum $3 per barrel tax credit for the first 3 barrels of daily production from an existing marginal well--a well that produces less than 15 barrels per day or produces maximum $0.50 per thousand cubic feet [MCF] tax credit for the first 18 MCF of natural gas produced per day from a marginal gas well--a well that produces less than 90 MCF per day. In addition, the definition of marginal wells would be expanded to include high water cut property. The second major element of this bill is the creation of a new credit for newly drilled marginal wells. For those wells drilled after December 31, 1994 the following new credits would apply. Oil production would receive a maximum $3 per barrel for the first 15 barrels of daily oil production. Natural gas production would receive a maximum credit of $.50 per MCF for the first 90 MCF of daily natural gas production. To make sure that the tax incentives are truly targeted to when the price of oil and gas are the most threatening to domestic production, the benefit of these credits would phase out for oil when the price of oil is between $14 and $20 per barrel and for natural gas when gas prices reach between $2.49 and $3.55. financial responsibility requirements of the oil pollution act of 1990 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill and was designed to prevent oil spills and if oil spills do occur to make sure sufficient financial resources are available to clean up those spills. The statute establishes liability limits and requirements of financial responsibility to meet those limits. However, recent interpretation of the statute by the Department of the Interior indicates that legislative changes are needed to meet congressional intent in the area of financial responsibility for onshore facilities and to correct the overly burdensome financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities that threaten the viability of many offshore producers. When the Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act, it clearly intended that onshore facilities would not have to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility. However, a recent Interior Department Solicitor's opinion indicates that due to the interrelationship of several definitions in the act, that they interpret the statute to require financial responsibility be demonstrated by onshore facilities. Mr. President, clearly, Congress did not and does not want to require small marina operators or other onshore facilities to demonstrate $150 million of financial responsibility. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today clarifies the congressional intent on the law with respect to financial responsibility for onshore facilities. Also, I have proposed to give the Minerals Management Service the authority to require evidence of financial responsibility between $35 million and $150 million based on the amount of environmental risk posed by the facility. Current law is inflexible on this point, all offshore facilities must provide evidence of $150 million regardless of the amount of oil they handle, their history of oil spills, or other factors that would determine the true risk of oil spill. In addition, my bill would provide that any producer that handles less than 1,000 barrels of oil at any one time would be exempt from the financial responsibility requirement. Both the $35 million financial responsibility level and the 1,000 barrels were included in prior law-- the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Unless, this flexibility is provided for offshore facilities, the Oil Pollution Act requirements will freeze out small and independent companies that drill the majority of wells offshore. These onerous requirements, unless fixed, will lead to a loss of jobs in the oil and gas industry. This bill is a starting point. I expect the Domestic Petroleum Council to develop specific recommendations on the issue raised by the Oil Pollution Act in the near future. I look forward to seeing those and to working to further revise this legislation. There are other issues that we may have to address such as self-insurance, guarantor liability on which I hope we can get specific recommendations by the council. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will have an opportunity to support this legislation so that we can act on these proposals during this Congress.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we have all just undergone an election process, a great debate that has occurred in this country, culminating in the elections on November 8, which saw those of us who are Democrats lose the majority both in this body as well as in the other body. I think a great part of that debate was over the proper and legitimate role of Government as it affects the individual lives of the citizens of this country. Many traditional Democrats--not all, but many--have taken the view that the proper role of Government is to try to solve everybody's problem all of the time, and that necessarily meant that many of those suggestions were coming from Washington as to what those solutions should be. Many, not all, Republicans took the view that the role of Government was to get out of the way and that Government really had no role in helping people solve their problems, but that it was more of a survival of the fittest type of attitude that should be the predominant one by which we govern ourselves. I think both of those roles are not what the American people were talking about when they went to the polls on November 8. Many self- styled new Democrats take the view that the legitimate and proper role of Government is to help equip people to solve their own problems. Government's role is not to solve their problems, nor is Government's role to get out of the way and let the survival of the fittest be the rule of the day. But, rather, the proper role of Government is to try to help and equip people to be able to solve their own problems. That is a viewpoint that I think is proper and one that I share. In keeping with that perspective of what Government's role is, I have joined with Democratic leader Daschle and Senator Kennedy, of Massachusetts, in introducing legislation, which is S. 6, which is entitled the Working Americans Opportunity Act. I think it is legislation which all Members should carefully consider because it takes as its premise that the role of Government is to help people solve their own problems, to help them equip themselves to meet the needs and the problems they are facing. We all know that in today's society the average American worker has to change jobs several times in a lifetime. We all know that a great deal of the insecurity that Americans have in their daily lives is because they do not know whether the job they are in today will be there tomorrow. They do not know whether they will have the training and the skills to go out and seek a new job, perhaps in a new area, perhaps in a new profession, because they have not been properly trained. S. 6, the Working Americans Opportunity Act, provides the types of training, the types of opportunities that American workers need in order to equip themselves to meet the challenges of the future. President Clinton has in his proposal for a middle-class bill of rights a similar proposal. The President has said many times that what you earn is tied to what you learn in this country, and that is a very true statement. that in their lives they can earn more. What we do with this legislation is to build on the old GI bill with which so many Americans are familiar, where returning servicemen after World War II were given an opportunity to select a college, an institution they would like to attend, and the Government helped them equip themselves by giving them the money which allowed them to select where they wanted to go to college, and also to select what courses they would take. The Government did not make that decision. The Government in Washington, after World War II, did not tell young Americans where they had to go to college. It did not tell them, when they got there, what courses they had to take. It did not tell them in what they had to major. The Government at that time had faith in the individual American citizen to make that decision on their own because Government at that time felt the individual would make the right decision; they would take the courses they felt they were best able to do well in; they would go to the college they felt best suited their particular need. There was no bureaucracy or no Government in Washington that made that decision. That is one of the reasons why the GI bill was such a good piece of legislation and why thousands and thousands of Americans today have lived a better life, because someone had the intelligence back in the 1940's to offer legislation which made that type of career education possible for hundreds of millions of Americans. What we have offered today is building on that concept. It will give to Americans who have been dislocated because of a plant closing or because they have been fired, they have been laid off, vouchers to allow individuals to select the type of training they want, at the place they want, the type of program they want, they feel best suited they can handle, and then enroll and better themselves so they can earn more in later life. Mr. President and my colleagues, we have hundreds of programs in the Federal bureaucracy. We have agencies all over the place that have job training programs where bureaucrats in Washington are deciding for an individual in my State of Louisiana what is the best course they can take or where they should go to school. This legislation says the individual should have the ability to make that decision; that our role in Government is to give that person a voucher and let them decide where they want to go and what courses they want to take. I think this concept is one of which the President is supportive, one of which I think many of our Republican colleagues will be supportive because it eliminates the bureaucratic, governmental decision maker in Washington and allows the decision to be made back at the local level by the person who is going to benefit from that decision in the first place-- the individual who is going to benefit from these vouchers. I would point out that this concept of putting the workers in charge of their own fate rather than having their fate decided in Washington is going to accomplish a couple of things. No. 1, it would really I think for the first time allow the workers to take charge of their career, let them decide what they want to do instead of having that decision made in Washington. Second, I think allowing that individual to decide where they want to go and what school they would like to attend for the training they are seeking is going to provide competition among private and public institutions for that individual's interest, to compete for that individual's business. I think that competition will provide better services. Right now there is not a great deal of competition among training institutions because the Government makes the decision where these individuals have to go. There is no competition. This legislation would create competition among these schools to compete for those individuals coming to their institutions, and I think they would provide a better product. Third, competition would provide accountability for performance. Dissatisfied customers could vote with their feet, taking their business to more effective providers. And fourth, bureaucracies that run the current program would certainly be reduced. I am told by I think the General Accounting Office that we have literally hundreds of departments and agencies in Washington that run job training programs. We already spend literally billions of dollars in Washington on job training programs right now. Our legislation says we should not be spending any more money. It is a question of spending it more wisely. Our legislation takes money from existing bureaucratic programs in Washington and uses the dollars to create vouchers to give to individuals to let them make the decision as to where they can best get their best education and the best retraining to compete in today's modern world. The global economy that we are now talking about creates a lot of opportunities for Americans, but it also has created a lot of problems for Americans because many jobs people are involved in today are not going to be here tomorrow because of the changing global competition and environment. This Congress just in the last year passed a North American Free Trade Agreement. We passed a GATT agreement. That is going to make global competition more and more and create more opportunities for American workers and for American businesses. But we cannot do it if our workers are not trained. We cannot do it if our workers are still educated to work in jobs that are not the jobs of the future, that are not the jobs in a global environment with global competition. I think this legislation for the first time will say that we are going to recognize that individuals, citizens back home have the ability to make the decisions for themselves. But Government does have a role. It is not survival of the fittest. It is not just throwing everybody out there and saying some will survive and some will perish, but it is saying Government's role will be to help people make the best decisions for their lives. So I would suggest the legislation we have introduced today, the Working Americans Opportunity Act, is in keeping with that theory, that there is a legitimate role for Government to help equip our citizens to make their own decisions and to help them solve their problems. That is the role of Government I think most Americans share. I think it was one of the clear messages of the last election. I think all of us have to take heed of those results, Republicans and Democrats alike. This legislation is a major step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to consider joining with us in supporting this legislation as it has been introduced. Mr. President, I now yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.