Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair for his courtesy. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the committee is rising. I would certainly yield to him.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the parliamentary situation on the floor? The intention of the Senator from Nevada is to offer an amendment, of which I have alerted the manager. If there is a pending amendment, if I could be so advised, I will make the necessary request.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I preface my comments by thanking the Senator from Mississippi. I think the arrangement he suggests is workable, and we will work within those time constraints. Once again, I will offer an amendment to eliminate funding for one of the most egregious examples of corporate welfare in America--the Market Access Program. This program continues to waste millions of dollars subsidizing advertising and other promotions in foreign countries. Amendment No. 3157 (Purpose: To eliminate funding for the market access program for fiscal year 1999)

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to make some general observations. This is an area that I have had an interest in for a number of years. We have debated it many times on the floor, and I say to my friends from the agricultural heartland of America that I am not unmindful that in some of the agricultural regions of our country, there is real economic crisis out there, particularly in the plains States. I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of farmers. Indeed, I intend to be supportive of many of the amendments that will be offered to provide assistance to farmers who face real economic crises for a variety of reasons, many of which I suggest have probably been debated on the floor during the course of this appropriations bill. Having said that, I want to talk about a program that, in my judgment, provides no real help to America's farmers or agricultural producers and, instead, continues to subsidize some of the largest corporations in America in terms of their advertising dollars. I believe this is a wholly inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. As I will point out during the course of this discussion, the analysis of the Market Access Program by the General Accounting Office, just released, is a definitive analysis of the efficacy of this program. Notwithstanding those who have advocated on its behalf and those who continue to defend it, the GAO report reveals that in spite of repeated attempts to make this program accountable, no credible evidence could be found to support the claims that the Market Access Program benefits the economy. That is why a broad range of organizations have been joined in opposition. These are groups that cover the political spectrum, from right to left. Among them are: Americans for Tax Reform, Capital Watch, the Cato Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Friends of the Earth, the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. All of these organizations have called for the elimination of this program. Many of these organizations have joined together in a ``stop corporate welfare'' effort that named the Market Access Program among a select group of the most blatant of Federal handouts. The Green Scissors report, which recommends cutting programs that hurt both taxpayers and the environment, has also cited the Market Access Program as a waste of money. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list I have be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, it is just not outside groups that are calling for the elimination of this program. The Market Access Program was specifically targeted for elimination in the fiscal year 1999 Republican budget resolution. This provision was included in the legislation passed on the Senate floor by a vote of 57-41 on April 2 of this year. Unfortunately, however, like Lazarus, this program seems to rise from the dead every year and is currently authorized to receive some $90 million in fiscal year 1999. The Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS, is a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and it distributes this $90 million that has previously been authorized in three different categories. One is a direct contribution to private companies. Two is a contribution that is made to industry associations which, in turn, makes grants to members within that association. And the third category is cooperatives. These moneys are frequently used for the promotion of brand-name products, specifically identified household names in America, as well as generic commodities overseas. So we have private companies that receive money directly from the funding source--industry associations and cooperatives. In spite of numerous reforms that we have debated and enacted in recent years in efforts to limit the aid provided to giant corporations, millions of dollars continue to flow to large, well- established producers, agribusinesses to subsidize their advertising budget. Let me again make the point. As part of the ongoing debate that we have had annually on this program, we have been able to persuade the Congress that with respect to the direct contributions made to private companies that are providing some of the largest organizations and companies in the world with money to supplement their advertising accounts, it simply cannot be defended and is an outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. So we created a small business category that is eligible to receive the private company distributions. That is currently part of the law. But that only tells part of the story, because as you will see, the top recipients of the Market Access Program--this is the specific brand of the product that you can see here--continue to be some of the largest companies in America: Sunkist Growers, $2,594,000; Blue Diamond Nuts, $4,419,000; Welch's Foods, $707,000; Sunsweet, $616,000; Ernest & Julio Gallo, $598,000; Tyson Foods, $440,000; and Ocean Spray, $320,000. The way that they have been able to effectively circumvent the limitation that this money should be made available only to small businesses is that industry associations and cooperatives that receive the money directly from the Foreign Agricultural Service can in turn make grants to members of the association or to the cooperative members themselves. So that is how we continue to see these substantial amounts of money that continue to flow into these large companies. Proponents of the program will justify this corporate giveaway by pointing to various studies that exalt the benefits reaped by these advertising campaigns, but none of the studies cited, nor the benefits that are assigned to this program, can be authenticated. Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this floor over the years, we have seen near magical benefits attributed to this program-- claims that each dollar of spending through the Market Access Program yields about $16 in new agricultural exports in addition to thousands and thousands of jobs. Those have been the arguments essentially that have been used to oppose the elimination of this program. First of all, if this analysis were correct, perhaps what we ought to do is put more money into this program and in effect have our Head Start youngsters participate in this program in order to achieve these dramatic ``multiplier affects'' that the advocates and defenders of this program have asserted for it. I want to make a further point: The figure that is used for these multiplier numbers is data taken from a 1995 inagency study of the Market Access Program that has drawn much criticism from GAO. The GAO found that the analysis on which this and other fanciful claims are based is flawed and does not follow standard cost-benefit guidelines--guidelines that are recommended by the Office of Management and Budget. The GAO's September report--this is the report that was released in September of this last year--has found that the data that has been used and the methodology does not support the conclusions that advocates of this program attribute to this Market Access Program. This report, which was completed at the request of the Budget Committee in the House and its chairman, could not authenticate any of these claims that have been made. Here is just a brief summary of what the GAO concluded. First, the GAO said there is no credible evidence that the Market Access Program has expanded employment and output, or reduced the trade and budget deficits. Second, it goes on to say that increases in farm employment and income cannot be attributed to Market Access Program spending. Finally, that the Market Access Program is not an effective counterweight for the export programs of other nations. That is another argument that I am sure that we will hear--that other countries are helping to subsidize their agricultural industry in providing a number of export subsidies to assist those. But, as the GAO has reported, this program has not been an effective counterweight to the export programs designed by other countries. I must say that this hardly is a ringing endorsement for continued expenditures for this program. That is, putting aside the philosophical objections for a moment, there is really no evidence that the money that we are spending--$90 million--accomplishes a thing. Let me suggest that the Market Access Program has another questionable aspect to it; that is, what is the justification for continuing to subsidize promotional efforts for well-known brand-name products that do not receive Federal assistance? These companies that I have cited, Sunkist, Blue Diamond Nuts, Welch's Foods, Tyson Foods, and Ocean Spray, are fine companies, are highly successful companies and are huge companies in terms of their size. What justification is there to use taxpayer dollars to support in effect augmenting or increasing the kinds of advertising dollars that these companies clearly have the ability on their own to do? They know how to make a judgment as to how their advertising budgets should be spent. That is a private sector determination. The Government has no business, in my judgment, taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars and saying to each of these companies we are going to give you an additional $2.5 million or $1.5 million to add to your budget. I have an objection to that philosophically. Moreover, when the GAO concluded that these dollars that we have spent over the years really have not accomplished anything, I think it is just totally indefensible. It is true, Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, that some positive changes have been implemented in the program in an effort to focus more effort on small business and new-to-export producers. However, one- third of all MAP promotions are still brand names. They are product- specific promotions identifying a particular company, and not a generic product that is being exported abroad. I think when you look at how the money is actually spent, notwithstanding the well-intentioned efforts to focus this program on smaller companies, that we have really failed in that objective. The top 10 brand-name promotion grants awarded by USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, in fiscal year 1997 includes some of the well-known products that most Americans probably recognize from U.S.-based advertising. These are the companies. My feeling is that I think it is very hard--I think it is impossible--to justify spending taxpayer dollars. Sunkist, for example, a company that employs between 500 and 900 people, and posted sales of over $1 billion, received $5 million in Federal advertising assistance in 1996 and 1997. What in heaven's world are the taxpayers doing subsidizing the advertising budget of a company with sales exceeding $1 billion annually? You simply can't justify that. Welch's Foods, another fine product, with over 1,000 employees, rang up more than $550 million in sales, yet was awarded over $1.5 million over the past 2 years as part of this program. These examples illustrate what I have been saying for a number of years--that this program is a waste of money and public funds should not be used to underwrite private corporate activity. Proponents of this program will point out accurately that in the last few years, the largest number of awards have gone to small businesses and cooperatives. Much of this is due to the changes to the program that were passed--with the support of the ranking member of the Agricultural Appropriations Committee on the Senate floor--that gave preference to small and nonprofit applicants. However, it is important to note that the other types of MAP recipients, the cooperatives and the industry associations, as we pointed out, do not limit the contributions that they make to their members based upon size. That is how we have these rather large companies receiving a staggering amount of public assistance. That is why you will not see these names on MAP's award list. Large companies still receive funds through their associations. In fiscal year 1997, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Kentucky Distillers' Association and the Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council passed through funds to M&M/Mars, Maker's Mark Distillery, and General Mills, Inc., respectively, to conduct name brand promotions overseas. Finally, let me note in this context that we take a look at the names of the top 10 awards for brand name promotions--the top 10 for brand name promotions. It is interesting to note that small businesses received only $825,000 of the $7,816,000 that went to these 10 applicants. In contrast, the top two name brand recipients, Sunkist and Blue Diamond, received more than $4 million, more than half of that $7.8 million total. We have attempted to tighten the program, with limited funding, to change the definition of preferred participants, but the same large and well-known recipients show up on the MAP award list year after year. Many of the problems we discussed 5 and 6 years ago continue to go unresolved, and this recent report by the GAO still cannot verify the claims made by the USDA to justify MAP. The distribution, Mr. President, of millions of dollars of public funds to private businesses for self-promotion does not win any commonsense awards, but continued spending on such a program without confirmation of the program's competitiveness is an unforgivable abuse of public funds. Before I close my comments, I want to put this program in some perspective, because I expect many of my colleagues will come to the floor to defend this program that takes $90 million of taxpayer dollars and uses it for foreign advertising. Mr. President, the MAP cannot offset foreign competitors' export subsidies, because it does not make U.S. products more affordable. It is an advertising subsidy, not an export subsidy. We need to ensure that our agricultural programs provide real and measurable benefits to U.S. farmers and consumers, especially as farmers are facing falling prices, and MAP's benefits do not in any way meet this test. Perhaps a little history on this program is in order to give some perspective: The Targeted Export Assistance (TEA) program was authorized as part of the 1985 Food Security Act to reverse the decline in U.S. agricultural exports and specifically to counter the unfair trade practices of foreign competitors. Unlike products promoted under MAP, only commodities adversely affected by unfair foreign trade practices were eligible for funding under TEA. This restriction continued until 1994, but was eliminated as part of the implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round trade agreements. So, while a link between USDA export promotion aid and foreign trade practices once existed, it is no longer a requirement for MAP participants. Even when the program was still targeted at unfair trade practices, it was prone to wasteful spending on behalf of huge corporations such as McDonalds, Campbell Soup and a host of others. After a critical audit by GAO, the program's name was changed to the Market Promotion Program as part of the 1990 farm bill. Then, after two more reports critical of the program, its name was again changed in 1996, this time to the Market Access Program. At that time, Congress was under extreme pressure to end the corporate handout, and some positive and significant changes to the program's management were proposed and adopted: USDA was directed to stop awarding funds to foreign companies; Participation was restricted to small businesses, cooperatives, and trade associations; and companies were required to certify that funds were not merely substituting for private marketing funds that were already being spent. I wish that I could say that these changes have ensured that the program provides a fair return to the American people. Unfortunately, even with these restrictions written into law, millions continue to flow to large corporations through associations and cooperatives with no real assurance that the funds are not used to replace private advertising dollars. These criticisms were restated by the GAO in the report released last fall following yet another GAO investigation, requested by Representative John Kasich, into the effectiveness of the Market Access Program and the claims made about its success. In this key report, the GAO discredits the analysis used by the USDA in reports that claimed that MAP has a significant impact on the economy, the agricultural sector, and U.S. trade efforts. The GAO audit found fault with each of these conclusions because each was based on the agency's use of flawed methodology and incomplete evaluations of the program's costs and benefits. The GAO leveled additional changes at the program's management, pointing out enduring problems that Congress has tried to fix in the past. For example, in spite of the requirement that companies use MAP funds to supplement, not supplant, their own advertising spending, GAO found no way to confirm that MAP funds were indeed being used for unique expenditures. The 1993 reconciliation bill required applicants to verify that MAP funds would not replace their own advertising dollars, but this requirement is largely unconfirmed by USDA officials and verification is left up to MAP applicants. It is also difficult to establish that MAP's stated goal of introducing firms to new markets is being met. Major questions remain unanswered, such as: when have companies or associations had ``enough'' assistance? Some firms will have been participating in the program for 13 years before the 5-year ``graduation'' requirements (instituted in 1994) will begin to take effect. The USDA currently does not have a standard method for deciding when their own program goals are reached, so business interests or associations can stay in the program without regard to their NEED for funds to open new markets. At the center of the GAO's criticisms of MAP's effectiveness is the faulty economic analysis used by USDA to make its case for the program. GAO reported that USDA's flawed evaluations made it extremely difficult to analyze MAP's contributions to the economy, because the program analysis for MAP does not conform with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) agency guidelines for cost-benefit analysis. These guidelines are used by agencies to construct a uniform standard for evaluating programs' performance as required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Without using a standard method of evaluating various government programs, it would be nearly impossible to judge any program's effectiveness. OMB instructs agencies, when analyzing the impact of any program, to assume that resources are ``fully employed'' [``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,'' OMB Circular No. A-94, sec 6b(3) (Oct. 29, 1992)]. These guidelines are in place to ensure that, in keeping with the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, each agency follows a uniform framework when evaluating costs and benefits of its programs. This framework includes the assumption of fully employed resources. However, in its 1995 analysis of the Market Access Program, USDA did not adhere to the OMB cost-benefit guidelines and assumed that program resources would otherwise be unemployed. Clearly, it is not accurate, in today's economy, to assume that the funds designated for MAP, or any program, would have no benefit, no alternate use, if otherwise deployed in the economy. Put another way, USDA took the untenable postion that the resources that went into MAP could not yield benefits to the economy through other uses, such as tax breaks for American families, investment in education, or paying down the debt. USDA also assumes that MAP-promoted agricultural products would not be exported at all in the absence of this program, which implies that the private sector would not pursue these export opportunities without MAP assistance. This premise holds that on the one hand, these markets would be unprofitable without help from the federal government, but on the other hand, these same markets bring in high returns on promotion expenditures. If the returns on investment are indeed as great as the agency holds, why would the private sector not undertake its own promotional activities? For a recipient like Sunkist, whose homepage on the Internet boasts that ``Sunkist is the 43rd most recognized name brand in the United States and the 47th most recognized in the world,'' it becomes clear that this program is wasting scarce federal dollars subsidizing an already highly-successful company's advertising budget. Finally, in its 1995 report USDA also assumes that all of the workers and farmers whose labor and output is associated with MAP-promoted exports would be completely unemployed were it not for the MAP program. Under this premise, USDA calculates these workers' employment and income as benefits generated by MAP, crediting the program with economic expansion and increased tax revenues. Mr. President, any federal program evaluated under this same set of assumptions would appear to generate income. This type of accounting is not permitted for other programs, and should not be permitted to stand here. The result is that USDA's analysis of MAP includes exaggerated estimates of the program's worth that are misleading but are nonetheless often quoted by proponents of the program. Let me give you some examples of the overblown gains attributed to MAP as a result of the department's faulty analysis. According to information included in the USDA's 1999 Performance Plan and the Foreign Agriculture Service's five-year strategic plan, the $90 million annual allocation for MAP, through a multiplier effect, results in $5 billion in agricultural exports, expands the national economy by $12 billion, and creates 86,500 jobs. And that is jsut the 1997 impact. It sounds too good to be true, and it is. These incredible returns are the result of USDA's ``free lunch'' analysis-- an irrational conclusion that MAP benefits the economy, based on faulty assumptions that federal and private resources have no alternate use or impact on the economy. Another major claim made in support of MAP is that these funds are needed to counteract the export assistance of our foreign competitors. The GAO report finds this claim, like the others, unreliable because of the lack of verifiable information about foreign competitors' export assistance activities. We often hear about the large amounts of money that foreign competitors pump into export subsidies, and how important it is to make U.S. crops competitive in foreign markets or risk being locked out of these markets altogether. This argument is irrelevant to any discussion about MAP, however, because unlike USDA's export subsidy programs which lower the prices of U.S. crops abroad, the Market Access Program is not an export subsidy, it is a promotion subsidy, and does not lower prices of U.S. goods in foreign markets. Furthermore, while it is true that MAP's focus at its creation was countering unfair trading practices employed by our competitors in overseas markets, this is no longer the case. As I mentioned earlier, MAP's focus on matching competitors' moves was removed when the implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round agreements was approved in 1994, allowing MAP funds to be used for general export promotion purposes as the Foreign Agricultural Service sees fit. This change, combined with a lack of firsthand knowledge about foreign export activities, led the GAO to conclude that claims about MAP's effectiveness in countering other nations' export assistance cannot be verified. Another question that has been raised about this program is whether its export promotion subsidies are undertaken by other programs at USDA. The Congressional Research Service, in a February 1997 report, raises this question in relation to the Foreign Market Development Program (FMD), which has been around since 1954. The FMD program is much like the MAP except that it is focused on developing foreign markets for U.S. commodities, as opposed to name-brand and processed exports. Therefore, its jointly-funded activities are aimed more at technical assistance and market research rather than advertising and other consumer-oriented promotions. However, unlike MAP, funding levels for FMD have remained under $50 million annually, and activities have not grown to include brand-name promotions. While these two programs take a similar approach to different markets, there has been very little analysis of which type of promotion is more effective. It would be helpful to be able to compare MAP's track record with the results attributed to FMD, but this information has not been compiled by the USDA. Nor has there been a study to simply evaluate whether generic or branded promotions are more successful in promoting exports, and where these efforts are most successful. Mr. President, there is just not enough evidence out there which backs up the claims we have all heard about the Market Access Program. I can think of no other federal program that we allow to receive funds without a rigorous examination of the costs and benefits associated with the government's investment. We demand this kind of analysis even for D&D programs which often have uncertain future outcomes and benefits that are difficult to forecast. We must ask ourselves, if a policy of underwriting the advertising expenses of large producers and corporate interests makes sense when we are cutting back on funding for domestic food security and important research initiatives. We cannot justify spending one more dime on this unproven program, and this view is shared by a long list of government watchdog and consumers groups representing a broad range of beliefs: Americans for Tax Reform, Capitol Watch, the CATO Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. I urge all of you to take a long, hard look at this program's track record and vote to end the waste of taxpayer dollars on foreign advertising and promotion. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, has the distinguished floor manager yielded the floor? Apparently the answer is yes. Mr. President, if I might be recognized.

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator from Mississippi will yield for a moment?

Mr. BRYAN. The procedure that he outlined is certainly agreeable to the Senator from Nevada. He correctly recites the vote, which I greatly regret, a year ago. I simply say, this is a time for redemption for Senators tonight. Tonight they have an opportunity to exercise that redemption. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would simply make the point that all of the assertions and claims that have been made by the advocates for the Market Access Program have been considered by the GAO in a report released last September. They have rejected all of them. We have spent $2.3 billion in the last 10 years and the GAO concludes that they cannot establish any benefit of the program. Unfortunately, our attempt to reform the program does not prevent the largest businesses in America from continuing to have their advertising budgets supplemented to the tune of millions and millions of dollars--$5 million subsidizing the advertising budget of one of these large companies. I hope my colleagues will recognize that this is a program that simply does not work and support the Bryan amendment by voting against the motion to table.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me preface my comments by joining the senior Senator from Nebraska in commending my senior Senator from Nevada for his untiring efforts for taxpayers not only in Nevada, but across the country, in terms of his efforts on the earlier variations of the bill of rights and the strong support of the legislation that we are debating today and that will be signed into law very shortly by the President. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning as a member of the Senate Finance Committee to offer my strong support for this historic legislation. It has been a long time coming. It has been a difficult process, but it is clear that the American people will benefit greatly as a result of this legislation which will soon be signed into law by the President. None of us really enjoy paying our taxes. But the vast majority of Americans do make a good-faith effort to pay their fair share. And while the IRS will never be popular, the legislation that we will soon vote on will go a long way in providing fairness to taxpayers in their dealings with the IRS and will assist Commissioner Rossotti to meet his goals of making the IRS a more efficient and customer-oriented service. Mr. President, the American tax system is essentially one of voluntary compliance. And implicit in that relationship is a sense on the part of the taxpayer that he or she is receiving fair treatment. To the extent that that perception is diminished, it undermines the public confidence in our system, it reduces the level of tax compliance, and it creates problems for those of us who do comply with this system and who will be paying a disproportionate share, larger than our fair burden, for those who do not. So it is a responsibility of the Congress to make sure, in its oversight capacity and the laws which we enact, that the IRS operate in a fair, evenhanded way in dealing with the taxpayer. And I must say, as a result of the hearings that the chairman of the committee held, the abuses that were pointed out, in several instances, are rampant. And I will comment on those in just a moment. I think it is fair to put this in some perspective as well, and that is that the great majority of employees of the IRS are really very dedicated public servants. They try to do their very best in performing the duties that they have. Much of the criticism that is directed against them properly ought to be directed against us. It is the Congress that enacts the code, and it is by every standard extraordinarily complicated, complex. Each year that we seek to make improvements to the code, at the same time it is also fair to say that we add additional complexity to it. That having been said, that their job, being the IRS and the employees of that Service have a very difficult job, there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of conduct that we saw evidenced in the hearings that the chairman had this year and last year. That is totally unacceptable conduct. I believe that several of the reforms that are addressed here in this legislation will help to alleviate those kinds of conditions. In addition to the obvious problems that were pointed out in the hearings, other problems are a bit more subtle, but they are also damaging to the taxpayer. And that is poor and inefficient management, inadequate and outdated computer systems, or the corporate culture that we saw much evidence of--the view of the taxpayer as the adversary instead of the customer. That has been deeply entrenched. One example that comes to mind is the quota system. There had been an attempt, in previous legislation, to send clear, unmistakable direction to the IRS that a quota system is not to be employed. A quota system forces the revenue agent to look at a taxpayer who comes into his or her office, not as a customer who has a problem that needs to be dealt with, but as a quota, that is that he or she is to be viewed as an individual from which that revenue agent must collect a certain amount of dollars, much like a traffic cop who is told by his or her boss that some 15 or 20 tickets must be issued each day. And that is what creates this adversarial system. We thought that we had eliminated that practice and that abuse. But no sooner had the chairman convened the hearings last fall that I received in my office, from an employee in the IRS office in Las Vegas, an internal document that gave every appearance of being a quota. Those in charge asserted that it was not a quota, but in point of fact, clearly, the revenue agent was given the impression that each individual was to be assessed a certain amount of money in terms of additional tax to be brought in. And clearly implicit in that direction was the fact that that employee's future and career prospects with the Internal Revenue Service would be judged based upon his or her performance. Hence, this confrontational relationship that I described continued to be deeply ingrained as part of this culture. Now, those are not easy things to root out. I must say that Commissioner Rossotti and the interim director, in response to questions that I raised during the course of those hearings, reaffirmed the policy that no quota system would exist and that the practice which had been conducted in Las Vegas, and perhaps other district offices as well, was not to be continued. And to the best of my knowledge, there has been no indication that it has. However, I do think that one of the fundamental changes made in this piece of legislation--the creation of a citizen oversight board, involving six members from the private sector--can be very helpful in monitoring the kinds of activity which comes to our attention as Members of Congress and, hopefully, will be helpful in eliminating that practice. Although it does not have the pizzazz of some of the other provisions, I believe the power that we invest in the new Commissioner to make changes at the top level of management will also have some far- reaching consequences. It is clear that those who are steeped in this corporate culture, this deeply ingrained practice that I and others who have spoken on this issue have described, simply are unable to make that change, that the frame of mind that allows that to continue has been such a part of the daily operational conduct of the agency that in some instances at the top level individuals simply have to be replaced. I think it is important to point out that in Commissioner Rossotti we have the first Commissioner whose background is not tax accounting law, but he is an individual who is a businessman, not a lawyer, who has committed to provide the kind of management reforms that we need to change that corporate culture. So the powers that we give him to make those kinds of changes, which no previous Commissioner has had, I think will help to send a very powerful message at the top that this is not business as usual and that we want not only a more efficient and a more responsive agency, but we want an agency that eliminates the kinds of abuses that were provided during the course of the hearings. Some years back the Congress intended to provide an ombudsman, as it was initially called, later a Taxpayer Advocate, to represent the individual. Those intentions, I think, were well conceived. Indeed, in their implementation, I think an effort was made to create such a position. But in point of fact, individuals who were chosen to serve in this capacity came directly from the IRS, returned to the IRS, and because that individual's ultimate career plan in the IRS could be impacted by his or her performance as a Taxpayer Advocate, the Taxpayer Advocate Office did not achieve its desired purpose to provide independent representation and advocacy on behalf of the taxpayer. I believe in the legislation that will be signed into law, as a product of this bill, that we have created that kind of independence by making it clear that this is not an individual who can come directly from the IRS and immediately, upon completion of his or her tenure in the Office of Independent Advocate, once again continue a career path within the IRS. That independence, in fact, as well as perception, I think, will provide invaluable help to America's taxpayers. Much criticism is directed at the agency and much is warranted. Let me comment, in the interest of balance, on something that the agency has done an excellent job in doing and that is the implementation of telefiling. It is a paperless tax filing system. In 1997, nearly 5 million taxpayers took advantage of that by simply picking up their telephone and filing their return. Its calculation is done on the other end. It is paperless. It is fast. Those taxpayers who have a refund coming to them will receive that refund much more quickly than in the process in which one files a paper return that is processed. It also is less cumbersome for the IRS in terms of the paperwork which has been generated, thousands and thousands of different forms and millions and millions of returns. So it helps us achieve the goal of efficiency in terms of the IRS' response. I am pleased to note in 1998, nearly 6 million taxpayers took advantage of the telefiling. That is an increase of nearly 27 percent. Indeed, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The potential is significantly greater. Other types of electronic filing have also been developed. In 1997, we had about 14 million who filed electronically. In 1998, some 18 million. That is 28 percent. That also provides for a faster evaluation of the return, provides less opportunity for errors, for misdirected paperwork, and I think will be extremely helpful in providing the standard of service to which the American taxpayer is entitled. Among the more significant things, dramatically significant, is a shift in the burden of proof for taxpayers and small businesses when their dispute with the IRS reaches the Tax Court level. That shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS. That will be another significant change. Perhaps if there is any one change that more dramatically signals what we are trying to accomplish in this legislation in trying to provide fairness to the American people who are attempting to comply with a very complicated tax system, this is an indicator. Having practiced law in years past, I am not unmindful of a situation which innocent spouses are frequently victimized by the conduct of their spouses, oftentimes in the context of separation or divorce, in which the spouse involved in business is involved in either concealing or fraudulently filing a return, that return is jointly signed by the other spouse who has no involvement in the business and no culpability. The offending or culpable spouse is no longer available and the IRS turns to the innocent spouse. By any fair standard, that is conduct we should not endorse. An innocent spouse truly not involved, not culpable, should not be victimized by the conduct of his or her spouse. This legislation provides expanded benefits and protection for the innocent spouse. In addition, we do several other things. That is, we provide for additional authority to award litigation costs to taxpayers who prevail in court disputes with the IRS. It costs a great deal of money to engage counsel. Most American taxpayers are not in the position to afford that kind of expense. It is only fair when that taxpayer prevails that, indeed, the cost of the litigation be recovered in favor of the taxpayer. We send a very strong message that the kind of misconduct which was much in evidence during the hearings last year and this year is not to be tolerated. We say to the American taxpayer, to those who have been victimized by such conduct, that a cause of action for civil damages based on claims of negligence by IRS employees will now be available to such taxpayers. We improve taxpayers' rights during audits, collections, including prohibiting the IRS from seizing residences for deficiencies of under $5,000 and prohibiting the IRS from seizing a residence without a court order, increasing the availability of taxpayer assistance, reducing penalties for taxpayers making good-faith efforts. I think this might require an additional word of embellishment. For those taxpayers who for whatever reason have failed to pay their full amount of taxes due, who are on a schedule of payment, only to find that the compounding effect of penalties and fines makes it virtually impossible for them ever to reduce the amount of principal that is the original amount they failed to pay, nothing could be more frustrating, nothing could be more discouraging, and it is a disincentive to those taxpayers who say, look, I recognize I owe the money, but I don't have it all. Establish a schedule of payments so I can make my payments. We heard testimony of people who had paid for extended periods of time and after having made such payments really had not reduced their principal; if at all, very minimally. This legislation addresses such an issue, and I think will be an incentive and encouragement for taxpayers to, indeed, begin making payments and to see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Greater disclosure and notice to taxpayers, including details of the computations of any penalties and interest due; more detailed explanations of the entire audit and collection process in the first deficiency notice; disclosure of taxpayers' rights at interviews with the IRS; disclosure of the criteria for examination--all part of the process to make one's visit to the IRS less of a mysterious and frightful experience, but to provide the taxpayer a broader understanding of the circumstances that bring him or her to the office--rationale for the deficiency, for any that is assessed, what that taxpayers' rights are in terms of responding. In sum, Mr. President, all of these provisions should result in a more efficient and friendly IRS in the future. I want to commend the chairman of our committee with whom I have had the great pleasure of working in this Congress as a newly appointed member to the Senate Finance Committee, the ranking member, the senior Senator from New York, and my colleague who sits to my right, the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Grassley and others, who have labored in the vineyards for many years to provide fairness to the Code. It has taken us a long time. I freely acknowledge that some of us have been frustrated and thought this ought to have been done last year, but there can be no doubt that our work product that will ultimately be signed into law will be a vast improvement for the American taxpayer, and it does enjoy the imprimatur of bipartisan effort and support. Finally, I will address an issue that has been of concern for literally tens of thousands of Nevadans who work in the hotel industry in our State. It is not a provision that is confined or limited to Nevada only because the practice in the hotel industry not only in my own State but across America is to provide for the convenience of the employee, by the employer, a meal at the business location. For more decades than I can remember, that benefit has been provided and it has been viewed as a nontaxable benefit. That is to say that the meal is provided and that there is no tax liability attached to that benefit that the employee must pay as a result of receiving that meal at the employer's expense, on the job, at the employer's place of business. A year ago, a decision of the Tax Court astounded most of us who are familiar with the practice and created a situation that would be monstrously unfair to literally tens of thousands of taxpayers in my own State where this issue was widely publicized, but would have the potential of affecting hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees in every State in the Union. Not only would it be unfair to those employees who no longer would receive that benefit--and there would have been hundreds of thousands, as I say, across the country--but it would have created the anomaly that some employees in some occupational categories may continue to receive the benefit, their coworkers who worked alongside them in a different capacity would not have received that benefit, thereby creating an inherent morale problem within the workforce and a nightmare for employers to administer. That decision sent a shockwave throughout the hotel industry in my State, and employees were much concerned. The consequence of the Tax Court's decision, uncorrected, would have imposed several hundreds of dollars of additional tax liability each year. We are not talking about those who are part of a senior executive class, whose salaries are six figures or greater. By and large, we are talking about people who tend to be at the bottom end of the pay scale in the hotel industry--those who are porters and maids and in other categories. So hundreds of dollars, for them, had a major impact. I am pleased to say that as a result of the bipartisan support and the efforts of Nevada's delegation and the leadership on both the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and several of our colleagues who served as conferees--I acknowledge that the senior Senator from Nebraska and the senior Senator from Louisiana who, in addition to the chairman and ranking member on our side, were extremely helpful--that consequence is not going to be visited upon the tens of thousands of employees in my own State and the hundreds of thousands elsewhere. In effect, a provision that is incorporated in this conference report will reverse the Tax Court's decision and will continue a practice that was established in terms of fairness and equity and will allow those employees to continue to receive those benefits without the additional tax consequences that the court decision would have imposed upon such employees. I want to publicly acknowledge all who were involved in helping to make that provision part of this provision. So, finally, Mr. President, this will not make this code a perfect code. I suspect that this will not be the end of our endeavors to provide additional ways in which we can provide fairness to the American taxpayers. But, hopefully, as a consequence of this legislation, the word will come from this Congress to the American people that we heard the complaints, we understand their legitimacy, we recognize that in a system such as our own, in which the compliance is essentially voluntary, we have an obligation to make sure that those who are trying to comply with the provisions of our complex Tax Code are treated fairly and, when problems are called to our attention, we will correct them. Again, I salute our colleagues who worked on this. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee for their courtesies in hearing the concerns that I and other members of the committee brought. I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid amendment, which would strike title 29 of the Defense Authorization bill, entitled ``Juniper Butte Range Lands Withdrawal.'' Title 29 would authorize development of the proposed Enhanced Training in Idaho (ETI) project of the Air Force. The ETI involves creation of a new Air Force training range covering parts of Idaho, Oregon, and Nevada to enhance training for aircrews of the 366th Wing based at Mountain Home AFB. The ETI would provide composite force training that includes multiple types and numbers of aircraft training together. The proposal would allow the Air Force to withdraw 12,000 acres of BLM land and associated airspace. Total DoD funding is estimated at $31.5 million. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues several reasons why I feel the Enhanced Training in Idaho proposal lacks merit. 1. The Air Force has not justified the need for a new training range. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense reviewed the Air Force's Idaho training range proposal and found that ``the Air Force cost benefit analysis that supports the proposal was prematurely formulated because of the lack of an overall training plan for the 366th Wing.'' The IG audit recommended that the Pentagon ``withhold Air Force and Air National Guard funds related to establishing the Idaho training range.'' In his comments to the IG, the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff acknowledged that the Idaho training range was not strictly necessary, and he stated that existing training resources enabled the 366th Wing to meet its training needs and to become combat ready. The IG concluded that ``the Air Force has not established the training requirement for the 366th Wing composite force or proved why existing training ranges cannot continue to provide composite force training.'' The IG further concludes that ``the Utah, Nellis, and Fallon ranges are suitable for composite force training and the ranges have the required airspace and ground areas.'' During the audit, officials of the 366th Wing stated that all training requirements were being met with the Saylor Creek Range and the Utah, Nellis, and Fallon ranges. 2. The ETI proposal is nothing more than a BRAC insurance policy for Mountain Home AFB. The motivation for this proposal is clear: it lessens the likelihood of Mountain Home AFB being included in a future round of base closings. Senator Kempthorn was quoted in the Mountain Home News earlier this year as saying that the ETI range proposal ``will be a great insurance policy for Mountain Home AFB.'' 3. Congress has not had the opportunity to review the proposal. Neither the Armed Services Committee nor the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have held any hearings on this proposal. Interested members of Congress and the public should have the opportunity to examine this proposal in the context of public hearings. In the 99th Congress, hearings were held in both the House and Senate on Legislation authorizing the withdrawal of public lands in the State of Nevada for training ranges in Fallon and Nellis. 4. Environmental impacts associated with the proposal have not been adequately mitigated.. A substantial portion of the air space expansion proposed by the Air Force is in the state of Nevada. The Board of County Commissioners of Elko County, Nevada, has expressed its concern with the proposal regarding the impact of increased training flights over the Owyhee Canyonlands, which extend into Elko County in northern Nevada. Less than one-third of the acreage the BLM originally sought to protect is covered by the 5,000 foot minimum flight level contained in the agreement between BLM and the Air Force. The agreements 5,000 foot standard protects less than one-half of the wilderness study areas of that region and its archaeological and sacred Indian sites. It protects less than one-third of the candidate wild and scenic rivers. Finally, the agreement opens military overflights in the area surrounding Little Jacks Creek, which is the only remaining wild area in the Owyhees where people and wildlife, including bighorn sheep, can enjoy relative peace 5. Impacts on the Shoshone-Paiute tribes have not been adequately addressed. The proposal omits any meaningful mitigation measures for the tribal members residing on the Duck Valley Reservation The language of the proposal pays only lip service to the importance of preserving access to and use of Indian sacred sites 6. The compensation provisions for ranching operations is a taxpayer boondoggle. The proposal contains a lucrative compensation package for one rancher that currently has a federal grazing permit on the 12,000 acres targeted for the range It has been reported that the grazing permit involves 1,059 AUM's--an AUM is currently valued at $1.35--which would mean that the permittee is currently paying approximately $1,429 per year for his privilege to graze cattle on public land It has also been reported that the agreement between the Air Force and the permittee involves a buy out of all or a substantial portion of this grazing use at the rate of $250 per AUM, which equates to a total payment of $264,750; in addition, the Air Force has agreed to compensate the permittee for the replacement costs associated with constructing new range improvements on other grazing land The vast discrepancy between what this rancher has paid for his privilege to graze on public land and what he is being paid to relocate his grazing operation sets a dangerous precedent that should alarm the American taxpayer Mr. President, for the reasons stated above, I urge my colleagues to support the Reid amendment. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President. I rise today to recognize a milestone in Nevada history. This weekend, Nevadans will celebrate the 50th anniversary of McCarran International Airport and on Monday the opening of the new ``D'' gates. Seventy-eight years ago, in 1920, pilot Randall Henderson landed his plane on a makeshift dirt runway marking Las Vegas' first flight. I am sure that Mr. Henderson had no idea that some 78 years later the McCarran International Airport would be one of the fastest growing airports in the country. That runway was later used by such famous people as Amelia Earhart, Clarence Prest, and Emery Rogers and came to be named Rockwell Field. Rockwell Field was sold in 1929. Fortunately, P.A. ``Pop'' Simon bought the land northeast of Las Vegas, the site of today's Nellis Air Force Base, and built the Las Vegas Airport. It was later named Western Air Express Field. In 1948, Clark County purchased an existing airfield on Las Vegas Boulevard South and established the Clark County Public Airport. That year, the airport was renamed McCarran Field, after Nevada's senior Senator, Senator Pat McCarran, who authored the Civil Aeronautics Act and played a major role in the development of aviation not only in Nevada but in the country. McCarran Airport was at that time already servicing 12 flights a day, by four airlines. Later, the growth of Las Vegas necessitated the move of the airport terminal from the Las Vegas Boulevard South location to Paradise Road, and the present McCarran Field Terminal was opened in 1963. At this time the airport was serving nearly 1.5 million passengers. Three short years later, the annual passenger volume exceeded the two-million mark for the first time in the airport's history. By 1978, tourism to the Las Vegas area had increased dramatically, and the McCarran 2000 master plan was established to respond to the burgeoning tourism industry. This plan brought the addition of more terminals, parking, runways, and passenger assistance facilities. After Phase I of the McCarran 2000 project was completed, the size of the airport quadrupled, adding 16 more gates. Later, a fourth runway was added along with major renovations to the runways and terminals, and in 1994, a 1,400-foot extension was added, making it one of the longest civilian runways in the United States. This Monday, McCarran will celebrate the opening of the new ``D'' gates, which will ultimately consist of 48 gates throughout four concourse wings. The completion of the ``D'' gates will enable the airport to serve a total of 55 million passengers per year, nearly double the current capacity. The growth of Las Vegas is a fact that has been recorded on many occasions. It has been dramatic. That growth could not have occurred if McCarran International had not kept pace and indeed anticipated the phenomenal tourism growth in southern Nevada. We salute McCarran on the 50th anniversary of its establishment. It has become an international gateway to the entertainment capital of the world. We are sure it was the farsighted leadership that has been provided in the past and its present expansion that will allow McCarran to continue to enjoy another 50 years of service to the community and to the millions of people who arrive by air each year making Las Vegas their destination.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Minnesota for his unfailing courtesy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak as if in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 7 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 243 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am proud to take the floor today to commend and congratulate the University of Nevada-Las Vegas men's golf team on winning the team's first National Collegiate Athletic Association championship. This remarkable team of student-athletes acquitted themselves with great distinction this past week as they achieved this singular honor for themselves, for the community, and for the State of Nevada. This accomplishment is further embellished by the fact the team shot 4 rounds of golf 34 under par, which set a tournament record by 11 strokes. Chris Berry, one of the team members, shot a total of 272 for 16 under par, to finish second in the individual competition. What makes Chris' success even all the more noteworthy is that Chris had been involved in tournament play previous years where he had the misfortune of finishing at the other end and he, through determination and hard work, achieved this remarkable athletic achievement. Congratulations should also go to the rest of his teammates, Bill Lunde, Charley Hoffman, Jeremy Anderson and Scott Lander. Bill Lunde and Jeremy Anderson made the All American college golf team. This golf team has had the goof fortune of being under the direction of an extraordinarily gifted coach as well. Dwaine Knight has placed the university's golf program on the national map. They have, in recent years, been top competitors, but not until this year did they achieve the ultimate, and that is the collegiate championship. Coach Knight is ably assisted by Assistant Coach Casey Whalen. This year, under their coaching staff, the Rebels have won seven tournaments. The only other sports team in UNLV's history to attain national collegiate championship was in 1990, when the men's basketball program was so honored in the Final Four, in Denver, CO. UNLV completed its season No. 1 in the polls, and I have encouraged the President to invite this extraordinarily able student athletic team to come to the White House and be appropriately recognized. The President himself is a golfer of note and distinction, and I am sure these fine young men are going to be able to offer a few tips the President might take advantage of to improve his own golf game.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that Polly Synk be granted the privilege of the floor for the purposes of the following debate.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague. Mr. President, for those who are not familiar with the parliamentary intricacies of the Senate process, I think a reasonable question should be raised, and that is why are we debating this issue; namely, the placement of a temporary nuclear waste dump at the Nevada test site in Nevada, when, No. 1, the Speaker of the House has indicated that no such legislation will be processed in the House; and, No. 2, the President of the United States has said if any such legislation should reach his desk, he will veto it.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield briefly.

Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to respond to my colleague. Let me just say very briefly that statement appears in the form of a statement issued by the Congressman from the First Congressional District in Nevada in which he quotes the Speaker directly and explicitly, I must say, based upon a previous statement that the Speaker made with respect to the same House Member in 1996, when he indicated at that time no action would be taken on the temporary nuclear waste bill. In 1996, the Speaker was good to his commitment and did not do so. I presume that he would be in the same vein committed to honor the commitment he has made. I say to my friend from Alaska, I have no reason to challenge that. I have seen nothing from the Speaker to indicate that the Congressman's statement is inaccurate.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me reclaim the floor and simply make the point that this bill, if it ever reaches the President's desk, will be vetoed. I have no question, based on the assertion not contradicted in any way, this statement was released yesterday. It has not been contradicted. I can understand why the Speaker may be reluctant to talk with my friend from Alaska because of the strong views. I suspect the nuclear power industry has also been unable to get a response.

Mr. BRYAN. I reclaim the floor and I simply say, because I want to talk about a number of issues, I inform my friend and colleague that a House leadership aide today told one of the local publications here on Capitol Hill. . . . that the nuclear industry and other bill proponents should have seen this one coming. It was presumed among the leadership that a vote on an issue as contentious as nuclear waste storage could never take place in an election year. That is June 2, 1998. It comes from Congress Daily, a confirmation from a House leadership aide. I have no doubt it is true. Let me get to the point as our time is limited. There is a lot more in operation here than nuclear waste. We are talking, my friends, about an unholy alliance between two of the largest corporate entities in America--the nuclear power industry and the tobacco lobby. Here is how both of them win and the American taxpayer and the kids of America lose. The Democratic leader was absolutely correct when he said we should stay on the tobacco bill until we complete it, just as we have with other issues that are deemed priorities by the leadership in this Chamber. The way to do that is to stay on it, not to get sidetracked on another issue. From a procedural point of view, the majority leader, at any time, can file a motion to proceed to invoke cloture at any time. It seems to me more is in operation here than might meet the eye. No. 1, if we get off tobacco, and that will be the effect if cloture is granted--everybody in this Chamber knows that our time limit for this session is extremely limited, 13 weeks or less; there are 13 appropriations bills that have to be processed, and many other pieces of legislation--in effect, a vote to invoke cloture is a vote to kill tobacco. That is a vote that kills children in America. Three thousand each day take up smoking for the first time; 1,000 of them will die prematurely as a result of smoking-related complications. A decade ago we thought we had made progress in reducing smoking of the underage. However, from 1990 to 1996 the statistics have been tragic and disastrous. The rates of teenage smoking have soared. In some categories of youngsters, African-American, they have more than doubled. In my view, it is absolutely important and imperative as a matter of public policy that we deal with the tobacco issue. Obviously, the nuclear waste industry has its own agenda but they find common ground with another industry in America, and that is the tobacco industry. The two of them come up with this strategy and both are winners and the American people are losers. Let's talk a little bit about the process for a moment. We are urged to move to consideration of a bill that is the House bill. That bill, by every standard, is much worse than a bad bill processed out of this Senate earlier in this Congress. The chairman of the Energy Committee has indicated that he has an amendment that will be offered shortly after--but everybody here understands what is happening. There is a so- called substitute that most of us have never seen--that at best is a work in progress--that we have no idea what it might be. There has been no conference, no conference. The Democratic members of the committee have not been involved or consulted in any way. This has been the nuclear utilities working out various provisions in the back room which serve their best interests, and which we have not yet seen in the light of day. My colleagues, you are asked to bring to the floor a bill that ultimately, if the substitute is offered, we don't have any indication as to what its contents may be. I agree with the majority leader when he said the responsible thing to do is to deal with each of these issues, tobacco and nuclear waste, separately and the way to do that is to vote no on the cloture motion and to stay on tobacco until we have completed it. Then if there is any desire to proceed, something that the majority leader has every right under the rule to do, he can proceed along that line. But there is no reason--none--to bring this issue to a head now. Now, let's just talk a little bit about the merits of this legislation and the need. For the last 18 years, the nuclear power industry in America has been crying there is an urgent need, catastrophe will fall upon us, that there is a crisis. Here is a statement made by our former colleague on the floor of the Senate, July 28, 1980--18 years ago--referring to a piece of legislation which was then referred to as away-from-reactor legislation, but essentially the same thing, a so-called temporary nuclear waste dump. Our former colleague said in discussing this: It is an urgent problem, Mr. President, for this Nation. It is urgent, first, because we are running out of reactor space at reactors for the storage of the fuel, and if we do not build what we call away-from-reactor storage and begin that soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983. Didn't happen, didn't happen. No nuclear utility in America has ever been closed down because of inadequate space. Some have been closed down because they are dangerous and they constitute a public health and safety risk, and others have shut down because simply in the evolving electrical markets of the day they are simply no longer economic. So that is the need argument. We are hearing that it is urgent; we need to deal with it. Let me talk about what the scientific community has said, the Nuclear Waste Review Board, not comprised of Nevada citizens who have strong views, as the chairman of the committee properly addresses. This is the scientific community. ``The board sees no compelling technical or safety reasons to move spent fuel to a specialized safety facility.'' None. Indeed, our colleagues have specifically incorporated into the law a provision that would be changed if this piece of legislation is processed that specifically precludes the establishment of a temporary nuclear waste dump until such time as a permanent dump is established. They knew then, as we ought to know now, that something that becomes temporary is de facto permanent in America. So the scientific community is not supportive. The President of the United States has indicated that he will veto this legislation. It is said the great joy of this piece of legislation is that all nuclear waste will be congregated in a single site. Not true, Mr. President. Not true. In effect, what we do is we will add one additional site. These designated sites on this chart indicate commercial reactors around the country. Those who are familiar with nuclear power understand that a nuclear reactor is powered by spent-fuel rods. Those spent-fuel rods, after a period of time, lose efficiency, so that they need to be removed from the reactor core and placed in storage. Those spent-fuel rods are what we are talking about here. That is the commercial nuclear waste. What is done, because they generate enormous amounts of heat, is they are placed in pools of water at the reactor site, so every commercial nuclear reactor in the country that has an active reactor will have someplace that by necessity they will have to store these spent nuclear rods for a period of 8, 9, 10 years. So this allusion that sometime we will have a single site is simply not the case at all. So long as there are commercial reactors in America, that is the process we must go through. Finally, a word about the court case and the responsibility of the Department of Energy. Mr. President, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted in 1982. It indicated there would be a series of contracts that would be entered into by each of the reactor sites and, indeed, that is what has occurred. Those contracts defined the responsibilities of the parties. The responsibility of the Department of Energy is, in the event that there is a delay in taking the nuclear waste from the reactor site--everyone must concede that is the case; there is no way possible that those dates can be met, and January 31, 1998, was the date--it expressly indicates that the remedy that is provided is that, to the extent the delay is ascertained, ``the contract will be equitably adjusted to reflect any additional cost incurred by the party not responsible for or contributing to the delay.'' What that means is to the extent that a nuclear utility incurs additional expense for on-site storage that it would not otherwise have incurred had the Department of Energy been able to take the nuclear waste, the nuclear utility and its ratepayers are entitled to be compensated. I do not disagree with that. I have introduced legislation since coming to this body that would provide for that. The simple way that could be done is to reduce the amount of a contribution which the nuclear utility makes to the nuclear waste fund in the form of a mill tax levy on each kilowatt hour of nuclear power generated so that the ratepayers may be whole. That has been offered time and time again. The nuclear utilities reject that because they have a different agenda. We will talk more about that. Their agenda is to transfer the financial responsibility from the nuclear utilities to the American taxpayer, and that is one of the most outrageous features of this legislation. I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank my senior colleague, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this debate is winding down, but I think we need to make very clear that there is no misimpression created that somehow the Senators from Nevada have injected the nuclear waste and the tobacco issue together. It is my strong preference, as a member of the Commerce Committee, having served on that committee, and having voted with the great majority 19-1 to report this bill out--I am referring to Senator McCain's legislation--and serving on the Finance Committee where it was reported out by a 12-6 vote--I was with the prevailing majority--my priority is to consider the tobacco legislation. It was not the Senators from Nevada who interjected nuclear waste in the midst of our discussion on tobacco. Now we have a way in this body of determining what our priorities are. If our priorities are addressed to finishing and completing a piece of legislation, neither hell nor high water can divert our attention and focus, and as the majority leader has said many times, and rightly so, we are going to stay on this issue until it is finished. What is different here? It is a matter of priorities, I suspect, an agenda that may not be spoken. The best and the most effective way to deal with the tobacco issue is to stay on the bill until we complete it, and that is the logical thing to do. To go off that bill, go on nuclear waste, back and forth, is not the logical way to do it. Mr. President, there is absolutely no urgency in the world to move to nuclear waste today. There is urgency to process this tobacco legislation. At the end of this day, when we return to our respective homes, another 3,000 young people in this country will have taken up smoking. And as we have said time and time again, 1,000 of them--1,000 of them--one-third will die prematurely as a result of smoking-related complications. That is the urgency. That is the priority that I attach. Let me say that there are some things that have been said about this legislation that I do not have time to respond to completely, but the Nevada legislature has very strongly expressed its opposition. It is suggested by the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee that you can understand why Nevadans would be opposed to this legislation. Let me suggest that opposition to this legislation has not come from Nevadans alone. When the American people are asked--the country as a whole--66 percent indicate they oppose temporary nuclear waste storage as proposed in this legislation. Only 17 percent support it; and another 17 percent do not know. This is a product of research done for the University of Maryland's 1997 National Omnibus Survey. I have very little time, Mr. President, but I want to talk about what I call the ``dirty little secret'' that is involved here. What the nuclear utility industry wants more than anything else is for the American public--the taxpayers in America--to lift this financial responsibility. Our friends in opposition who urge cloture frequently invoke the sanctity of this contract. This contract, as well as the legislation before us, requires those utilities to make a contribution to the nuclear waste trust fund of $1 million. That is a tenth of a penny for each kilowatt hour of nuclear power generated by these reactors. Here are the numbers. At no time did it contemplate, in addition to the expense incurred in terms of a permanent repository, that there would be an interim that would be added to this cost. Here are the total costs to this program: $53.9 billion that is kind of broken down in terms of the Nevada transportation crosscountry, the so-called centralized interim storage facility that is being talked about here, all of the other expenditures. So, $53.9 billion is what nuclear waste storage is going to cost us in America when this program ultimately winds down. Here is the agenda, here is the agenda: total program costs, $53.9 billion; total revenue derived from the utilities, and that is at the current rate of 1 mill for each kilowatt-hour, is $28.1 billion. Guess who gets stuck with that number? Guess who gets stuck with that number? All of you, all of you. Every taxpayer in America, $25.8 billion. That is at the current rate. If that gives you a little bit of elevated blood pressure, under H.R. 1270, the contribution of 1 mill would be roughly reduced by a third. So it would be, like, three-tenths of 1 mill, which would mean this number--rather than going to $25.8 billion, billions of additional dollars will have been added. That is what the agenda is on the part of the utilities. Their contract, the same contract that has been invoked with such sanctity, as well as the legislation, requires the nuclear utility industry to cover the costs of the high-level waste disposal program in America. They would like to shift that burden to you. Now, we haven't talked about one other issue, and that is, finally, the transportation issue. It is absolutely crazy, and the Congress recognized this, to ``site'' an interim storage, whatever merit an interim storage might have. Assume for the sake of argument there was some conceivable merit to it, although I must say I find none and there is no compelling reason and none of the scientists tells us it ought to be done. Assume for the sake of argument, no one agrees we should have a site for interim storage until the permanent site is determined. This chart depicts the transportation routes. Nevada is frequently the focus because we wind up at the end. But there are over 50 million Americans who will be affected within 1 mile or less of the site of the various transportation routes. This chart shows rail routes and highway routes. Every American is placed at risk. That makes no sense, either. That is why the current law, the law that would be changed by H.R. 1270--no temporary facility until we make a judgment with respect to the permanent. I conclude as I began. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. The President of the United States has indicated he is going to veto this legislation and he has indicated the reasons for that. Bad policy and bad science conclude that this ought not to be passed. The Speaker of the House, who wears a different political jersey than the Senators of Nevada, indicates that this legislation is not going to be enacted or acted upon by the House this year. He made a similar statement in 1996 and it was not processed. So, why are we doing this? Why are we going off of the tobacco bill? Could it be that there are some in this Chamber who really don't want to see tobacco legislation enacted? There is no conceivable reason that we have to have the vote on nuclear waste today. The leadership has every right at any time to file a motion to invoke cloture under our rules to proceed to the bill, and it is simply a matter of time elapsing for that to mature. That could be done next week, the week thereafter, or in anticipation of the conclusion of the tobacco debate. I respectfully submit, Mr. President, that the timing of this issue is highly suspect. To those of us who are committed to the tobacco legislation, that is a priority in America. Can there be any greater priority than the young people in America, at a time when the data reflects that the rate of increase of youngsters under the age of 18 has increased dramatically? We need comprehensive tobacco legislation. A vote invoking cloture jeopardizes that bill, may kill the tobacco legislation. Oppose the cloture vote, we stay on tobacco. We do what the American people have a right to expect us to do, and that is to act on behalf of the young people of America. I reserve any remainder of time I may have.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida has cut to the core of this issue. From the perspective of those who want this legislation to proceed, the question of adopting the House bill without amendment obviously moves that process forward. We are now told that, no, that is not the strategy, that we want to offer a so-called Bingaman amendment; and then we hear that there is a so-called perfecting amendment, which nobody has seen. Out our way, that is called keeping some cards up your sleeve. We don't have any idea what we are going to be asked to vote on. I think our colleague makes a good point. I urge rejection of the motion to invoke cloture.