Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I certainly do not want in any way to interfere with the presentation of the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, but we are in a time limit where we have an hour on each side and I want to make sure that I do not lose my----

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Just to be clear, in terms of the status, the 22 minutes that are reserved to the Senators in opposition is not affected by the colloquy between my two friends from New York and Wisconsin?

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, this legislation that we are debating today, as I have said on previous occasions, is somewhat arcane and esoteric. It is not the sort of thing where, for people who are at home watching this debate, it causes them to move to the edge of their chairs and to hang on every word. It is, however, terribly important for the tens of millions of small investors who, in recent years, have invested in the future of America, and for their confidence in the market system that we have created, because they are the small investors, they are the ones who will be impacted by this legislation. The large investors, the large institutions, will still have options that heretofore the small investors have had but the small investors will be deprived of as a result of this legislation. So it is the view of the Senator from Nevada that this legislation plunges a dagger into the heart of every small investor in America. What we are talking about is not whether a case can be brought in State court or Federal court. We are talking about a system, which currently exists, that allows a private small investor to be part of a class action, and other small investors who have been defrauded as a result of the misconduct of others, to come together and file an action in State court and to avail themselves of statutes of limitations that are longer than are available to those of us who file in Federal court to provide, for joint and several liability, the ability to recover from accomplices--particularly important if the primary offender has bankrupted himself or herself or itself or has taken leave--and to avail himself or herself of triple damages under RICO. So this has a very practical impact. Actions that would be available to small investors at the State court level will no longer--no longer-- be available to those small investors, as a practical matter. So we continue a process which alarmed my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of this committee, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, that began with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and, in our view, simply goes too far. Those of us who express strong reservations about this bill find no comfort with those who are filing strike suits, those who are involved in litigiousness for the sake of litigiousness. I believe it would be possible to craft a narrow provision that addresses the ostensible concerns that have been raised and yet not deprive small investors in this country of their rights under the law. The system for private enforcement of remedies has existed now for more than six decades. It is a dual system involving the State courts and the Federal courts. It has worked exceptionally well. The SEC has repeatedly testified as to the importance of private rights of actions as being absolutely essential to augment their own enforcement efforts. Indeed, they have said they have not the ability nor the resources to deal with the vast panoply of investor fraud, and they view the private cause of action as essential. Indeed, States were the first to enact these protections against fraud in the early 1900s, and when, in the mid-1930s, the statutes that essentially provided the framework for Federal securities regulation were put in place, it was expressly intended to supplement, not to supersede, to complement, not to wipe out, and the language of this legislation today specifically preempts the State cause of action for class actions. These State remedies are vitally important, and States have responded in a number of different ways by providing protections. I am going to talk about three primarily. The statute of limitations. Why is that important? Those who perpetrate fraud on small investors don't do so openly and nakedly; they try to conceal it to protect that activity. So the unfortunate decision of the court in the Lampf decision, which limits at the Federal level the right of an investor who has been defrauded 1 year from the point of discovery of the fraud, 3 years even though the investor never becomes aware of that fraud, is viewed by the Securities Commission as unreasonable because it takes them, with all of their resources, a minimum of 3\1/2\ years. The statute of limitation is not just an arcane debate about how long one should have, it is the ability of a small investor who has been defrauded without his knowledge and, never having learned of it within the 3-year period of time, is now precluded. Thirty-three States in this country, including my own in Nevada, provide for a longer statute of limitation. Some provide 2 years from the time of discovery of fraud, or 5 or 6 or even 10 years, and some provide no bar at all. In the vast majority of States in America, small investors filing class actions who do not discover the fraud until after 3 years are currently, under existing law, protected in at least 33 States. This legislation cuts off that right, and even though we all agree or, as the lawyers say, stipulate to the merit of the claim, it is barred-- barred--by the 3 years even though the small investor never became aware of the fraud. That is what we are talking about. Forty-nine of the 50 States provide liability for the accomplices-- those who conspired with the primary perpetrator of the fraud, whether they be lawyers, whether they be accountants, whether they be other investment advisers--to provide a cause of action--49 out of 50. Unfortunately, at the Federal level, there is no remedy for plaintiffs against aiders and abetters. So that means that if the primary offender, the perpetrator, becomes bankrupt, leaves the country, or is otherwise unable to respond in damages, historically at the State court level, the class-action plaintiffs could recover against those who conspired and aided in that fraud. The action that we take with S. 1260 deprives small investors filing class actions from this recovery. So now, if we pass this legislation, they are precluded from moving against those who conspired and actively participated in the fraud. Moreover, States, as a matter of providing protection to their own citizens, have provided in a number of jurisdictions for joint and several liability. That means if five or six are guilty of the fraud and only one has the ability to respond in damages, States have made the determination that as between the innocent investor, utterly blameless, that the innocent investor ought to be satisfied against the perpetrator of that fraud, even though there may have been several involved. That is wiped out. We have, in effect, a piece of legislation before us that dramatically limits the right of a small investor to pursue a class action in State court and to avail himself or herself of a whole host of remedies which States have provided on their own. I must say, the irony of this course of action by a Republican Congress that has proclaimed its devotion to State rights and has raged against preemption by a Congress at the Federal level of essentially State rights does not go unnoticed by this Senator. Why are class actions important? Again, it is pretty esoteric. Think for a moment. Tens of millions of small investors who may have been victimized by a fraud don't have the ability to hire a lawyer on their own to fight against entrenched special interests who have the ability to provide legal defenses and delays and delays. That is practically no remedy at all. It is only by binding together with other investors, small investors who are similarly situated, as the law says, that those costs can be spread and a recovery can be possible. When we say, as proponents of this legislation, ``Well, the small investor can still file in State court,'' that is true, but it is a hollow and transparent remedy because, as a practical matter, small investors simply do not have the ability to pay for the lawyer's fees and the costs that are involved in processing these kind of cases. That was the situation that 23,000 senior citizens who joined in a class action against Charlie Keating and Lincoln Savings and Loan found themselves in a few years ago. It was a class action, and they were ultimately able to recover 65 cents on the dollar of their losses. Had those plaintiffs been involved today with a shorter cause of action at the Federal level, with the cause of action unavailable at the State level for class actions, those plaintiffs would have not been able to recover that kind of money. The examples of these kinds of groups are not just small individuals, but they include school districts, municipalities, special improvement districts, pension funds at the State and municipal level. All of these are going to be affected by this legislation. As a practical matter, a class action provides the only realistic hope of recovery. As I pointed out, the SEC, with all its resources, says it takes them up to 3 years to compile the data to bring these securities fraud suits. So in effect, what we are doing now is we are providing for two classes of investors: Those who have been defrauded who are people of means, of wealth, so they can hire their own lawyers, they can still file at the State court level and take advantage of the longer statute of limitations, can take advantage of the provisions that provide liability against accomplices, can take advantage against the joint and several liability protections available at the State level. But if you are a small investor--and that is what most of those who are defrauded are, small investors--that remedy is no longer available to you. So the question arises: Why are we doing this? What is the problem? Well, frankly, to the great credit of our regulatory framework, we have the safest and the most efficient securities markets in the world. In 1990, there were 158 IPOs, totaling $4.6 billion. In 1997, 7 years later, there were 619 IPOs, totaling $39 billion. The stock market has recently set record highs. The Dow is over 9,000. And individuals confident in these markets are pouring in $40 billion a month in mutual funds. In 1980, 1 in every 18 households in America invested in the stock market. Less than 20 years later, it is more than one in three. That is a great tribute to the security and safety of this market. Why are we reducing the investor protections at a time when the stock market is surging and consumer confidence is growing? Investor confidence is crucial, and it is threatened by increasing fraud. I believe it was President Kennedy who made the observation, that, ``A rising tide''--referring to the economy--``raises all boats.'' And I think that is true. But it is equally true it also hides the shoals. Newsweek, in its October 6, 1997, edition: ``Scam Scuttling: The Bull Market is Drawing Con Artists. SEC Chairman Levitt summarized, ``In a market like this, parasites crowd in to feast on the bull's success.'' Business Week, December 15: ``Ripoff! Secret World of Chop Stocks-- And How Small Investors--[and that is what we are talking about] Are Getting Fleeced.'' The article focuses on small-cap equities manipulated to enrich promotors and defraud thousands of small investors--a $10 billion-a-year business that regulators and law enforcement have barely dented. The New York Times of November 26 of last year: ``Lessons of Boesky and Milken Go Unheeded in Fraud Case.'' In one case, 1,600 investors were swindled out of $95 million. Yet Federal and State enforcement resources are shrinking as these fraudulent schemes are perpetrated upon the innocent small investors. Now is not the time, I would respectfully argue, to in effect rip from the investor his or her opportunity to recover that which has been lost as a result of being victimized by fraud. Our securities markets run on trust, Madam President--on trust--not money. There will be much less trust, I fear, if this legislation occurs. Look what has happened in countries around the world: ``Albania tries to regain control [of the Ponzi scheme].'' That can't happen in America with the system that we have created. ``Shanghai Stock Market Cited for Scandal.'' ``10,000 Stampede as Russian Stock [Market] Collapses.'' ``Scandal Besets Chinese Markets.'' My point being that we have devised a system to protect investors. And I fear, by reason of overly broad legislation, we are depriving small investors of the very opportunity to recover that which has provided the confidence in the market that has encouraged such a massive investment by small investors. Why? We are led to believe there is a massive influx of cases that must be preempted because everybody is going to the State court to bypass the provisions of the 1995 law. Price Waterhouse, in January of 1998, made a report, an evaluation. Forty-four State cases--44--were filed in all of 1997, a one-third decrease since 1996--I want to emphasize that, a decrease--when 66 were filed, and less than in the 3 years before the 1995 legislation. A followup Price Waterhouse study, in February, tells us 39 cases were filed. My point being, whether it is 39 or 44, I would not argue that with my colleagues, but that is, out of 15 million cases, civil cases--not criminal, not traffic, not domestic relations--we are talking about 44 cases or 39 cases out of 15 million filed. That is a very, very small number. And although there are some problems, as has been pointed out by the proponents, none of the problems justifies the sweeping emasculation of investor protections that this legislation provides for. Now, what are the problems specifically in the act itself? If one believes that uniform standards are an essential public policy in the country--and, I must say, I have not been persuaded--then I think we would agree that a uniform standard that provides strong investor protections ought to be a part of that uniform standard. Unfortunately, what we have done, in each and every case, is opted for the lowest common denominator of protection. If the statute of limitations is longer at the State level, we have preempted it and limited the statute of limitations. If the State provides for liability against those who are accomplices, we take that cause of action away from the small investor. If the State allows for joint and several recovery against each and every one of those involved in the fraud, we take that away from the small investor. So it is my view that this is part of an ongoing process in which we have, in my judgment, left the small investor high and dry in many cases if this legislation passes. I must say that when you look at the trend line following the 1995 legislative enactments, you can see that pattern unfold. The Lampf decision, which shocked the SEC and others, limited the statute of limitations to 1 year from the time of discovery of the fraud to 3 years. The SEC recognized that that is an unreasonable period of time. And those who argued several years ago for comprehensive reforms said, ``Look, we'll address the statute of limitations at that point.'' We tried, Madam President, in 1995 to address the statute of limitations, but we were rebuffed. Now this legislation takes the longer statute of limitations, available in 33 out of 50 States, away from those small investors. The Supreme Court, in the Central Bank case, held that there is no ability to hold accomplices liable. We tried to provide for aider and abetter coverage. The SEC strongly supports that. We were told that when we redid the Federal securities laws that that would be included. My colleague from Maryland and I tried, and we were rebuffed in that effort. Joint and several liability, eliminated in the 1995 act. Civil RICO, eliminated. Discovery provisions, limited. In 1996, we made a determination to divide some of the regulatory responsibility between State and Federal authorities. In 1998, we are here with S. 1260, which I think is the coup de grace in terms of small investor protection. So I must say that I am greatly disturbed by this threat. I believe that small investors ultimately will pay the price. It is often said that those of us who oppose this legislation must be working for those nefarious trial lawyers. Let's take a look at the groups who support the position that the senior Senator from Maryland and I take. The American Association of Retired Persons. When I attend one of their meetings, I haven't seen a single retired lawyer in attendance. The AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State County and Municipal Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and many, many others, as you can see, particularly those involved with the State retirement associations, including the Public Employees Retirement System, the League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and Municipal Treasuries. Let me read a paragraph from a letter that the able Senator from Maryland introduced, coming from the Government Finance Officers Association, the Municipal Treasurers'Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of County Treasurers, National Association of State Retirement Administrators, National Conference on Public Employee Retirement System, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors. They raise many of the same objections that I have outlined today, as has my colleague from Maryland. Here is their comment: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was opposed by state and local governments because the legislation did not strike an appropriate balance, and this legislation extends that mistake to state courts. As both users of debt and investors of public funds, state and local governments seek to not only reduce frivolous lawsuits but to protect state and local government investors who are defrauded in securities transactions. . . . The above organizations believe that States must be able to protect State and local government funds. We are talking about taxpayer dollars. We are not talking about litigious plaintiffs. We are talking about pension funds, municipal State funds in which those entities have been defrauded and now will be provided much less protection to recover tax dollars--dollars belonging to each and every citizen who is a part of that group. Let me address one final point here as we conclude this discussion. One of the concerns that has been expressed is that there is no adequate assurance that liability will continue to exist against those who are reckless in their conduct. Now, that is a standard more egregious than simple negligence, more egregious than gross negligence. We are talking about conduct that is reckless in nature. Prior to 1995, when the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted, 11 of 13 circuits in this country had addressed the issue and had concluded that there was a cause of action for those who are guilty of reckless misconduct. The 1995 legislation, because it talked about a specific pleading standard, has created some confusion. Following the 1995 enactment, several district courts have concluded that no longer is there liability for reckless misconduct. Now, the proponents of this legislation say that they do not intend that as a consequence. And I accept their representation. However, we have tried to get into this bill a provision crafted by the SEC defining ``reckless'' to make it absolutely sure that ``reckless'' is protected. Their response? If the courts strike down ``reckless'' we will remedy it. I never impugn anyone's good faith, but I am a product of the experience that I have had in this legislation. We were told back in the 1990s that we would address the statute of limitation problem when we looked at comprehensive legislation to correct that. It did not occur. We were told after the Central Bank case that we will address the problem in which aiders and accomplices are no longer liable under the law. We were rejected in that effort. So I must say I find my comfort level not very high if the courts intend that. It seems to me if we are in earnest in wanting to protect that ``reckless'' standard, it is terribly important we use a definition which the SEC has provided. Let's make it part of this legislation. I am not unmindful of the fact that this bill is a train that is leaving the station. It will pass and it will be signed into law. But it would be a tragic mistake not to make absolutely sure that ``reckless'' is included. I believe a fair reading of the 1995 legislation should not give rise to an inference that ``reckless'' has somehow been changed. I don't believe that was the intent. The authors of this legislation say it is not true, but even when we try to get it moved into the findings of the legislation, we get resistance, so I have concern. Let me conclude by saying this is a piece of legislation which is a solution in search of a problem, overly broad and dangerous to millions of small investors in America. I yield the floor and reserve whatever time remains. (Mr. FAIRCLOTH assumed the chair.)

Mr. BRYAN

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

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, April 15, the day on which we pay our annual tribute to the IRS, will never be one of the happiest days on the calendar for Americans. It is a time in which all of us are required to pay that which we owe to the Federal Government by way of the tax system that we, as Members of the Congress, have imposed upon the American people. We have heard in the past few days a number of the abuses that have been foisted upon the American public, and I will speak to those issues in more detail in a moment. In the meantime, we have an opportunity to pass a reform and restructuring piece of legislation which, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to support and endorse, and I hope we can get this to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Many of us believe that it would have been possible to have passed this legislation last year so that the benefits that are provided in this legislation to the American taxpayer could have been available in the early part of this year before this year's tax collections went into effect. Nevertheless, we do have an opportunity to move forward on this important piece of legislation. Reform of the IRS is not a partisan issue. In my judgment, by acting quickly on this legislation, we can provide some much-needed protections and service improvements to the American taxpayers. I think it is fair to acknowledge that the problems with the IRS are not of recent origin or vintage. They have existed for many years. But it does seem to me that the timing for change is most fortuitous an opportunity for us to pass a broad, far-reaching IRS reform bill in a time when we have a Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Rossotti, who has a unique and, I believe, highly qualified background to help us implement these changes. Mr. Rossotti, unlike his distinguished predecessors, is not a man with a tax or an accounting background, but brings a distinctive business perspective. Many of the problems of the IRS deal with fundamental change of structure, so I believe that his background provides a unique opportunity, combined with this legislation, to produce the kind of changes which will benefit the American public and which Democrats and Republicans alike are prepared to embrace. Already, in the few short months that he has served as our Commissioner, he has demonstrated a commitment to reform and change, and I believe that is highly encouraging. Our responsibility as Members of Congress, in my view, is to give Commissioner Rossotti the tools that he needs to do the job, and the legislation before the Senate today does just that. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Roth and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan, the public today is more aware than ever of the types of abuses we need to correct in the IRS. Last week's hearings in particular reveal that the agency is in serious need of reform. I think all Americans were truly shocked and outraged by the testimony that we heard. The task of collecting taxes is always a difficult one, but little, if any, circumstances would dictate the strong-armed, police-style tactics that we listened to last week were necessary in dealing with the taxpayers who testified before the Finance Committee. The IRS, like any other agency, should attempt to use the least intrusive, the least confrontational method available to carrying out its duties. Having said that, the abuses that we heard last week, I think, engendered the justifiable outrage by all of us, but there are those who are part of our country who are involved in criminal and other kind of nefarious activities, and so we must, at the time we reform this agency, not deprive the agency of the ability to move against those who are truly involved in either criminal conspiracies or other kind of activities in which they are underpaying their taxes. Each of us who pay our taxes on time as required--and that is the vast majority of the American people--will suffer the consequences if changes that we bring into the system makes it more difficult to collect from those who would evade the taxes. The consequence of that course of action will mean that all of us will pay more, not less, as a result of failing to collect taxes that are lawfully due pursuant to the IRS Code. So we clearly need to be mindful of that. That testimony, nevertheless, I think was shocking to most Americans and certainly to the members of the committee where dozens of armed, flak-jacketed agents raided well-established businesses and individuals. This clearly appears to be an agency, at least in respect to those circumstances that we were informed about last week, that is out of control. Nothing that we heard, assuming that there was a tax liability owed by the taxpayers who testified, justified that kind of egregious conduct. That kind of conduct gives a bad name to those 100,000 IRS employees who are decent, law-abiding citizens. They are our neighbors. They are our friends. They are involved in the civic culture of our community. They are involved in Little League and all of the other activities that make up a community. But this kind of conduct is egregious, it is unacceptable, and it cannot be allowed to continue. I believe that the chairman and the committee have produced a strong bill that will give the Commissioner the tools he needs to make real reforms in the IRS possible. I would like to spend a couple of minutes addressing several of those reforms. Establishing an IRS oversight board to provide input and oversight from the customers of the IRS, the American taxpayer, in addition to those who have responsibility for enforcing the Code, I believe, broadens the perspective of the oversight, and I fully support that provision. Providing some kind of continuity for the Commissioner, as this legislation provides a 5-year term, I think is important for the stability and management of the agency. If, as I suspect, many of the agency's problems are deep-seated, institutional and cultural in nature, it is very difficult for an IRS Commissioner, no matter what his enthusiasm or her enthusiasm for reform might be, to make those kinds of changes in a couple of years. It takes a longer period of time to turn around a bureaucracy that is as large and encrusted as the IRS. It will strengthen the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate by ensuring that the taxpayer advocate is truly independent from the IRS bureaucracy and increasing the ability of the taxpayer advocate to provide relief to taxpayers. We have sought in the past, by establishing such an office, to provide that kind of assistance to the American taxpayer, but I believe candor requires us to acknowledge that we have fallen short of the mark, because the perception, if not the reality, is that the taxpayer advocate of the past is still part of the IRS structure, and the individual who holds that position looks to his or her future--the IRS itself--and therefore has been reluctant to aggressively intervene on behalf of the American taxpayer who has a legitimate grievance or issue to raise. It will enhance oversight of IRS activities by strengthening the Treasury Inspector General Office. We heard much in the last week about employees who have complained about misconduct on the part of some of their coemployees, reporting this misconduct only to be ignored. Hopefully, a more effective oversight responsibility on the part of the inspector general's office will provide assurance that those comments and concerns--shared, as I have indicated, by the vast majority of employees of the IRS who are responsible, dedicated public servants who, as we were abhorred by what we heard, they, too, are greatly troubled by that kind of misconduct on the part of the few employees who engage in that type of excessive conduct. This legislation requires the IRS to use fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers as a basis for employee evaluation. Mr. President, one of the ongoing concerns in my own State has been the so-called quota system. This Congress has in the past attempted to send a message indicating that the quota system can no longer be used either to evaluate employees or as part of a collection tool. Unhappily, notwithstanding those earlier directions from the Congress, we found last year as we were beginning our discussion of the reform measures in the Finance Committee that indeed, in the district in Nevada, such quotas were in fact being used, although they were not described as quotas. From all appearances, those who are part of the evaluating process could, in my judgment, have reached no other conclusion but that their performance would be judged by the amount of money that would be extracted from each taxpayer who came to the office by reason of some conflict or disagreement as to the amount of revenue that the taxpayer owed. A quota system is inherently wrong and unfair because it engenders a confrontational attitude. That is to say, the IRS revenue officer looks at the taxpayer not as a consumer, one who has a problem that needs to be addressed, but basically as an individual that the revenue agent must collect a certain amount of taxes from in order to be evaluated positively by his or her superiors for purposes of tenure or promotion within the system. I have to say that once we called this practice to the attention of the Acting IRS Commissioner at the time, he was forceful in his denunciation, as is Mr. Rossotti, our new director. But, nevertheless, notwithstanding directions from the past, these quotas were still there. That needs to be changed. And I believe that we provide not only the specifics, but the tenure in this legislation that directs that to be accomplished. This legislation establishes goals for increased electronic filing, which offers benefits to both the taxpayers and the IRS. If there is a part of this cloud that has a shining moment, it is in the system that has been created that allows for telefiling. It is a system available to millions of taxpayers, a paperless system that allows the taxpayer to get his or her refund, if one is due, much quicker than the old process. It relieves an enormous paperwork burden on the part of the IRS. So it is a win-win, a win for the taxpayer and a win for the IRS. I am pleased to see that more taxpayers are availing themselves of this. And electronic filing also provides simplification for the taxpayer as well as for the IRS, and that practice has increased as well. By shifting the burden of proof in certain cases where the taxpayer has cooperated with the IRS in providing all documentation to a tax case, again, it has the effect of leveling the playing field for the taxpayer in an issue of dispute or controversy with the IRS. Expanding the opportunity for taxpayers to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees when a taxpayer prevails over the IRS--this, too, levels the playing field and is in the essence of fair play. Enhancing the ability of taxpayers to recover civil damages when they are victims of IRS abuse or negligence--this provision that we have added to the code treats taxpayers more equitably by eliminating interest rate differentials between many overpayments and underpayments so that the taxpayer is treated as the IRS is treated for purposes of interest payments that may be due as a result of money owed to the taxpayer. The bill that we have before us provides relief from certain penalties when a taxpayer is making a good-faith effort to pay past due taxes. This legislation enhances due process rights prior to seizures and levies and improves the ability of taxpayers to take advantage of ``offers in compromise'' and installment agreements. This legislation increases disclosure to taxpayers of reasons for IRS actions, including providing reasons for denying a refund and clearly informing taxpayers of their rights during audits or other IRS procedures, thereby making the process less mystifying and secretive but more open and understood by the American taxpayer. It requires all IRS correspondence to identify by name, phone number, and address, and to provide the IRS contact regarding the correspondence, and to require the Joint Tax Committee to analyze the change in tax complexity of legislation being considered by the Congress. Mr. President, there is plenty of blame to spread around regarding the many problems with the IRS. It is certainly clear that for far too long a culture has existed within the agency that views the taxpayer as the adversary rather than as the customer. Overcoming this taxpayer- hostile culture is not something that we can accomplish instantaneously through legislative fiat, but I believe if we give Commissioner Rossotti the tools he needs to do his job, problems in this agency can be resolved and long-entrenched attitudes can be changed. Most of the more than 100,000 employees of the IRS are conscientious public servants dedicated to doing their job in a fair, impartial, and effective manner. With strong leadership from the top, increased taxpayer protections and increased flexibility to reward employees who do their job well and to, conversely, penalize those who do not, I think, are what this agency needs before it can be turned around. The IRS will never be the most popular Federal agency. But if, by passing this legislation, we ensure that honest, hard-working taxpayers are treated fairly and with respect by the IRS, we will have made a major improvement. I do not mean to suggest that by simply passing this legislation we will solve every problem with the IRS. Of course, that is not the case. A great part of the problems with the IRS rests with this body, the Congress itself. The code is extraordinarily complex, difficult to administer, ambiguous in parts, uncertain in terms of its intended consequence. With every good intention Congress has had, for many, many years the IRS Tax Code has become more complicated, not less so. I want to be clear that I supported the changes in the Tax Code that were part of the balanced budget agreement last year. But last year's tax bill is a good example of the code becoming more complex. While I believe that there were many solid policy reasons for every provision of last year's bill, no one can argue that last year's legislative enactment will provide for tax simplification. It has made the code more complex. And in recent weeks on the floor of this Chamber, we have heard proposals being offered on behalf of some of the educational issues that have been debated that will make the code even more complicated. The bill before the Senate today will, however, provide great improvements in the management of the IRS. And until such time as we can provide for a simpler Tax Code that can be more effectively administered, we have a responsibility to provide the necessary tools so that the code can be more fairly enforced and implemented. Mr. President, I strongly support this legislation and hope the Senate will pass this bill in the near future. I note that the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska joins us on the floor and undoubtedly will have much to say. I would like to pay tribute to him and his congressional counterparts for the years that they spent as part of a review of this Tax Code, the testimony they heard, the stories that were told to them. The genesis for this reform lies largely with the action of the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey. I acknowledge that. All of us ought to be grateful. He and Senator Grassley and others, in a bipartisan way, during the interim, took the many hours out of their time to canvas some of the more outrageous and objectionable provisions of the code, some of the practices that have occurred over the years, the injustices that have occurred. The legislation that they framed, which is the basis for action today, moves us a long way in the direction of reform. The American people ought to be very grateful to him, Senator Grassley, and others, for their efforts in moving this reform along the way. I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI address the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I rise today in support of the Reid/Bryan amendment which expresses the sense of the Senate that Federal public lands should not be sold to fund the landowner incentive program of the Endangered Species Recovery Act. As some of my colleagues are aware, the budget resolution before us today assumes the landowner incentive program of the Endangered Species Recovery Act will be enacted. The landowner incentive program includes habitat reserve agreements, safe harbor agreements, habitat conservation plans, and recovery plan implementation agreements within the Act. The report accompanying the budget resolution calls for funding for these programs to be made available ``from the gross receipts realized in the sales of excess BLM land, provided that BLM has sufficient administrative funds to conduct such sales.'' Mr. President, this proposal is a short-sighted attempt to find a solution to a very legitimate issue. I support efforts to find a sustainable funding mechanism to provide incentives to landowners to undertake conservation measures that are necessary for the protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species. The problem with the proposal before us today is that it fails to establish a reliable source of funding. The one-time sales of BLM lands cannot be expected to provide a revenue source for habitat conservation plans and other landowner incentive programs that are designed to last for 50 years or longer. This proposal is a classic example of selling a capital asset to pay for operation and maintenance costs. In my opinion, it represents the utmost in fiscal irresponsibility. In addition, this proposal would set a dangerous precedent regarding the management of our public lands by threatening the public land base available to future generations of Americans. Currently, the land disposal method favored the BLM involves land exchanges. This process allows the BLM to dispose of land it no longer needs in exchange for land that is worthy of public ownership. The land exchange process allows the BLM to trade an asset it no longer deems desirable for one that it does. Ironically, the BLM often uses land exchanges as a means of acquiring critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. By disrupting the land exchange process, the land sale proposal in this resolution could actually weaken the federal government's ability to acquire private, environmentally sensitive land that rightfully belongs in public ownership. Mr. President, I am also concerned with this proposal because it would effectively eviscerate another piece of legislation that I have sponsored concerning the BLM land disposal process in Southern Nevada. It is no secret that the public lands that this budget resolution contemplates being sold are those BLM lands in the Las Vegas valley. I have worked closely with Senator Reid and our House delegation for the last three years to develop the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which provides local governments in southern Nevada with more input into the BLM land exchange and land sale process. Over the last several years, BLM land exchanges have contributed significantly to growth and development in the Las Vegas valley. My legislation would allow local governments and the BLM to work more closely together in managing growth in the valley. The land sale proposal in this budget resolution would destroy the ability of the Las Vegas community to have a voice in the BLM land sale process as envisioned under my legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Reid/Bryan amendment and to reject the irresponsible sell off of our public lands as contained in this budget resolution.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will correct some misimpressions that may have been unintentionally offered here on the floor of the Senate. I think it is helpful to put this in some context. This proposal, which has been offered by the Senator from Arkansas on previous occasions, was in my idea never a good idea, but now the timing could not be worse because the status of at least one aspect of that industry, the gold industry in my State, is facing some very critical times. The international price of gold on the markets of the world has dropped precipitously, substantially below $300 an ounce. The break-even cost in the gold industry is approximately $296, so in my own State of Nevada, which leads the Nation and is one of the largest gold-producing areas in the entire world, we have had just in the last year more than 2,000 layoffs and a substantial number of mines that have closed, and the spot price of gold has been as low as $283 an ounce. So this is a very, very difficult time for this industry. The proposal offered by the Senator from Arkansas would, indeed, have a catastrophic impact upon the industry, and it would have a serious impact upon thousands of people in my own State. About 120,000 people in America work directly in the hardrock mining industry. In the State of Nevada, more than 15,000 have been employed at the high-level mark before these layoffs occurred. These are good-paying jobs. We talk a lot in America about good jobs that provide a full range of benefits, an adequate salary base to provide a decent living standard for America's workers. The average wage for mining in my State is nearly $49,000 a year. That is higher by far than any other industry. Finally, let me conclude by saying that the impression given that somehow the mining industry gets a free ride, doesn't have to pay any taxes, could not be further from the truth. The Natural Mining Association last year estimates that over $600 million in Federal taxes was paid. According to a recent GAO report, the average tax rate for the mining industry from 1987 to 1992 was 35 percent. That is compared with other industries: the auto industry, 23 percent; chemical industry, 19 percent; 33 percent for the transportation industry. In my own State, the gold industry paid more than $141 million in State and local taxes in 1995, including $32.7 million in property taxes. I note my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in respectful opposition to the amendment of my friend, the junior Senator from Arizona. Although this amendment is dressed in the robes of patient choice, in my view it dramatically changes the nature of the Medicare system and now, for the first time in more than three decades of Medicare experience, would give to the physician the ability to determine how much a Medicare patient pays for Medicare-covered services. I believe it is a prescription for disaster for the Medicare system and for the patient himself or herself. Let me put this in some context, if I may. For 30 years-plus Medicare patients have come to their physician and have known with reasonable certainty what kind of financial expectation they are required to pay in order to receive Medicare-covered benefits. This amendment would change that and allow the physician to make that determination. No. 2, we are plagued in the Medicare system today with fraud that some estimate may exceed $20 billion a year. I believe that this change would make it more complicated in addressing the problems of fraud that the system confronts. And, finally, for the Medicare patient himself or herself, I think it injects a notion of uncertainty and confusion when that Medicare patient goes to the physician. Let me put this in some context, as I understand it, so we can talk about what is not involved here. Since the inception of Medicare, and continuing beyond the 1998 balanced budget agreement for noncovered Medicare services--that would be, for example, plastic surgery--a Medicare patient has always had the right to enter into a private contractual arrangement with the physician of his or her choice. That is the history. That was unchanged by the balanced budget agreement of 1997, and it continues to be the law today. With respect to a Medicare-covered service, such as a diagnostic test in which Medicare pays for only one or two of those diagnostic tests, if a Medicare patient is uncertain as to the kind of advice he or she is getting as a consequence of that test, it has always been the case that if a second or third or fourth opinion is sought by the Medicare patient, that Medicare patient has the right to enter into a private contractual arrangement with the physician of his or her choice. That has been true historically. That was true prior to the balanced budget agreement and remains the case as well. Thirdly, this applies to part B Medicare, so we are not talking about the trust fund. For an individual who is philosophically opposed or for whatever reason chooses not to be a part of Medicare part B, that is his or her absolute choice. No one is required to participate or to pay that premium. And that is true with the physician as well. What I apprehend will occur here is a rather dramatic change in the Medicare system. A Medicare patient goes to a physician, and the Medicare physician says, ``Look, there are three or four procedures which I believe you need. With respect to three of those procedures, I'm satisfied that the Medicare reimbursement schedule is adequate. As to the fourth, I will need additional compensation in order to provide that service.'' The net effect of all of that, I respectfully submit, is that no Medicare patient, going to his or her doctor's office, will know with certainty what the financial expectation will be of that Medicare patient. That changes the system rather dramatically. For more than three decades, to the best of my ability, there has been no private contracting between Medicare patient and physician with respect to covered service. My distinguished colleague may be right that there may not be carved in stone any legal prescription, but that indeed has been the practice. And 96 percent of physicians in America cover and treat Medicare patients. So I think we ought to give a considerable reflection to what is at issue here. My distinguished friend and colleague offered in the balanced budget amendment an amendment which was ultimately fashioned into law. That provided, for the first time, an opportunity for a physician who wants to enter into a private contractual arrangement with a Medicare patient to do so. If the Medicare physician chooses to do so, then that Medicare physician may not have other Medicare patients for a period of 2 years. That was, in effect, an opening, if you will. That provided an expanded opportunity which did not heretofore exist. There are some groups who I think have been irresponsible in characterizing that as a limitation. That is not the case, as I understand it. I simply say to my colleagues, the Medicare system is not perfect. There are certainly some things which we need to do, and, indeed, the Medicare Commission has been formed for that purpose. Hopefully, it will come with some bipartisan recommendations. But I do not believe we will want to change dramatically the nature of that system which does have certainty; namely, a fee schedule for reimbursement to a physician for Medicare-covered services. That has been the hallmark of the Medicare system. That will change rather dramatically if the proposal which my friend from Arizona offers is accepted, and would allow not the patient, but the physician, to make that judgment. Most of us, when we go to our physician, even those of us who might be described as being in the ``pre-Medicare age''--that is, we are not quite eligible for Medicare services--approach the annual visit to our physician with some trepidation. A physician has the ability to say, ``Look, that condition that you have is terminal.'' So there is some apprehension, some ill at ease, no matter how many times you have been to a doctor. When you are in that context, it is not a level playing field, and the doctor saying to you, ``Look, I no longer accept this rate of reimbursement from Medicare which I previously accepted,'' places, in my view, the patient at a decided disadvantage in dealing with that physician and is more likely than not to say, ``Well, all right, I will agree to pay.'' As I indicated previously, if there are two or three Medicare services that the patient requires, the confusion of, ``I will accept Medicare reimbursement for two of the services but not a third,'' I think leaves the patient in a very confused situation. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Let's all work together as a result of the Medicare Commission and see what kind of changes we need to make to improve the system. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, what is at issue here is whether States, through their elected Governors and State legislatures, will determine what the scope of gaming is in a particular State, or whether that decision should be made by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior has proceeded with regulations that are subject to public comment and are currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget that, in effect, would constitute a preemptive strike. That is, the Secretary of the Interior would determine the scope of Indian gaming. We believe that is inappropriate. This amendment seeks to reaffirm a policy which the Congress agreed to last year; and that is that the Congress should retain the authority to make any changes in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs has indicated that he intends to move forward with the piece of legislation. I assured him that we will work cooperatively with him about what the Secretary of the Interior has done. Notwithstanding the actions taken by the Congress last year, which would prevent the implementation of a regulation which would give to him the ability to establish the scope of gambling activity in a State contrary to what I believe is the clear intent of the Congress, this amendment simply says he may not go forward at this point with the processing of those regulations. So completely consistent with what we agreed to last year, no compact that currently exists between any tribe or any Governor is affected. We in Nevada have five such compacts. Many other States have compacts as well. What is involved here is not a question of bad faith between a Governor and a tribe. It is that several tribes, particularly in the State of California and in the State of Florida, have been pressing Governors to provide Indian tribes with the ability to conduct gaming activities that are prohibited under State law. In the State of Florida, for example, there have been three public referendums. And the public in Florida has rejected open casino gaming, as my State of Nevada has adopted. The tribes, nevertheless, pressed forward and challenged the Governor of Florida, accusing him of bad faith in not being willing to negotiate such gaming activity. My view is that it is a province that ought to be left to the State Governors and the elected State legislatures. In California, currently 20 tribes have 14,000 illegal slot machines, contrary to State law. The Governor of California has recently negotiated a compact with the Pala Band of Indian tribes that do not permit, as some tribes want, slot machines in California. California's Governor and its State legislature ought to make the determination. So what this amendment does is to preempt the Secretary of the Interior from making that decision and retains the authority and jurisdiction in the Congress. If there are to be changes in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, if there are perceived shortcomings, let us in a deliberative fashion make those changes --not the Secretary of the Interior. As I have indicated, I look forward to working with my colleagues who serve on that committee. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of the time to be allocated by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming on our side of the issue.

Mr. BRYAN. It will be charged against the Senator's 15 minutes on this bill.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the distinguished author of the amendment yield me 5 minutes?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I may inquire, my understanding is that Senator Enzi controls 15 minutes on the Enzi-Bryan amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. In the interest of accommodating the time of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I note that Senator Enzi joins us on the floor at this moment. If I might engage him in a colloquy, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has indicated that it would be permissible for us to move forward. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii has made a statement, all of which is charged on our time. There are 15 minutes remaining. I would be happy to yield to the primary sponsor of the amendment and then take my time, if he prefers to go first.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank you. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, who has not had an opportunity to speak. If he wishes to precede me, I would be happy to yield. Mr. President, I think it is helpful to our colleagues if we put this amendment in some context. In 1988, the Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. That act says that to the extent that States permit gaming activities within the States, that Indian tribes within those States should have the same opportunity. Let me say that I am in support of that philosophy. In Nevada, we have a full range of casino gaming activity. There is no question in my State that tribes within Nevada have the same opportunity, and, indeed, we have five compacts that have been ratified between the Governor and the tribes in my State permitting those tribes to conduct the same kind of activity for gaming enterprises that we have in Nevada. Let me give a contrast, if I may. My friend from Hawaii and our colleagues from Utah--in those two States a determination has been made that no form of gaming activity should be permitted, something that I believe is a matter of public policy for those two States to make a determination. So it is equally clear under the act that Indian tribes would have no opportunity to participate in Indian gaming unless the States chose to permit it because they have made a public policy not to have any form of gaming. In between, there are 48 other States that have adopted variations of gaming. So there are a number of States that have entered into compacts; that is, agreements between Governors and tribes. The Enzi- Bryan-Reid amendment in no way impacts those States that have previously entered into compacts. Those are valid and continue to be effective. What is at issue here is that some tribes, particularly in California and Florida, have tried to force the respective Governors of those States to permit gambling activity, which those States do not permit, specifically in the form of slot machines. California has made a determination that they do not, as a matter of public policy, favor slot machines, so therefore slot machines are not permitted in California. In Florida, the same public policy prevails. And the tribes have sought to force those Governors to negotiate this kind of gambling activity. In California today, there are 40 tribes that operate 14,000 illegal slot machines, slot machines that are not part of negotiated compacts. Recently, the Governor of California and the Pala Band Indian Tribe have entered into a compact that does not, Mr. President, include the gambling activity that currently illegally exists in these 20 reservations; namely, slot machines. What is troublesome to my colleagues who join me on this amendment and what was of concern to the Congress in the last session is the Secretary of the Interior has moved forward with regulations that would say the Governors and the tribes are not the ones to determine the scope of gaming in a given State; the Secretary of the Interior should have that right. So in the Interior appropriations bill that was approved last year, we offered a provision that said, in effect, the Secretary of Interior is prohibited from expending any money to implement a regulation which would give to him the authority to be the final arbiter between a tribe and a State as to what should be negotiated. What causes our renewed concern is, the Secretary of Interior has now begun a rulemaking process that has been out for public comment, that is currently before the Office of Management and Budget for review, that is doing the very sort of thing that we sought to prohibit in the appropriations bill last year. What this amendment does is to reaffirm the policy of the Congress that the Secretary of Interior shall not move forward in overriding, if you will, a determination between a Governor and the tribe as to the scope of gaming. I am familiar with no circumstance--none--in which a Governor today has refused to negotiate in good faith for gambling activity on a tribal reservation that is consistent with that State's public policy. So what we are really talking about here are tribes that have been putting a lot of pressure on Governors to, in effect, open up casino gaming, as the distinguished Senator from Alabama pointed out. I believe that is a determination the States, the Governors, ought to make. The law is clear, once a State crosses the Rubicon and permits a form of gaming, the tribal governments within that State should be entitled to the same. That is fair. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is no quarrel with that. But the tribes have sought to push some of the Governors and say, ``Look, we want slot machines. Even though you do not permit that as a matter of public policy, we believe you ought to be required to negotiate that, and if you won't negotiate that, we will accuse you of acting in bad faith and will go to the Secretary of Interior and have him make that determination.'' I believe however we line up on the political spectrum in this Chamber, that is not a decision that the Secretary of Interior ought to be making. That is a decision which the State, as a matter of public policy, should determine for itself--how much, how little, if any, gaming activity should be allowed. What our amendment does is to refine the amendment that was offered as part of the appropriation process and goes further and says, ``Look, you shall not go forward with this rulemaking process,'' in the context of the appropriations for this year. I believe that is totally consistent with what we began last year, and I believe it is something this Chamber ought to reaffirm. My concern is that the rate in which this rulemaking process is proceeding is, the day after the current appropriations bill expires, October 1, we have a regulation out there and the Secretary of Interior will begin to make determinations as to the scope of gaming permitted in States. May I say in the two States in question, one of them presided over by a Democrat, one by a Republican, this is bipartisan. Both of those Governors have resisted that. The National Governors Association has gone on record as opposing the Secretary of Interior's position, the National Association of Attorneys General has gone on record as opposing it, Democrats and Republicans in both of those two associations, because in effect the Secretary of Interior would be allowed to preempt State public policy. That is something that I believe none of us would want to occur. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2134 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that of the rescissions, if any, which Congress makes to offset appropriations made for emergency items in the Fiscal Year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, defense spending should be rescinded to offset increases in spending for defense programs)

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am dismayed to hear that there are continuing efforts to process through this Congress an ill-conceived piece of legislation that would establish a temporary nuclear waste dump in my State at the Nevada test site. I believe those efforts will be defeated, and I believe that the policy indications overwhelmingly indicate that is an ill-conceived piece of legislation. Most of the debate that has occurred on this floor in this session and the previous session has been by my colleague Senator Reid and I in discussing this with other Members of this body, and the issue has frequently been framed that it is Nevada versus the rest of the country. I want to enlighten my colleagues this morning on some developments that I think are most interesting. The voices of the average citizen in America have not been heard in this debate. In fact, a recent poll commissioned by the University of Maryland indicates that slightly more than 35 percent of Americans, when questioned about this ill-conceived proposal, know anything about it at all. So my colleagues have not heard from the public. The nuclear energy industry and its advocates and supporters have been a massive presence on Capitol Hill. Their voices have been heard. Their power and their influence through the Halls of Congress have been immense. I freely acknowledge that they are a frightening and impressive adversary in terms of the resources that they bring to bear. But again, about 35 percent of the American people are even aware of this proposal at all. Under the commission survey by the University of Maryland, when Americans are told about this proposal, and they are asked about this concept of transporting high-level nuclear waste throughout the country, 66 percent express opposition. And of the 66 percent who expressed opposition, 75 percent were strongly opposed. I hope, as this debate is likely to resume during the present Congress, that my colleagues will hear the voice of their constituents. They know that this is bad policy, they know it is unsafe, and they know that it is unnecessary once the facts are freely laid out for them. Mr. President, you will recall, during the course of the debate we made the point here that in order to transport high-level nuclear waste to the so-called temporary site at the Nevada test site, it must pass through 43 States and that 50 million Americans live within a mile or less of the major rail and highway corridors in America. The red lines depicted on this map of the United States indicate the highway corridors. The blue lines indicate the rail corridors. One does not have to be a student of geography to understand that these highway and rail corridor systems make their way through the major metropolitan centers of our country. Indeed, they are arteries of commerce that connect the major cities of our country. So in transporting high-level nuclear waste, that waste is going to go through the major metropolitan areas of our country. When citizens in those communities are made aware of this peril, they react without reference to partisanship but to strongly express their opposition. We have communities such as St. Louis, Denver, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Philadelphia, and other communities that have passed ordinances expressing their strong opposition. What brings me to the floor this morning is that just earlier this week in Flagstaff, AZ, its city council passed a resolution expressing its strong opposition to this proposal. It is unnecessary. It is opposed by the scientific community. It is opposed by the Department of Energy. It is opposed by sensible Americans who have looked at the issue because it is unnecessary. Transporting 70,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste across the country to a temporary facility makes no public policy sense at all. As we have pointed out time and time again on the floor, this is not a new proposal. The origin of this proposal can be traced to one group and one group only, and that is the nuclear utility industry. Two decades ago they came before the Congress and urged the Congress to pass what was then referred to as an away-from-reactor program to remove the nuclear waste from the reactor sites and place it in some other facility off-location, off-reactor, as it was referred to. But Congress wisely rejected that proposal two decades ago. I might say that the arguments then, as now, are that catastrophe will occur in America if this is not transported to some temporary location away from reactor sites. In the 1980s, it was asserted that we would have a nuclear brownout, that these utilities would simply be unable to function because they did not have onsite storage if these shipments were not made. It is now two decades later. No nuclear utility in America has closed as a result of the absence of storage capacity onsite. Many have closed because they are unsafe. Others have closed because, from an economic point of view, to retrofit older reactors to bring them up to the safety standards that are required is simply uneconomical. Many of my colleagues find it difficult to accept, but the nuclear industry is an energy dinosaur in America. No new reactors have been ordered or built in America in two decades. I think it is highly unlikely, in light of increased public knowledge and understanding of what is involved in siting a reactor in a community, that we will ever again have a new reactor built in America. So when the public is presented with the facts--namely, are you aware that the Congress is considering in this session of the Congress a proposal to transport nuclear waste through 40 States, 50 million Americans within a mile or less; and what do you think of that proposal?--the overwhelming reaction, two-thirds, expressed strong opposition. My point, Mr. President, in bringing this to the floor today is that I hope my colleagues will listen to their constituents and hear from them. We have heard the arguments of the nuclear utility industry. But the American public, by and large, because they did not know about this proposal, we have not heard their voices. I can tell you, having been to St. Louis and Denver, when you talk with citizens in those communities, and make them aware of what is involved here, they understand the risk and they express strong opposition to this proposal. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. There should not be an impact. This MPO should not affect other program aspects under Title 23. The section we have written is designed to allow Tahoe to organize for transportation. There is no intent to change other policies of the federal transportation program.

Mr. BRYAN. Our legislation makes it clear that there will be a representative of a federal land management agency on the Lake Tahoe MPO. This is only reasonable.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is correct. As you have mentioned, the Lake Tahoe Basin consists of parts of two states, 4 counties, 3 National Forests, and one city. However, as the Bi-State Compact recognizes, the Basin has unique environmental needs that require the cooperation of all people and groups that own or manage property within the Basin. The ability to compete for and utilize federal transportation planning dollars will allow the Basin to fulfill many of the goals identified in the Basin's Environmental Improvement Program.

Mr. BRYAN. I agree with the Senator. Our legislation addresses the fact that the federal government is the biggest property owner in the Basin. As such, there is a need for federal involvement in both the planning and program implementation of transportation projects at Lake Tahoe. Our amendment gives the Basin access to both planning and program implementation funds for programs of federal land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service. President Clinton made it clear last summer that the U.S. federal government must fulfill its obligations within the Tahoe Basin. Although this amendment does not include a seat on the MPO for the U.S. Department of Transportation, this provision would provide a role for U.S. DOT to assist in fulfilling these obligations by assisting the federal land management agencies in preparation of transportation plans.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me just express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the committee for the leadership which he has provided us and for the bipartisan approach he has taken in crafting the amendment which is before us. I would like to associate myself with his comments and observations with respect to the so-called ``industry exceptions'' in airbag provisions. There are generic provisions that provide for pilot projects which I think is appropriate. And, as the Senator has pointed out, a commitment was made during the markup to try to work out some of the concerns that have been voiced by some of our colleagues who want these wider exceptions in airbags. Unfortunately, as the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, we have not yet reached an agreement on those areas. But I want to work with him, and I pledge my support in trying to fashion a compromise that does not emasculate the safety provisions and give blanket exceptions and waivers under the provisions of the amendment which is currently part of the amendment which has been proffered. Let me also acknowledge and compliment the chairman on his leadership in bringing those of us together who have worked for many years on the airbag legislation. That legislation has its genesis in the 1991 ISTEA markup, at which time the senior Senator from Washington and I worked to incorporate those airbag provisions into the legislation. We recognize, as do all Members, that the unexpected infant fatality count as a result of by and large the inappropriate placement of infant seats has caused the problem that we want to respond to. I believe, under Senator McCain's leadership, he brought a group of us together, and through several sessions we have worked out a compromise that is part of this legislation. I am pleased to endorse it. So I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from Arizona as we process this part of the highway legislation. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for approximately 7 minutes. It is relevant to the bill but not to the amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to preface my remarks by thanking the leadership on both sides of the political aisle, the able and distinguished chairman, Senator Chafee, as well as the able and distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, for an agreement which has put an additional $26 billion in terms of contract authority into this legislation that we are processing. This is no inconsiderable accomplishment. I recognize that leadership effort lasted for a number of months. It involved Senators Phil Gramm, Senator Byrd, and others. But this is a very important thing. It is bipartisan. I am pleased to support that effort. There are many Federal programs that provide important services to the States. But, as a former Governor, I can tell you that there is no Federal program that is more important than the highway program. In addition, the funding mechanism for Federal transportation funding--the gas tax--creates an even great and moral and ethical obligation for us to do our work, and to provide a long-term reauthorization of ISTEA. The mechanism that my colleague has chosen in putting this compromise together; namely, using the highway component of the additional 4.3 cent gas tax to provide this additional contract authority, I think is particularly appropriate and very sound and a sensible means to provide that enhanced contract authority. Although Nevada is still small by the national standard, in the last decade we have experienced the most rapid growth rate of any State in the Nation. Although there are still plenty of sparsely populated, wide-open spaces, we have also become the most heavily urbanized State. While in many respects this tremendous growth has been a positive development, the growth has brought with it a host of infrastructure demands that we are currently struggling to meet. Perhaps the greatest current need in Nevada is highway improvements. Our limited interstate system and other Federal highways were largely designed in the 1950s and early 1960s when Nevada was a far different place than it is today. Despite a tremendous effort by State and local governments over the past decade, nearly every one of the major arteries is currently operating far beyond its capacity, and there is no end in sight to the increased demand. We need more capacity on our highways, and the Federal Highway Program is a major partner in that effort. The highway needs of Nevada are even more acute when viewed in the context of our State's heavy dependency upon our largest industry, which is tourism. Despite our increased reliance on air travel, highways, particularly roads that connect us to our major markets in California, are the key to Nevada's commerce. Some of these major arteries, particularly I-15, Las Vegas' major connection to southern California, operate so far beyond capacity that they threaten to become an impediment to Nevada's incredible economic success story. In fact, one of the most important demonstration projects the Nevada delegation is pressing for in the pending legislation is a project outside our borders, and that is the widening of Interstate 15 in California from Barstow to Victorville. The passage of this ISTEA legislation is imperative, and sooner better than later. As we will recall, in the 1991 reauthorization we were successful in including funding for the ``Spaghetti Bowl,'' the most congested part of the downtown access in Las Vegas. Nearly 6 years later, the ground breaking for that project occurred late this last fall. That is an indicator of the time lag that it takes for us to get projects authorized and funded to contract and to construction. This time around, Nevada's highway needs are even greater than in 1991, and the projects we need to fund in the coming years dwarf the ``Spaghetti Bowl'' project which previously had been the largest highway project in our State's history. Throughout the State, in both northern and southern Nevada, many large and vital highway projects will need to be financed, and financed soon, and the Federal Government through the ISTEA formula is going to be an essential partner. In southern Nevada, the State plans to expand the major artery to the rapidly growing northwest sector of Clark County by greatly expanding the capacity of US-95. In northern Nevada, we need to complete the long-awaited connection between Reno and the State capital in Carson City along US-395, and Carson City itself needs a freeway bypass around the capital and commercial areas. We need money to build a new, safer bridge over the Colorado River, taking existing hazardous traffic off the Boulder Dam. Highways and roads are not the only transportation solutions in the works in Nevada. To an extent which would have been unthinkable only a few short years ago, we are becoming increasingly dependent on mass transit. Both of our major metropolitan areas, Las Vegas and Reno, have significant public bus and paratransit systems which make a major contribution to both mobility and air quality in their respective communities. The Citizen Area Transit system, or CAT, in southern Nevada, in particular, has been an incredible success story in only a few short years of operation, and it is currently planning on more than doubling its bus fleet in the next several years to more than 500 vehicles. CAT is also well along in the planning process for a major fixed guideway system serving the heavily traveled resort corridor. Both the bus fleet expansions and the fixed guideway system are counting on their fair share of Federal transportation dollars, something that will simply not be there any time soon if we do not finish our work on ISTEA as quickly as possible. The State of Nevada and the assorted local governments have all stepped up to the plate. We heard frequently in this partnership with the Federal and State and local governments that local governments must do their fair share. In Nevada, State and local governments have done their fair share. They have imposed some of the highest highway taxes in the Nation upon our residents to provide for those additional improvements which I have alluded to. What we are currently lacking is a solid, long-term commitment from the Federal Government as part of the Federal Government's requirement to live up to its partnership responsibilities. In fact, the Federal highway and transit programs are just that, they are bargains, commitments made with the American people. Unfortunately, in what has been a long source of frustration to me, first as a Governor and now as a U.S. Senator, the Federal Government has not lived up to its side of the bargain. Every time any one of us buys a gallon of gasoline, we pay 18.4 cents to the Federal Government, money that is supposed to be set aside and dedicated and spent for highway and transit improvements. As we all know, this is often not the case. Somehow, a good part of this funding never makes it back to the States for highway improvements. The trust fund balance now stands at more than $20 billion. By the year 2003, the balance of the trust fund could exceed $70 billion, all of which has essentially been taken from the American people under false pretenses; that is, the money is collected for highway improvements but not fully allocated for that purpose. I am hopeful with the compromise that has been effected that we will work to address what I believe is a failure of Federal responsibility. The time is right for us to increase transportation funding to levels that more accurately reflect the payments taxpayers have been making to the trust fund and to get to work on some of the very transportation and infrastructure problems facing our State and our Nation. Nothing can happen, of course, unless we complete ISTEA soon, and that is why I believe that it is one of the most important priorities for us to deal with in this session of the Congress. Again, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked out the compromise that has increased the contract authority by some $26 billion. That is something that every State will benefit from, and a State such as my own with a backlog of infrastructure needs will need this additional funding in order to complete these projects. wallop-breaux trust fund

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally discussing and debating the issue of campaign finance reform. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their diligent work and for what has been a tireless effort on their behalf in forging a bipartisan compromised legislation. I rise today not only to advocate my strong support of the McCain-Feingold bill but to urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass this campaign finance reform proposal that is so desperately needed to renew the trust in the political process and our democratic institutions. At the same time, I know the Senate leadership and the majority of those on the other side of the aisle have decided there will be no campaign finance reform of any kind. And so, they have killed a reasonable attempt at urgently needed reform; an attempt to close greatly exploited loopholes. Along with the support of all 45 Democrats and the seven Republicans who support the effort of reform, the Senate Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, pressed hard to bring this important issue back to the Senate floor for a vote. Despite the Republican leaders who oppose campaign finance reform and who have for so many years tried vigorously to thwart real reform, this legislation has strong support, including the backing of President Clinton. Last year when the Senate turned to campaign reform legislation, the Majority Leader offered an amendment to block campaign finance reform and followed through with a procedural motion to deadlock the Senate. It was an effort to kill campaign finance reform without debate and without a vote. However, later that year, the Majority and Minority Leaders struck a unanimous consent agreement that would afford us with the opportunity to once again debate and consider McCain-Feingold and other issues related to reform legislation, or so we thought. Mr. President, the Senate leadership this week has introduced the same poison pill legislation that was introduced last year as an amendment. Its sole purpose is to kill the cause of campaign finance reform. Once again, this is a clear indication that from the other side of the aisle that Republicans are not serious about reforming our campaign laws. Some of my colleagues may argue that campaign finance reform is not an important issue to the American voter; I expect we will hear this refrain from a number of my colleagues. But, is that really the case? Or are they just hoping and trying to make us believe that is the case? Because the polls tell us differently? The polls show Americans do care about the way their political system works. A full 83% of respondents to an October 1997 ABC News/Washington Post poll believed that campaign finance reform should be a goal for lawmakers. In a June NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 62% of those questioned supported an overall reform package that called for reducing contributions from political action committees, establishing spending limits, and eliminating large contributions to political parties. The truth of the matter is campaign finance reform is a very important issue and the public does want reform. Yet, the polls also tell us that many American voters have become deeply cynical about whether their elected representatives will have the courage to check their own self interest and summon the courage to enact real campaign finance reform. In the ABC/Washington Post poll, when respondents were asked whether reform will occur, 59% answered ``no.'' This poll tells us that a large majority of Americans believe, once again, that politicians' self-interest will trump the public will. There is no reason to believe that the public's opinion is going to change. And why should it? After watching the enormous amount of money spent on the 1996 elections, the hearings held over the 1996 fund- raising controversy, and the aborted effort to pass campaign finance reform last year, it is likely that the public's cynicism will only continue to grow. Campaign finance reform is an issue that deserves our full consideration. It is our underlying responsibility to keep our own house in order, to begin to restore the integrity of the campaign system and to renew our faith in our democracy. If we miss this opportunity, and we do not heed the call to stem the ever-rising tide of money in American politics, then the confidence of the American public and the very fabric of our political system will only continue to erode. Mr. President, the time to begin the renewal is now, or last year when we were stopped. It is past time to restore the public trust and to pass campaign finance reform legislation. We could start by adopting the McCain-Feingold compromise bill. The revised McCain-Feingold legislation is a very modest but important proposal which was modified to attract Republican support. McCain-Feingold no longer limits PAC money. It does not establish spending limits. It does not impose free tv time for candidates and it does not provide postage discounts for candidates. The McCain-Feingold amendment that we are discussing today has been stripped down to the bare minimum of what needs most to be changed to stop the downward spiral of our political system. The McCain-Feingold proposal addresses two important issues that could begin to turn our campaign system around. The legislation proposes to ban soft money contributions to our national political parties and to curb the use of attack advertisements hidden behind so- called ``issue advocacy'' campaigns. Soft Money We all know that political parties have raised enormous amounts of money through soft contributions. In the 1996 election cycle, the two major parties alone raised $263.5 million--almost three times the amount raised in the 1992 election cycle. And unless we act now to stop soft money from careening out of control, these contributions will only climb higher and higher. There is simply no way to achieve real campaign finance reform without ending the soft money machine that has encouraged the exorbitant contributions that we have seen from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. The McCain-Feingold plan would put an end to the outrageous abuses of the soft money system. The Federal Elections Commission recently proposed a ruling to address the issue of ``soft money.'' While I prefer that Congress take the lead and pass McCain-Feingold, if we fail to do this then I will be prepared to embrace the FEC's effort to ban soft money and hope that they follow through. Sadly, that is not their track record. Issue-ads Mr. President, the recent explosion in the so-called ``independent expenditure or issue ads'' also causes me great concern. Independent expenditure ads are one of the very reasons the campaign system is out of control. During the last election cycle, a large number of television ads that saturated the media weeks before the elections were attack ads on candidates, challengers and incumbents. No one is accountable for sponsoring the ad. There is no disclosure requirement which is what I find most frustrating. We all know that these ads are really intended to defeat a candidate and are often coordinated with the opposition campaign. Simply put, these ads are not genuinely independent nor are they strictly concerned with issue advocacy. The ``issue advocacy'' provision in McCain-Feingold is designed to provide a clear distinction between expenditures for communications used to advocate candidates and those used to advocate issues. The bill establishes a bright line test 60 days out from an election. Any independent expenditure that falls within that 60-day window could not use a candidate's name. If a federal candidate's name is mentioned in any television or radio communication within 60 days of an election, for example, then this candidate-related expenditure will be subject to federal election law and must be disclosed and financed with so-called ``hard dollars.'' The Supreme Court has ruled that only communications that contain ``express advocacy'' of candidates are subject to federal disclosure requirements and restrictions. If parties and groups want to run ``issue ads'' to promote an issue--they can, and they will not be subject to federal election law so long as a candidate's name is not mentioned in the ad within that 60-day period. While I am a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the McCain-Feingold legislation, I wish it included other important reforms. It does not include what I believe is one of the most critical components of reform which is overall spending limits. I have consistently supported legislation to limit the amount candidates can spend and have been a cosponsor since coming to the Senate of a proposal to limit spending offered by my good friend Senator Hollings. I believe this should be included in any effort to reform our campaign laws. Last year, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Arkansas, announced on the floor of the Senate that he too would now support Senator Hollings's constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending despite his reservations about amending the Constitution. In debating this issue in 1997, Senator Bumpers said: I will do almost anything to change the way we finance campaigns in this country, because I am absolutely convinced that this system is totally destructive to our democracy. I could not agree more with my colleague. I continue to believe that we must ultimately address the issue of spending limits. Mr. President, we have been provided a second opportunity to vote for campaign finance reform this Congress. I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the future of our campaign system and support the McCain- Feingold legislation. Nothing less will begin to restore the American public's waning confidence in its government.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, in the Chamber this week and I am sure in the next week a number of my colleagues will be talking about a January 31, 1998, deadline under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And as I am sure my colleagues will know, there has been a recent flurry of newspaper ads and radio commercials indicating that was the deadline under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for high-level nuclear waste to be accepted by the Department of Energy. I want to put those comments and those ads in some perspective so that no one should be misled by the assertions of the nuclear utility industry. The genesis of our current policy with respect to disposal of high- level waste traces its origins to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. It is true that in that piece of legislation it was contemplated the Department of Energy would be in a position to accept high-level nuclear waste, that a period of characterization and study would ultimately send three sites to the President of the United States and the President would select one of those sites. I think it is important to mention at the outset that even in 1982 a number of Department of Energy experts were uncomfortable, indeed, some were skeptical, that the 1998 deadline could be met, but they were overruled by politicians and the Department of Energy and others. My colleagues know from my previous statements in the Chamber that this process, whatever its original intent may have been, was politicized immediately. Within the first few weeks after the legislation was enacted, States such as my own, and at that time the State that the distinguished occupant of the Chair represents, the State of Washington, the State of Texas, and others, were denied oversight funds as contemplated in the act and litigation was commenced to gather those funds. That was an ominous beginning of what later turned out to be an entirely political nonscientific process. The original law contemplated that the entire country would be examined and that, indeed, various types of geological formations would be considered for high-level nuclear waste, and as I have indicated previously that three sites would be chosen and the President of the United States would then make a final determination. None of that was to be. Shortly after the legislation was enacted, in the following year during the Presidential campaign one region of the country was assured it would not be considered for high-level nuclear waste. An internal memorandum within the Department of Energy indicated that another region would be excluded because of political opposition, and then the ultimate indignity came in 1987 with a piece of legislation that Nevadans will forever regard as the ``screw Nevada'' bill which completely altered the thrust of the process and said, look, we will choose one State, one site, and that will be the place that we will concentrate our efforts. That site was at Yucca Mountain. The utilities are now contending that because no site would be available in 1998 to accept all of the high-level nuclear waste, indeed, a crisis atmosphere exists, that there is a call for action and they have proposed an ill-conceived piece of legislation that is S. 104 in our Chamber and H.R. 1270 in the other Chamber. Let me emphasize that this is not a proposal favored by the scientific community through the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a board established by act of Congress; it is not supported by the Department of Energy. It is the brainchild of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the overarching trade association that purports to advance the interests of nuclear utilities in America. There is no science involved in this legislation. The utilities argue speciously that because the nuclear waste will not be available for shipment to a repository, indeed, there will be an enormous cost incurred by the Federal Government, that damage claims will approximate as much as $80 billion. This is totally specious, a fictitious number that is spun out of whole cloth. But the solution that has been advanced is much more disturbing and that is S. 104-H.R. 1270. This is a piece of legislation that would emasculate most of the environmental laws that have enjoyed bipartisan support for a quarter of a century, all in the interest of advancing the nuclear utilities' argument. It would create a temporary nuclear waste dump at the Nevada test site, a separate geographical location from Yucca Mountain which is where the permanent storage facility is currently being characterized. Now, make no mistake that if H.R. 1270 and S. 104 were enacted tomorrow, under no conceivable scenario could any shipments occur in this year or, indeed, for some years into the future. This interim storage proposal is not only a direct threat to the environmental legislation in this country. It would establish a health and safety standard for us in Nevada with respect to the level of radioactive emissions measured in millirems that would be 25 times the level allowed for safe drinking water. That standard is 4 millirems. By statute this legislation would propose that the acceptable standard for Nevadans, where this waste would be shipped, would be 25 times that level or 100 millirems. No conceivable argument in terms of sound public policy or science would justify such a legislative mandate. For those who feel, as I do, that progress is being made in balancing the budget, with the possibility of a budget surplus for the first time in nearly three decades, the utilities have crafted a very clever bailout provision. Under the terms of the 1982 act, for each kilowatt of nuclear power generated, there is a mill tax levied. That mill tax goes into a nuclear waste fund, and out of that fund would be the expenses of maintaining a high-level nuclear waste repository, an obligation which would go far beyond the current life expectancy of any currently operating utilities. Actuarial experts tell us that even under current law that fund is underfunded. That is to say that eventually the taxpayers are going to have to bail that fund out. At no time did the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund financial formula contemplate that it would also pay for a so-called temporary dump, the one that is contemplated in S. 104 and H.R. 1270, so an additional financial burden would be added. The utilities are not content, however, with destroying that part of the financial basis for the legislation. They would impose a cap or a limitation on the amount of money that could be paid into that fund that would approximate the amount of money spent the previous year from the nuclear waste fund for purposes of this act. Remember that currently that fund, the nuclear waste fund, is underfunded actuarially. They would further limit the amount that goes into the fund, an amount which is going to be necessary for decades ahead, well beyond the life of any nuclear utility. So, by adding the expense of a temporary waste dump, putting a cap on the amount of the fees that are paid into that fund, they guarantee that the American taxpayers will have to come up with tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars from general taxpayer revenue in the outyears. That is simply financially irresponsible. Whatever one thinks of nuclear waste policy, we all ought to be able to agree that we ought not to build into legislation a financial time bomb which would begin ticking upon the enactment of this piece of legislation. This is a utility bailout provision and is bad policy. The nuclear utilities have litigated this issue. In November 1987 they argue that the Department of Energy must, under the 1982 act, accept immediately delivery of the high-level nuclear waste. That was rejected by the Court. As I have indicated, the Court in deciding the case indicates that there is an appropriate remedy. I think all of us would fairly recognize that the utilities will incur some additional expense as a result of any additional storage capacity that they need to construct on site. So it is conceded by all that the utilities would be entitled to an offset; that is, a reduction in the amount of the mill tax levy paid into the nuclear waste trust fund. Indeed, Secretary Pena has initiated discussion along those lines. But the utilities have rejected that. They have rejected that because that's not what they want. They don't want fairness or an offset. What they want is a bailout, the provisions contained in this legislation, which shift the burden from the utilities to the American taxpayers in staggering amounts in the outyears. As I have indicated, the Department of Energy does not favor this legislation to establish a temporary waste dump at the Nevada test site. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board created by this Congress, comprised of scientists--parenthetically, none of them from my home State--reject the necessity for this action. We would, in effect, be transporting 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste to Nevada. That doesn't just get there miraculously. It would pass through 43 States. Fifty million people live within a mile or less of the highway and rail shipment corridors--some of the largest cities in America. Accidents do happen. The potential could be catastrophic. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that in America today we face the threat of terrorist activity. Such was the tragedy of the World Trade Center in New York City, and we have seen other evidences of terrorist activity in our country. What an inviting target, 77,000 tons of high- level nuclear waste being transported across the highways and rail corridors of America. Finally, the kind of storage that is contemplated at the Nevada test site in this so-called ``temporary'' facility is known as dry cask storage. That storage is currently available and in use in a number of the utilities in America today, on site, approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a storage life of 100 years. So, if it is safe for Nevada, why would it not be safe to leave it at its current location--that technology has been approved--and to leave it there until such time as the ultimate issue is resolved of how to deal with this most dangerous and toxic substance known to mankind? For those who have followed this debate for a number of years, it will come as no surprise that the utilities again have raised this crisis potential or scenario. Two decades ago, before this Senator came to the Chamber, the nuclear power industry was seeking, once again, to try to get the Congress to enact legislation to remove the high-level waste from the reactor sites. That program was then known as the AFR program, away-from-reactor site. If one looks at the arguments in the 1980s in which it was forecast that there would be a brownout, there would be a shortage of electricity in America, that all kinds of catastrophic things would happen to our economy--that was predicted by the mid-1980s if this legislation that was being proposed in the early eighties was not enacted. None of that far-fetched scenario came to be fact. In fact, no utility has suffered a brownout or a failure because of the absence of storage capacity. Many reactors have gone off line because they are no longer safe and others because they are not economically viable. That continues to be the case as recently as earlier this month with the reactor that is intended to be closed within the State of Illinois. So, there is storage capacity available on site through dry cask storage that avoids the necessity of moving 77,000 metric tons across the highways and rail systems of America, through 43 States, with all of the potential for risk and accident that is inherent in that kind of volume. There is no need to take action. That is the view of the scientific community. That is the view of the Department of Energy. And that is the view of the President, who has indicated, should this legislation reach his desk, he will veto it because it makes no sense in terms of policy. This is all about nuclear politics, not about nuclear energy policy. I urge my colleagues to be very careful when they listen to some of the advertisements that are currently airing on the radio and in the newspaper. The reality is that there is no crisis. We have been to this play before; same arguments, same results. Not necessary. Bad policy. And we should reject S. 104, H.R. 1270. I again express my appreciation to the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia for his courtesy and yield the floor.