John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to the managers of the Energy bill, I would like to speak for a couple minutes on a subject that is going to be coming up in the Senate next week and in the Senate Finance Committee on tomorrow. The subject is Medicare. I do not want to interfere with anybody who has a pending amendment, but I think this would be an appropriate time to make a few comments on this subject.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, the Senate will begin, this week in the Finance Committee--on Thursday, tomorrow--marking up a historic reform piece of legislation dealing with the subject of Medicare and prescription drugs for our Nation's older Americans. I think it is a historic opportunity for the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, to come together and produce a product that is something of which we can all be proud. Many Members of the Senate, when you talk about Medicare, would like the Federal Government to do everything and the private sector to not be involved at all. There are other Members, on the other hand, who would like the private sector to do everything and the Federal Government to not be involved at all. The answer to how we craft this legislation really is by trying to combine the best of what Government can do with the best of what the private sector can do. My colleagues, the bill that will be brought before the committee tomorrow, in a bipartisan fashion, under the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, does exactly that. I would like to take just a minute to try to explain what the bill will do in more general terms so everybody can get an idea what they are going to be looking at next week. A Medicare beneficiary, beginning next year, will have the opportunity to have a prescription drug discount card. That will be something they will start with at the beginning of the year. They will be able to take that card to their local drugstore and get anywhere from a 20-, 25-percent discount on the drugs they buy. In addition, we will provide a subsidy to low-income seniors, in addition to that discount card, to help them buy drugs. While that is happening, the Government will be engaged in trying to set up a process whereby, in the year 2006, Medicare beneficiaries will have more choices than they would otherwise. Under the principle of saying the Government should do what it does best and the private sector should do what it does best, we have established in the legislation a Medicare Program that says to seniors, if they want to stay right where they are in traditional Medicare, they will have the opportunity to do that, and they will also have the opportunity to get prescription drugs under their traditional Medicare Program. If they think that a new program being offered will be a better opportunity for them, they can voluntarily move into what we call Medicare Advantage, where they would also have access to a prescription drug plan. It is important to note that both of these opportunities, both of these choices, are Government-run programs. Both of those programs will be under HHS, Health and Human Services. Both of them will have the Federal Government supervising how the program is being run, to make sure no one in the private sector is scamming it or is not capable of producing the programs they are saying they can produce. That is what Government can do best--as well as help pay for them. If you are in traditional Medicare fee-for-service, all your doctor and hospital programs will be just like they are today. Then you will have the opportunity to have a prescription drug program which will have a standard benefit package spelled out in law. What we are talking about is a program with about a $35-a-month premium, with about a $275 deductible and a 50 percent coinsurance for seniors for the drugs for which they pay. That is a generous plan that is very similar to what we have as Members of Congress and Members of the Senate. That drug program, unlike the hospital and doctor benefits, will be provided by the private sector to bring about competition, to have companies come in and say: We will provide it at this amount. They can vary the premiums as long as the Federal Government would approve it. For example, someone may like a higher deductible, someone may like a lower deductible. They could make those adjustments within a range, but the Government would have to make sure that is acceptable and that is approved by HHS. If a senior--for example, most younger seniors and seniors going into the program in the future--would like to go into that type of program for everything--for doctors and hospitals and for drugs--if they think that is the good program for them, that gives them choice, they will start selecting the Medicare Advantage Program where they will get doctor coverage, hospital coverage, and prescription drug coverage. This will still be in HHS, but it will be run by a new, competitive agency within HHS--not micromanaged, not price fixing, as we have now, but a new, competitive agency within HHS which will be created in order to make sure that the new program is being run properly. It will be run very similarly to how our program is run that is for Federal employees. We have Federal health insurance, but they use a private delivery system, and the Government makes sure everybody follows the rules and that there is competition, there is choice--that some plans may be better than others--and they have an opportunity, every year, to take a look at what is being offered; and sometimes they will pick this plan, sometimes they may pick another plan, but they will have the choice to pick the plan that is best for them. So I think, in summary, what we have before the committee is a plan that combines the best of what the Government can do with the best of what the private sector can do. The programs will still be under Health and Human Services, whether you take this plan or that plan. I think when you have private companies competing, you will have private companies that will be more involved in doing risk management and preventive medicine, preventive health services for the individuals who are involved. The Federal Government does not do any of that. We simply fix prices and we do nothing with regard to risk management or preventive health care. So we will have an intense debate. We will have a markup in the Finance Committee on Thursday. Then this bill will come to the floor. I think we will have an opportunity to do something that I think, for the first time, gives seniors an opportunity to have a federally run program that provides private sector delivery, with choices that will benefit seniors. I think in the long term it will benefit all of us who are concerned about this. I commend Senator Baucus for his work and for working with the chairman, Senator Grassley, in putting together this package. The only way it is going to get done is bipartisan. Some will argue it is not enough, and I understand that, but this is 100 percent more than seniors have today. Congress should not walk away from a $400 billion program for providing prescription drugs to seniors because it is not more money, because that simply is not looking at what is possible and what is likely to happen in the real world. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to produce this package. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concerns about the actions of MCI/Worldcom. MCI committed fraud on a scale that is offensive. It deceived everyone--its employees and retirees, its shareholders and State and Federal officials. The SEC took a step in the right direction by punishing this company with the largest fine in corporate history. But I fear the rest of the Federal Government may not be following the lead of the SEC. For example, I understand that MCI has been given a contract, valued between $23 to $35 million, to build advanced wireless networks in Iraq. The Federal Government should not be rewarding bad actors with precious government contracts. Other press reports indicate MCI is also using the Tax Code to reap benefits that should not be available to companies that have committed such egregious fraud. I urge the Senate Finance Committee to investigate these allegations as soon as possible.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. As the Senator knows well, this transition period has a substantial impact on the shipyards and their workers who will be asked to construct these future vessels. After the decline in shipbuilding in the last quarter century, our ability to build naval ships of all kinds has been substantially reduced. During this period of transition, I am concerned, as well as you, that the shipyards retain their engineers and workers, so they may build the next generation of ships when these ships are mature.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment. This amendment was offered in the Senate Finance Committee. Republicans and Democrats joined to defeat this amendment. There is no question that the international tax laws need to be assessed. We have agreed to do that in the Finance Committee. The Republican leadership said they would look at all international tax laws and consequences. This is a retroactive tax break. This bill is supposed to be stimulative in the future, not in the past. This amendment will reward companies for what they did a long time ago when we ought to be looking at the bill in a prospective nature. A retroactive tax cut is not what we need. We ought to examine international tax laws. We have an agreement to do it in a bipartisan fashion. This does not belong in the bill at this time. I make a point of order that the amendment is nongermane under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this amendment was already offered in the Senate Finance Committee. It was defeated by a bipartisan vote of Republicans and Democrats in the Finance Committee. IRS should not be involved in setting the fees for CEOs in this country. They should not be involved in setting the fees for plumbers or electricians. And they should not be involved in setting the fees for attorneys who have had voluntary agreements between defendants and the plaintiffs about what they should be paid, which have been approved by the courts. All of these fees have been approved by the courts or by the arbitrator. They were voluntarily agreed to. Lawyers don't get paid by the hour in these cases; they get paid by the job. IRS should not determine what are correct payments for services.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield it if I have any time remaining.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I make a point of order the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask my amendment No. 663, which is at the desk, be reported.

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

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, most people think we are debating a tax cut bill. There are some tax cuts in the bill. But there is also a $35 billion tax increase--a $35 billion tax increase on schoolteachers who work overseas, ministers who work overseas, Catholic relief workers, charitable workers, and technicians who work overseas, earn income overseas, and pay taxes overseas. We are now changing the law to eliminate the exemption they have always traditionally enjoyed. They do not live in this country and don't get the benefits of living in this country, and therefore we give them a tax exemption. That has been eliminated in the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a $35 billion tax increase to pay for the dividend provisions of the legislation. We just voted, incidentally, for overseas corporations, if they bring their profits back to the United States--guess what we did. We voted to tax them at 5 percent for 1 year. But if an individual works overseas and makes money, we are now saying that your tax exemption has been eliminated; you will pay taxes in the country where you are getting a credit against your income tax, but you will pay taxes as if you lived--resided--and worked in United States. It is a $35 billion tax increase on people making $50,000 to $75,000 a year in order to pay for a dividend tax cut from which most people are not going to benefit. My amendment is paid for by reducing 3 years of the dividend reduction from 100 percent down to 65 percent elimination of the dividend tax. That is substantially more than we passed in the Finance Committee. You still get a major dividend tax cut, much larger than the Finance Committee passed and eliminate the taxes on individuals working overseas--middle-income and moderate-income people. We are robbing Peter to pay for Paul. Unfortunately, we are taking it from middle- income people.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, regarding a provision in the bill that provides needed clarification and helps to insure an accurate reflection of taxpayers' income. The provision I refer to resolves certain uncertainties that have arisen recently regarding the proper application of the income forecast method, which is the predominant cost recovery method for films, videotapes, and sound recordings. The provision merely reinforces the continued efficacy of existing case law and longstanding industry practice. For example, the provision clarifies that, for purposes of the income forecast method, the anticipated costs of participations and residuals may be included in a property's cost basis at the beginning of the property's depreciable life. This was the holding of the Ninth Circuit in Transamerica Corporation v. U.S. (1993). The provision also clarifies that the Tax Court's holding in Associated Patentees v. Comm., 4 TC 979 (1945), remains valid law. Thus, taxpayers may elect to deduct participations and residuals as they are paid. Finally, the provision clarifies that the income forecast formula is calculated using gross income, without reduction for distribution costs. I would like to confirm my understanding with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus that by providing these clarifications and eliminating uncertainty the provision was intended to put to rest needless and costly disputes.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank both of my distinguished colleagues for this important clarification. I hope this puts to rest any uncertainty and wasteful disputes regarding the proper application of the income forecast method. dividends

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I ask the Chair to notify me if I go for 10 minutes. I do not want to go more than that.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair and I thank my distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Montana, for yielding me this time. My colleagues, let me just say that the bill the Finance Committee has brought to the floor is a tax cut piece of legislation which also raises significant amounts of taxes on American citizens. Tax cuts are a wonderful thing to do, for those of us who are elected officials. It is great to say we have cut taxes by x billions of dollars, to send out a press release to our constituents back home saying we cut taxes by x billions of dollars. It is also important to read the fine print. The fine print in this legislation tells the rest of the story. And the rest of the story is that, among other provisions in the bill, there is a provision that increases taxes by $35 billion on American citizens. Tax cuts have to be done in one of two ways. You can cut taxes by increasing the size of the deficit and passing it on to the next generation. This bill does that. We have the largest deficit projections we have ever had in the history of our country. And now we are saying, on top of that, we want to make it larger. We are going to have a tax cut in order to make the deficit larger in the hopes that it may generate some jobs. That is one way to pay for the tax cut. The other way is to raise taxes in other areas. This bill does that, too. Lo and behold, during the markup of the Senate Finance Committee, there was a provision that had not had 1 day of hearings, had not had 1 hour of hearings--in fact, it had not had 1 minute of hearings because it was never brought up in the committee--to discuss a $35 billion tax increase on American workers who work overseas, sometimes in very difficult parts of the world. That tax break they got was being eliminated--totally eliminated--without one word of discussion, one day of hearings about whether this was the right thing to do, or about whether it should be to this extent, whether it should be less than this, or anything. In addition to increasing the size of the deficit, we have in just this one provision a $35 billion tax increase on American workers. Why do American workers get a credit for working overseas? Because, No. 1, they are not in this country. They don't enjoy the benefits and the security of living in this country, and, therefore, the argument correctly says that in order to encourage American workers to have jobs overseas instead of hiring foreign citizens, the Tax Code says that we are going to give American workers an $80,000 tax exemption on wages that they earn overseas. In many cases, they work in very dangerous places. In most cases, they don't get the privileges and the security of living in the United States. The paper just today talks about seven such Americans who lost their lives in Saudi Arabia because of a terrorist activity. That is just in one country. At the appropriate time I will be offering an amendment to strike the tax increase of $35 billion in the legislation which is currently before this body. We have had expressions of support for my amendment to take out the elimination of this tax credit for American citizens from the Chamber of Commerce, from the National Association of Manufacturers, from the National Foreign Trade Council, from the Financial Executives International, from the U.S. Council for International Business, from the Association of General Contractors of America, from the American Council of Engineering Companies. To show that the support is there from companies other than business-oriented companies, we have nonprofit organizations such as the Catholic Relief Services, with which the Chair is familiar, and the International Rescue Commission that have expressed support for retaining section 911 which the current bill eliminates. The point is, we are going to have to find a way to reinstate. We will have to find a way to cover $35 billion because tax cuts are not for free. We have to pay for them. That is the problem this bill presents. My amendment would reduce the amount of the dividend tax exclusion above $500 to 5 percent instead of the 10 percent that is currently in the bill. I think that is a fair tradeoff. It makes no sense to say: We are going to give, for example, a dividend tax exemption for the people in my State of which only 8 percent would be affected by it in order to have a tax increase on over 400,000 other American citizens who work in far off places around the world. It makes no sense to say: All right, we will help a small number, and we will adversely affect a very large number. The type of people we are adversely affecting are wage earners who work month to month, many of them earning $50,000, $60,000, $75,000 a year to help pay for tax benefits for those who are relying on dividends as a part of their income, many of which go to the very highest income earners. In Louisiana, 92 percent of the citizens are not affected by the so- called double taxation on dividends. We ought to get rid of it, but we ought to find a way to pay for it. Only 8 percent of my citizens are affected by the tax on dividends. Quite frankly, most people who earn dividends put them in retirement accounts or put them in investment portfolios that are already tax exempt. Ninety-two percent of my people in Louisiana are not affected by it at all. Yet in order to pay for something that only adversely affects 8 percent of the citizens in Louisiana, we are going to eliminate a foreign tax credit that will be adverse to literally hundreds of thousands of people, over 400,000 people. The type of people we are affecting are really Americans who are working overseas for relatively modest salaries in far off places doing important work that ultimately creates jobs in this country. We have had many statements from organizations that have workers working overseas who say, look, if this exemption is gone, we will have to terminate those American workers and give the jobs to foreigners working in their own country. We will be having foreign citizens hired by American companies doing work that is now currently done by American citizens. That is not good tax policy. We could have argued in the Finance Committee, if we wanted, move in that direction. We should have had hearings on it. We never had one witness come in and say, look, this section 911 of the Tax Code is bad policy; we need to change it. It came up overnight because someone said, here is a nice pay-for. Let's raise $35 billion. Let's increase taxes by $35 billion in order to pay for the dividend tax cut which, in most cases, affects only a very few American workers and American citizens. As I have said, the groups that support retaining 911 are contracting groups, oil and gas company groups, but also some of them are organizations and groups that I read, for instance, the Catholic Relief Services, the International Rescue Commission, workers who we have to depend on for doing humanitarian work on behalf of the United States around the world. If this provision is taken out of the current Tax Code, you will have foreign citizens replacing American workers to do work for American relief agencies around the world. What kind of a message does that send to the world when all of the workers for the Catholic Relief Services of the United States are foreign workers? We need these American workers in these areas. My amendment will preserve section 911 and we will offer it at an appropriate time. It should receive a majority of the support of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats. There is a very simple way to pay for it--by simply not increasing the dividend tax deduction as much as the current bill does. We can accomplish this in a fair manner. If someone wants to talk about this later on, about a pay-for, someone wants to eliminate this rate for American workers, if someone wants to make an argument that it is appropriate to have a $35 billion tax increase on American workers, let them make the case in the appropriate forum which is the Senate Finance Committee. Don't let it be slipped into the bill overnight as a pay-for for something that is questionable as far as short-term tax policies. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to preserve this provision which is very important to American workers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I rise today to comment on the unfortunate and untimely passing this Friday evening of a great American, a former colleague of many of us in this body, the former distinguished Senator from my State of Louisiana, Senator Russell Long. Someone once observed that ``the greatest truths are the simplest, and so are the greatest men.'' This, indeed, was Russell Long, a simple man who loved his family, his God, his country, and our State of Louisiana. He was a man who always answered the call of duty and who, to quote Russell, always ``did the best he could as God gave him the light to see.'' Russell Long was my colleague. He was my partner in the Congress, he was my teacher, and he was also my friend. Russell Long was a Senator in the last century, but his vision, his ideas, and his views on how a government should work will last as long as history is recorded. I do not think it is an insult to say that Russell Long was a simple man who achieved greatness by answering the call of duty. Knowing him as I did--and many of us did--I believe he would proudly accept that description. As a boy of only 16, Russell watched as his father died from an assassin's bullet and then dutifully accepted the call to fulfill and complete his father's unfinished work. Anyone who knew Russell understood how much he loved his dad and how much his father's legacy meant to him. Some might have regarded that legacy as an awesome and unwelcome burden. Russell, himself, sometimes strained under the weight of high expectations and the harsh reviews that historians and journalists wrote about his father. But he never forgot that he was Huey Long's son. And, so, he dutifully dedicated his life to the work his father had started. The result, as we all know, was the body of law that created employee stock ownership plans. Those of us who knew him understood that this was Russell's most passionate work and, to him, a modern version of Huey's ``Share Our Wealth'' program. Just as his father was a champion for the poor and dispossessed, so did Russell become one of the most effective advocates of the notion that every American has a right to share in the great wealth and opportunity of the United States. Just as he answered the call of duty when it came to his family legacy, Russell also answered the call of duty when it came to serving his country. In 1942, during the darkest hours of the Second World War, Russell volunteered to serve his Nation in the Navy. During the war, he distinguished himself in battle as the commander of a landing craft in the Mediterranean Sea during the Allied invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Southern France. Russell Long was truly among our greatest generation--a man of courage valor, faith and compassion--a patriot and a true American hero. Russell answered the call of duty to his country in other ways. In 1948, when Senator John Overton died, Russell followed his father and mother into the U.S. Senate. He was sworn into office alongside other men elected that year--giants such as Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kerr, and Paul Douglas. In a body that had disdained his father, Russell--he was only 30 years old at the time--began a remarkable 38- year career during which he worked tirelessly and effectively on behalf of the poor, the elderly, and average Americans who wanted a chance to achieve the American dream. As there are 100 Senators, there are 100 Russell Long stories, from Uncle Earl to his father Huey, to Russell's theory of fair taxation summarized in his immortal words, ``Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.'' Were I to list Russell's legislative achievements, we would be here all afternoon. But I don't think it is an overstatement to say that few people in our Nation's history have had more of an impact on our Nation's laws than Russell Long. Tens of millions of elderly people have literally been saved by Medicare--the health care system that Russell and Lyndon Johnson crafted and enacted in the Senate in 1965. Millions more handicapped people today have a better quality of life because Russell Long thought it important to expand the Social Security system to include the disabled. That happened in 1956 and it was the first major expansion of the Social Security system--and it would not have happened if not for Russell's tenacity in seeing it through to passage. Millions of poor working Americans today have Russell Long to thank for the Earned Income Tax Credit, an idea he developed and passed into law in the early 1970s. Then and now, the EITC remains the cornerstone of our Nation's effort to give the working poor a better chance at a decent standard of living. Russell also cared deeply about our American system of government and, in the wake of the Watergate scandals, worried that Americans might lose faith in the system he had fought--literally fought--to protect. For that reason, he pushed through legislation to change the way that we finance Presidential campaigns and established the tax form check-off that has guaranteed the integrity of our Presidential elections for more than a quarter century. During my 14 years in the House, I had watched Russell closely. I admired him, learned from him, and felt privileged to say that I had served with him in the Congress. And I remember how excited I was when Russell finally realized that I was a congressman and not a young staff member. But it has been my service on the Senate Finance Committee--the committee he chaired for 14 years--that has taught me so much about the genius and skill of the man who dominated the Senate for so many years. It was because of men such as Russell that the Senate worked so well during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. With Russell, his colleagues were neither Republican nor Democrat. They were just Americans who he considered his friends and colleagues in the Senate who were elected--as he looked at his life--to make Government work for the people we represent. On a personal level, Lois and I will always remember Russell Long as a kind, decent, generous man who welcomed us into his life and invited us to share in a cause greater than ourselves. Carolyn was the love of his life, a gracious and charming lady, who became his partner in every way and is still known in Washington and Louisiana as one of the best and talented partners a public official could ever have. To Carolyn, Kay and Pam, I know I speak for Russell's colleagues in the Senate and for the people of this State when I say how grateful we are for the life of this simple man who dutifully answered the call to greatness. So today we gather in sorrow because we have lost a friend, but let us all be thankful for having been here when Russell Long was here. May the Good Lord take him into his hands and welcome him into the Kingdom of Heaven. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act. This bill upholds a long-held principle in the application of the Federal fuels excise tax, and restores this principle for certain single engine ``dual-use'' vehicles. This long-held principle is simple: fuel consumed for the purpose of moving vehicles over the road is taxed, while fuel consumed for ``off- road'' purposes is not taxed. The tax is designed to compensate for the wear and tear impacts on roads. Fuel used for a non-propulsion ``off- road'' purpose has no impact on the roads. It should not be taxed as if it does. This bill is based on this principle, and it remedies a problem created by IRS regulations that control the application of the federal fuels excise tax to ``dual-use'' vehicles. Duel-use vehicles are vehicles that use fuel both to propel the vehicle on the road, and also to operate separate, on-board equipment. The two prominent examples of duel-use vehicles are concrete mixers, which use fuel to rotate the mixing drum, and sanitation trucks, which use fuel to operate the compactor. Both of these trucks move over the road, but at the same time, a substantial portion of their fuel use is attributable to the non-propulsion function. The current problem developed because progress in technology has outstripped the regulatory process. In the past, duel-use vehicles commonly had two engines, IRS regulations, written in the 1950's, specifically exempt the portion of fuel used by the separate engine that operates special equipment such as a mixing drum or a trash compactor. These IRS regulations reflect the principle that fuel consumed for non-propulsion purposes is not taxed. Today, however, typical duel-use vehicles use only one engine. The single engine both propels the vehicle over the road and powers the non-propulsion function through ``power takeoff.'' a major reason for the growth of these single-engine, power takeoff vehicles is that they use less fuel. And a major benefit for everyone is that they are better for the environment. Power takeoff was not in widespread use when the IRS regulations were drafted, and the regulations deny an exemption for fuel used in single- engine, duel-use vehicles. The IRS defends its distinction between one- engine and two-engine, vehicles based on possible administrative problems if vehicle owners were permitted to allocate fuel between the propulsion and non-propulsion functions. Our bill is designed to address the administrative concerns expressed by the IRS, but at the same time, restore tax fairness for fuel-use vehicles with one engine. The bill does this by establishing an annual tax credit available for taxpayers that own a licensed and insured concrete mixer or sanitation truck with a compactor. The amount of the credit is $250 and is a conservative estimate of the excise taxes actually paid, based on information compiled on typical sanitation trucks and concrete mixers. In sum, as a fixed income tax credit, no audit or administrative issue will arise about the amount of fuel used for the off-road purpose. At the same time, the credit provides a rough justice method to make sure these taxpayers are not required to pay tax on fuels that they shouldn't be paying. Also, as an income tax credit, the proposal would have no effect on the highway trust fund. I would like to stress that I believe the IRS' interpretation of the law is not consistent with long-held principles under the tax law, despite their administrative concerns. Quite simply, the law should not condone a situation where taxpayers are required to pay the excise tax on fuel attributable to non-propulsion functions. This bill corrects an unfair tax that should have never been imposed in the first place, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act. This bill upholds a long-held principle in the application of the Federal fuels excise tax, and restores this principle for certain single engine ``dual-use'' vehicles. This long-held principle is simple: fuel consumed for the purpose of moving vehicles over the road is taxed, while fuel consumed for ``off- road'' purposes is not taxed. The tax is designed to compensate for the wear and tear impacts on roads. Fuel used for a non-propulsion ``off- road'' purpose has no impact on the roads. It should not be taxed as if it does. This bill is based on this principle, and it remedies a problem created by IRS regulations that control the application of the federal fuels excise tax to ``dual-use'' vehicles. Duel-use vehicles are vehicles that use fuel both to propel the vehicle on the road, and also to operate separate, on-board equipment. The two prominent examples of duel-use vehicles are concrete mixers, which use fuel to rotate the mixing drum, and sanitation trucks, which use fuel to operate the compactor. Both of these trucks move over the road, but at the same time, a substantial portion of their fuel use is attributable to the non-propulsion function. The current problem developed because progress in technology has outstripped the regulatory process. In the past, duel-use vehicles commonly had two engines, IRS regulations, written in the 1950's, specifically exempt the portion of fuel used by the separate engine that operates special equipment such as a mixing drum or a trash compactor. These IRS regulations reflect the principle that fuel consumed for non-propulsion purposes is not taxed. Today, however, typical duel-use vehicles use only one engine. The single engine both propels the vehicle over the road and powers the non-propulsion function through ``power takeoff.'' a major reason for the growth of these single-engine, power takeoff vehicles is that they use less fuel. And a major benefit for everyone is that they are better for the environment. Power takeoff was not in widespread use when the IRS regulations were drafted, and the regulations deny an exemption for fuel used in single- engine, duel-use vehicles. The IRS defends its distinction between one- engine and two-engine, vehicles based on possible administrative problems if vehicle owners were permitted to allocate fuel between the propulsion and non-propulsion functions. Our bill is designed to address the administrative concerns expressed by the IRS, but at the same time, restore tax fairness for fuel-use vehicles with one engine. The bill does this by establishing an annual tax credit available for taxpayers that own a licensed and insured concrete mixer or sanitation truck with a compactor. The amount of the credit is $250 and is a conservative estimate of the excise taxes actually paid, based on information compiled on typical sanitation trucks and concrete mixers. In sum, as a fixed income tax credit, no audit or administrative issue will arise about the amount of fuel used for the off-road purpose. At the same time, the credit provides a rough justice method to make sure these taxpayers are not required to pay tax on fuels that they shouldn't be paying. Also, as an income tax credit, the proposal would have no effect on the highway trust fund. I would like to stress that I believe the IRS' interpretation of the law is not consistent with long-held principles under the tax law, despite their administrative concerns. Quite simply, the law should not condone a situation where taxpayers are required to pay the excise tax on fuel attributable to non-propulsion functions. This bill corrects an unfair tax that should have never been imposed in the first place, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. The answer is yes. What was the custom of some of the other amendments? What was the division of time on the others, 20-10?

Mr. BREAUX. I have no other request for time. Ten minutes is sufficient for me.