David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss a small, and virtually unnoticed amendment to the DOD authorization bill that just passed the U.S. Senate. It was an amendment offered by Senator Nunn, Senator Bingaman, and myself to restore some common sense to the Missile Defense Act of 1995. As my colleagues know, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 contains, among other things, an aggressive program to develop and deploy theater missile defenses in the form of sophisticated missile interceptors. Our amendment to the DOD bill will help ensure that these interceptors are tested properly so we know how the taxpayer's money is being spent on these programs. If we want to protect ourselves from the threat of missile attacks, we should make sure these interceptor programs are capable of destroying incoming missiles. I was disappointed that this bill originally deleted a provision passed by Congress 2 years ago that would help us monitor these programs through a series of live-fire tests. I believe it would be dangerous for the Senate to show a lack of interest in monitoring the progress of our theater missile defense interceptors. Our primary concern should be in making sure they are maturing properly. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [BMDO] and the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing agreed to work together in an effort to help us properly emphasize the importance of testing our TMD interceptor programs. I applaud the Director of the BMDO, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, and the Director of Operational Testing, Phil Coyle, for working cooperatively in this effort. Mr. President, this is a responsible amendment that asks the Pentagon to periodically assess the maturity of each interceptor program, and to advise the Congress on the progress we're making. It also asks the Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress that these programs work properly before they enter into full-rate production. Finally, this amendment will help prevent the wasteful practice of building weapon systems that do not work as expected. This concept, Mr. President, is commonly referred to as ``Fly Before You Buy.'' Fly Before You Buy means that new weapons must demonstrate their progress and maturity in operational [[Page S 12678]] testing so that we do not waste money buying systems that do not work, that give us a false sense of security. I am proud to say, Mr. President, that with this amendment, the weapon developers in the BMDO office and the Pentagon's testers have worked together to reach an agreement on the proposed language. This is indeed a remarkable accomplishment that the entire U.S. Senate and the Congress should applaud. This is exactly the type of productive cooperation that Senator Grassley, Senator Roth, and I envisioned when we wrote the legislation creating the independent testing office back in 1983: Developers and testers working together for a common goal. Unfortunately, for many years, the developers have refused to allow operational testers to monitor their progress. Too often in the Pentagon, the word ``test'' is considered a four-letter word. This is exactly the scenario we should avoid with our interceptor programs. We have already spent well over $5 billion on theater missile defense interceptors. In this bill, an additional $2 billion is authorized for these programs. And the total costs are projected to exceed $22 billion. As we continue spending more and more on ballistic missile defenses, let us not forget the most basic and most important element of these programs--making sure they work. I wish to once again thank Gen. Malcolm O'Neill for his cooperation on this amendment. Also, special thanks to Mr. Phil Coyle, the President's testing czar, for his outstanding leadership, and for his help in seeing that the Pentagon practices Fly Before You Buy by testing new weapons before they are produced. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for accepting this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Nunn, Senator Bingaman, and myself to restore some common sense to the Missile Defense Act of 1995. As my colleagues know, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 contains an aggressive program to develop and deploy theater missile defenses in the form of sophisticated missile interceptors. I say to my colleagues--if we want to protect ourselves from the threat of theater missile attacks, let's make sure the interceptors are capable of destroying incoming missiles! I was disappointed that this bill deleted a provision passed by Congress 2 years ago that would help us monitor these programs through a series of live-fire tests. I believe it would be dangerous for the Senate to show a lack of interest in monitoring the progress of our theater missile defense interceptors. Our primary concern should be in making sure they are maturing properly. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [BMDO] and the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing agreed to work together in an effort to help us properly emphasize the importance of testing our TMD interceptor programs. [[Page S 12598]] I applaud the Director of the BMDO, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, and the Director of Operational Testing, Phil Coyle, for working cooperatively in this effort. Mr. President, this is a responsible amendment that asks the Pentagon to periodically assess the maturity of each interceptor program, and to advise Congress on the progress we're making. It also asks the Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress that these programs work properly before they enter into full-rate production. Finally, this amendment will help prevent the wasteful practice of building weapon systems that do not work as expected. This concept, Mr. President, is commonly referred to as fly before you buy. Fly before you buy means that new weapons must demonstrate their progress and maturity in operational testing so that we do not waste money buying systems that do not work. I am proud to say, Mr. President, that with this amendment, the weapon developers in the BMDO office and the Pentagon's testers have worked together to reach an agreement on the proposed language. This is a remarkable accomplishment that the entire U.S. Senate should applaud. This is exactly the type of productive cooperation that Senator Grassley, Senator Roth and I envisioned when we wrote the legislation creating the independent testing office back in 1983. Developers and testers working together for a common goal. Unfortunately, for many years, the developers have refused to allow operational testers to monitor their progress. Too often in the Pentagon, the word ``test'' is considered a four-letter word. This is exactly the scenario we should avoid with our interceptor programs. We have already spent over $5 billion on theater missile defense interceptors. In this bill, an additional $2 billion is authorized for these programs. And the total costs are projected to exceed $22 billion! As we continue spending more and more on ballistic missile defenses, let us not forget the most basic and most important element of these programs--making sure they work. I wish to once again thank Gen. Malcolm O'Neill for his cooperation. Also, special thanks to Mr. Phil Coyle for his outstanding leadership as the Pentagon's testing czar. Thanks also to Larry Miller of Mr. Coyle's staff for his tremendous efforts in helping to prepare this amendment. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for accepting this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a valued and trusted public servant, Mr. Mike Curran, who is retiring this month following 30 distinguished years as an employee of the U.S. Forest Service. Since 1986, Mike has been the forest supervisor for the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas, and that is where I came to know him and to admire his abilities. Mike has been an outstanding leader of people and manager of assets throughout his career in public forestry, and his exceptional ability to forge through new concepts to meet changing public demands certainly caught my eye. His creative style and national flair for addressing competing interest groups and issues has been key to his success. In 1990 I became involved in one of the most divisive forest issues ever to face the national forests in Arkansas. Public demand to eliminate the practice of clear-cutting had reached a peak. Mike was instrumental in bringing the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service to Arkansas to meet with me to determine whether or not a new way of looking at forest management could be developed that would allow us to eliminate this disagreeable practice and continue to produce quality timber in quantity. This event led to the implementation to the new perspectives concept of sustainable forestry and placed the Ouachita National Forest, under Mike's leadership, in the lead position in a national movement toward the ecosystem management philosophy. Mike weathered much criticism from many corners as this system began to be developed. At times I know he felt he was under siege personally. Today the Ouachita National Forest has never been healthier, and its future is bright. Mike has made a significant contribution to our Nation, and all of our forests have followed his lead. Thank you, Mike. We wish you Godspeed in your future endeavors.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to help eliminate a current obstacle to the quick redevelopment of closing military bases. My amendment will give the military service greater flexibility to negotiate longer interim leases for the reuse of base property where the military is preparing for its departure. It will do so in a responsible way that does not eliminate vital environmental safeguards. This amendment will hopefully solve many interim leasing problems that are occurring at closing bases nationwise. At Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, AR, Cotton Growers, Inc., approached the local redevelopment authority about storing cotton in an old B-52 hanger until cotton prices improved. Upon learning from the Air Force that they could receive only a 1 year lease with a 30 day cancellation clause, Cotton Growers Inc. decided not to locate at Eaker. At Alameda naval base in Alameda, CA, AEG Transportation is seeking a 10-year lease to obtain use of base property to refurbish rail cars for the San Francisco-based BART public transit company. The BART contract is for 10 years, and AEG desires a 10 year commitment before spending millions of dollars on capital improvements to Alameda property. Unfortunately, the Department of the Navy is thus far unwilling to enter into a lease agreement longer than 5 years. This stalemate could result in the loss of an attractive tenant for Alameda. The military services have informed my office that the inability to offer longer interim leases is due primarily to their fear of a lawsuit over requirements from the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, the so-called NEPA. This amendment attempts to address this problem without degrading the environment or fully exempting interim leases from NEPA. In recent years, Congress and the Clinton administration have made substantial progress in removing the obstacles that have blocked past efforts to redevelop bases. This amendment will help remove yet another barrier. It will give the military services greater flexibility to negotiate with interested tenants. It also ensures that our effort to create jobs and economic activity on base does not come at the expense of the environment. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for accepting this amendment. I also thank the Department of Defense, the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, Senators Chafee, Baucus, Lautenberg, and Boxer from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Senators Nunn and Thurmond from the Senate Armed Services Committee who contributed greatly to the passage of this amendment.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the leader.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the distinguished majority leader? Are we going to do the judges today? Are they going to come before the Senate?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, 2 months ago, I came to the floor to alert my colleagues to a two-pronged problem. This problem poses an unexpected threat to our implementation of the GATT treaty, as well as to our efforts to contain health care costs in the United States. It has a complicated history, but it boils down to this: unless the Congress acts soon, the GATT treaty will be improperly implemented and consumers will foot a multibillion dollar windfall to a handful of underserving companies. When the Congress passed the GATT treaty last year, we knew we were improving our country's standing in international trade. We knew the benefits would come in more exports and more jobs. We had no idea we were unintentionally forcing American consumers, HMO's, hospitals, and even the government to pay higher prices for a small number of prescription drugs. We included ``transition provisions'' in the GATT treaty to accomplish two things. First, the treaty gives current patent holders a patent extension. Second, those generic competitors which had been planning and investing to go to market on the original date of patent expiry may do so as long as they paid compensation to the patent holders. We saw this as an elegant compromise which satisfied all of the commercial interests at stake. But despite the intent of both the Congress and the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] to apply these provisions to all industries in an equitable fashion, the prescription drug industry was inadvertently excluded from their scope. This came about due to a simple mistake. We failed to change the language of an obscure but vitally important law regulating prescription drugs, known as the Hatch-Waxman amendments. The mistake has had some costly and unnecessary consequences. Our unintentional error forced the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to rule that they could not allow equivalent but lower-cost generic drugs onto the market until the patent extension ended. In other words, a small number of drug manufacturers receive a patent extension but avoid facing generic competition during that time. This is unprecedented and unparalleled among the dozens of other industries and thousands of other companies affected by the GATT treaty. This is simply unfair. The Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act restores the universal scope of the GATT treaty in the United States. It does so without altering the treaty or amending the treaty's implementing legislation. It does not alter the new patents granted by the GATT [[Page S 12389]] treaty. It simply ensures that the prescription drug industry is subject to the GATT transitional provisions in the same manner as all other American industries. Let me make clear that Congress also did not intend the current, disastrous state of affairs to occur. In fact, when the FDA was asked to look into the situation, they looked for direction from Congress. At the time of its passage, we had spent a tremendous amount of time discussing GATT. It was an issue of great importance. But when the FDA looked at the entirely of the record of our proceedings--our hearings, our report language and all of the floor debate in the House and the Sente--what did they find? There were neither hearings nor a single word of debate on the floor of the House or Senate on the impact of the URAA on the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Amendments. Nor do the committee reports indicate that Congress understood that the URAA would both grant a patent term extension for certain pioneer products and block FDA from approving generic versions of those drugs until the extended patent terms have expired. Nonetheless, the language of the URAA directs that result. In sum, the FDA concluded that the language of the URAA does not reflect the legislative intent which Congress desired. Nor did the U.S. Trade Representative desire this abused outcome. On May 19, Ambassador Mickey Kantor wrote to emphasize that the ``intention of the URAA language'' was to encompass all industries and to permit generic pharmaceutical producers to market their products who had made substantial investments in anticipation of the expiration of the unextended patent terms. In other words, the current state of affairs was neither intended nor desired by our trade negotiators. Nevertheless, current patent holders in the prescription drug industry are the only ones in the country which will benefit from the new URAA patent term but also be exempted from generic competition. It is clear that no one desired or anticipated this situation. We in Congress sought the GATT provisions applied universally. But now, according to the FDA and the U.S. Trade Representative, we have inadvertently jeopardized the true intention of GATT and upset the balancing of commercial interests in the free market. What do I mean by the balance of commercial interests? The FDA found that the law as it stands threatens to upset the balance between the commercial interests of brandname companies and generic companies manifested in the Hatch-Waxman amendments. In response, the patent and Trademark Office [PTO] has taken a position on this issue. The PTO ruled on June 7 that those drugs which had previously received a patent extension under the Hatch-Waxman amendments could not receive the GATT patent extension. In spite of the PTO ruling, a small handful of manufacturers--including those of the blockbuster drugs Zantac and Capoten--are still poised to receive an unwarranted multibillion dollar windfall. This is why I urge my colleagues to support the Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act. Not only is it the solution to an absurd and unwarranted problem, it will save large health care purchasers and individual consumers alike valuable resources. By some estimates, the Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act would save more than $1.8 billion in health care dollars. The elderly would save $517 million out of their pockets. The Federal Government would save $117 million while the States would save $88 million. The act will also ensure that a simple mistake in legislative drafting does not disrupt the multimillion dollar investments, business plans and employment of generic drug companies who have planned all along to comply with the GATT treaty--but have been needlessly delayed from providing over-cost products to consumers by a legal loophole. Most importantly, if we do not act, American consumers will pay unnecessarily high drug prices. At the same time, the Federal Government and the States will pay more for prescription drugs for older Americans, veterans, low-income families and children, and the active-duty military. Out of an annual $940 million prescription drug budget, the Department of Veterans Affairs has estimated that they will pay $211 million too much in the next 3 years alone. That will come out of our taxes. We will be paying more taxes so that a few brandname drug companies can make more profits and block competition in the marketplace. Most important, I think, will be the effect on older Americans, Americans on fixed incomes and Americans without adequate health insurance. They will feel the hurt even more. Mr. President, as I have said elsewhere, this is a textbook case of a loophole resulting in an unwarranted windfall. No single industry deserves special treatment under GATT, especially at the expense of consumers. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, a summary of the act's provisions and letters from the FDA, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Trade Representative and the Generic Drug Equity Coalition be included in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. The curtain is about to fall.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Amendments Nos. 2410 through 2424

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an additional amendment I send to the desk at this time.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wellstone amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to help eliminate a current obstacle to the quick redevelopment of closing military bases. My amendment will give the military services greater flexibility to negotiate longer interim leases for the reuse of base property where the military is preparing for its departure. It will do so in a responsible way that does not eliminate vital environmental safeguards. This amendment will hopefully solve many interim leasing problems that are occurring at closing bases nationwide. At Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, Arkansas, Cotton Growers Inc. approached the local redevelopment authority about storing cotton in an old B-52 hanger until cotton prices improved. Upon learning from the Air Force that they could receive only a one year lease with a 30 day cancellation clause, Cotton Growers Inc. decided not to locate at Eaker. At Alameda Naval base in Alameda, California, AEG Transportation is seeking a ten year lease to obtain use of base property to refurbish rail cars for the San Francisco-based BART public transit company. The BART contract is for ten years, and AEG desires a ten year commitment before spending millions of dollars on capital improvements to Alameda property. Unfortunately, the Department of the Navy is thus far unwilling to enter into a lease agreement longer than five years. This stalemate could result in the loss of an attractive tenant for Alameda. The military services have informed my office that the inability to offer longer interim leases is due primarily to their fear of a lawsuit over requirements from the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, the so-called NEPA. This amendment attempts to address this problem without degrading the environment or fully exempting interim leases from NEPA. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this amendment be placed in the Record immediately following my remarks. In recent years, Congress and the Clinton Administration have made substantial progress in removing the obstacles that have blocked past efforts to redevelop bases. This amendment will help remove yet another barrier. It will give the military services greater flexibility to negotiate with interested tenants. It also ensures that our effort to create jobs and economic activity on base does not come at the expense of the environment. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for accepting this amendment. I also thank the Department of Defense, the Departments of Army, Navy and Air Force, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, Senators Chafee, Baucus, Lautenberg, and Boxer from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Senators Nunn and Thurmond from the Senate Armed Services Committee who contributed greatly to the adoption of this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on July 21, 1995, the Senate Committee on Finance favorably reported the nomination of John J. Callahan for the position of Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget and Chief Financial Officer (ASMB/CFO) for the Department of Health and Human Services. I support Dr. Callahan's nomination and feel his expertise would be advantageous to this Department. The importance of this Department and its role in our society is immeasurable. For this reason it is crucial that this Department, like every other, be served by outstanding people such as Dr. Callahan. For more than 25 years, John J. Callahan has had an exemplary public service record. He served in the United States Senate for over 15 years. During that period he served as Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Federalism, and the District of Columbia. His service also includes serving as Deputy Staff Director of the Senate Budget Committee and Chief of Staff to my good friend from Tennessee, former Senator Jim Sasser. Dr. Callahan's vast Congressional and budget experience should help him tremendously as he wrestles with the issues that HHS deals with every day. Earlier in Dr. Callahan's public service career he was a Director at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). During that time he had the opportunity to conduct studies that helped State legislatures review their school finance plans to meet with educational mandates. Working for the State governments has given him the background needed to better link state and national government agencies, and to better interpret the effect of Federal requirements on state and local governments. As Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Callahan will have the responsibility of handling the more than $300 billion budget that is allocated annually to HHS programs. He is ably credentialed for this task. Dr. Callahan's work at the Senate Budget Committee included assisting in the preparation of more than 20 Committee hearings and in the development and passage of two budget reconciliation bills (which together reduced projected deficits by nearly $1 trillion). HHS is considered by many to be one of the most crucial entities of our government. This Department affects all Americans at some point or another in their lives. From childhood immunization programs to the supervision of Medicare, we will all eventually benefit from the services of this agency. The Assistant Secretary of Management and Budget has many responsibilities that help to make this a productive Department. John Callahan has the expertise and track record to run this office efficiently and purposefully. In a recent meeting with Dr. Callahan, we discussed his role in designing more efficient programs. John Callahan brings with him to this important post not only new and innovative ideas but invaluable experience that has taken him many years to acquire. [[Page S 12314]] When it comes to the health of the people of the United States, we must make education and public awareness a top priority. John J. Callahan is a devoted student, having earned his Bachelor's Degree in Political Science at Fordham University, his Master's Degree in Regional Planning at Syracuse University and his Ph.D. in Social Science also at Syracuse. John has served as an Assistant Professor of Education and Planning at the University of Virginia and an adjunct professor at the USDA Graduate School and American University. Further, John J. Callahan is a devoted family man. He is very supportive of his wife and three children. He wants to ensure a health future for his children as well as the children of our entire nation. I would like to conclude by saying that the Department of Health and Human Services has played a key role in today's health care debate. I have no doubt that our great Nation will pull together to find solutions to the problems that have been identified. The solutions will come from individuals like John Callahan, one who has devoted his lifetime to education, research and public service. It is again my honor and pleasure to declare my full support for John J. Callahan's nomination to be the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services. I would like to thank Jeffrey C. Lederman for his capable work on development of this statement. Mr. Lederman is a medical student at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-School of Osteopathic Medicine who ably assisted by Aging Committee staff as a fellow over the last 2 months. We are grateful to Mr. Lederman for his service to the Committee.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in cosponsoring the Agricultural Competitiveness Act of 1995. This legislation represents stability in the most important business sector of this Nation. Farmers and ranchers of this country continue to produce the most affordable and abundant food and fiber supply in the world and this bill helps to ensure they persist in this role for the next 7 years and beyond. Senator Cochran and I have cosponsored legislation many times in past farm bill debates. As agriculture is so important to the States of Arkansas and Mississippi, we have always strived to put forth policy ideas that provide agriculture the necessary fundamental tools to survive. The legislation we are [[Page S 12250]] introducing today accomplishes this consistent goal. Mr. President, the farmers and ranchers in Arkansas have made one very important point to me as we enter this year's farm bill debate-- U.S. agriculture policy has served America very well. The consumers of this country spend less of their disposable income on food than any other country in the world. Farm programs, that represent only 0.6 percent of the Federal budget, guarantee a reliable supply of food and fiber products at the best prices. However, with an ever increasing global marketplace, the success of farms in the delta of Arkansas is becoming more dependent on policies in Canada, the European Union, or even Japan. Because of these increasing uncertainties and the willingness of competitor countries to heavily subsidize, we must have policies in place to assist our farmers who are directly competing against foreign treasuries. This legislation addresses this important point and helps to protect the food and fiber security of our country. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today also provides significant but responsible change. Flexibility, being the buzz word in this year's farm bill debate, is expanded. Farmers can respond to a changing market by planting alternative crops on up to 100 percent of their crop acreage base without being penalized by losing base acres in the following crop year. Additionally, our flexibility is provided as a choice to the farmer without market-distorting financial incentives. This farmer-oriented legislation also addresses the continuing budget pressures faced by the government. Although I did not support the balanced budget amendment or the budget resolution this year because I believe they went too far too fast, I obviously recognize that there will have to be some reductions. However, I believe this should be done in a responsible fashion. when faced with painful budget cutting choices, farmers have generally preferred an increase in nonpaid acres rather than other more drastic approaches. Our legislation prudently increases nonpaid acres from 15 to 25 percent over the next 7 years, significantly reducing Federal outlays. Further, the bill recognizes the budget reconciliation instructions the Agriculture Committee will have to consider. I still believe the cuts being forced on agriculture are far too drastic and don't recognize the fact that we have paid more than our fair share and will continue to support efforts to reduce this financial burden during the budget reconciliation process. However, in working to find responsible ways for farmers and ranchers to contribute their fair share, this bill does address a responsible way of meeting certain budget obligations. In summary, Mr. President, this legislation improves upon policies that have served this country well. With these improvements, agriculture will better be able to meet the new challenges of a world economy.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman please repeat the request.

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I do not have any additional time, but I really hope we could reconsider this issue at a later time.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair and the distinguished chairman, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment is a very, very complex and far- reaching amendment. It has just come to our attention it was going to be offered just a very few moments ago. This amendment is going to be one that basically, to the best of my understanding after a cursory look, is going to affect and impinge upon 28 commercial treaties that airlines now have with respect to countries. Mr. President, further it is my understanding that in the Senate-- perhaps in the House, I do not even know this--there has never been a hearing on the particular issue that our friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, is bringing before the Senate tonight. We are about, if this amendment passes, to extend our own labor laws to other foreign countries. And I do not know how we would react if other countries tried to extend their labor laws to this country. So, Mr. President, I think the better part of discretion, I say respectfully, is to turn down this amendment at this moment and to try to see if we cannot work something out eventually. In September when we come back, we will have time to study this matter more thoroughly. And I urge, Mr. President, the defeat of the amendment offered by my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on Saturday when the Treasury, Postal Service and general Government appropriations bill came to the floor of the Senate, it had what I thought to be a rather odd provision. I authored and had introduced in my behalf--I was not present on Saturday--an amendment to strike $13 million to ``initiate a program to utilize private counsel law firms and debt collection agencies in the collection activities of the Internal Revenue Service.'' In short, Mr. President, this provision requires the IRS to spend $13 million--this was under the proposed language--to hire private law firms and private bill collectors to collect the debts of the American taxpayer owed to the Internal Revenue Service. My amendment is very simple. It strikes this provision from the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill, as well it should. I thank the managers of the bill for accepting my amendment. I urge the conferees to stay with the decision of the Senate in this matter. Mr. President, in over 200 years of our Federal Government, we have never turned over the business of collecting taxes to the private sector. I must point out that this dubious practice is as old as the hills and dates back to ancient Greece. The practice of a private tax collection theory even has a name, I have discovered. It is called tax farming. Its modern history is chronicled in a book authored by Charles Adams, a tax lawyer and history teacher. This book is named, ``For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization.'' In this book, Mr. Adams recounts many tales of how the world has suffered under the oppression of tax farmers. He specifically describes the tax farmers sent by the Greek kings to the island of Cos as ``thugs, and even the privacy of a person's home was not secure from them,'' according to the author. He further states that a respected lady of Cos around 200 B.C. wrote, ``Every door trembles at the tax- farmers.'' Once again, Mr. President, the tax farmers were the private collectors of the public debt. In the later Greek and Roman world, no social class was hated more than the tax farmer. A leading historian of that period described tax farmers with these words: The publican (keepers of the public house) certainly were ruthless tax collectors, and dangerous and unscrupulous rivals in business. They were often dishonest and probably always cruel. Tax farming flourished; it was a monster of oppression in Western civilization, in many forms, for over 2,500 years until its demise shortly after World War I. Tax farming, Mr. President, brutalized prerevolutionary France. The French court paid the price during the Reign of Terror when the people were so incensed that they rounded up the tax farmers, they tried them in the people's courts and they condemned them to death. Accounts of this time tell us of the taxpayers cheering while the heads of the tax farmers tumbled from the guillotine. In 17th century England, Charles II imposed a hearth tax assessing two shillings per chimney in each house. To collect it, the King contracted out--in fact, he privatized the tax collection system--with private collection parties named by the people as ``chimney men.'' These chimney men were ruthless. They were hated by the people of England. Hatred of the privately collected tax helped to depose Charles' brother, James II. As soon as the new monarchs, William and Mary, were installed, the House of Commons abolished the tax, ending a ``badge of slavery upon the whole people that allowed every man's house to be entered and searched at the pleasure of persons unknown to him.'' I am not suggesting that providing $13 million to the Internal Revenue Service in order to contract out, to privatize collections with private law firms and collection agencies will cause anyone to actually lose their head, but for well reasoned decisionmakers history should be utilized as a guide as to what is and what is not a good idea. Clearly, history tells us that contracting out the tax collection system and the responsibilities that Government should be performing is not a good idea. Some very notable economists and philosophers have also warned against tax farming. In his book, ``The Wealth of Nations,'' Adam Smith states, ``The best and most frugal way of levying a tax can never be by farm.'' Mr. President, I know there are those in this Chamber who revere Adam Smith so I hope they will heed his message in ``The Wealth of Nations'' against tax farming. Just as relevant to the discussion is how this practice may be employed in our time and by the Federal Government. Who will these people be? How will they be hired? Who will train them? Who will oversee them? Which taxpayers' cases can they work on? What type of taxpayer information will be made available to them? And how will these private bill collectors be paid? Will we be creating a true bounty hunter system within our tax collection process? This legislation provides no answer to these important questions. It simply provides taxpayers' dollars, $13 million, to nameless, faceless, untrained, unaccountable bill collectors and law firms with no guidance as to how they will be paid or how they will protect the confidentiality of the taxpayer's information. Let us just briefly explore two of the questions I have just mentioned. First, to what type of taxpayer information will these private bill collectors have access? The American people demand that their tax return information be kept confidential, that it will only be shared with the appropriate personnel within Government. It is an essential element which lends confidence in our tax system, and it leads to a very high percentage of voluntary compliance. If taxpayer information is shared outside of the Government confidence, how many taxpayers will decide to no longer comply? This is a critical question. I fear in an effort to collect more revenues we will in fact collect less. Second--and I am about to close, Mr. President--how will these bill collectors be paid? This bill does not specify that, and also does not specify which of these private law firms and private collection agencies will be compensated. Mr. President, most bill collectors are paid on a contingency basis; that is, they are compensated by a percentage of what they collect. Again, bounty hunters will be created to collect our taxes. It is exactly what the 1988 taxpayer bill of rights, which passed that year, declared illegal and unlawful. There is included in the taxpayer bill of rights a strict prohibition against the Internal Revenue Service from using enforcement goals or quotas. Mr. President, I know that my time is running out, but I would like to have printed in the Record a letter from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Margaret Milner Richardson, that she wrote to me on August 4, stating her grave concern about even the remote possibility of farming out and privatizing the IRS collection system.

Mr. PRYOR. I strongly believe, Mr. President, it is an idea whose time has not come. I strongly urge, Mr. President, that our conferees on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill adhere to the decision that we made, that now is not the time nor will it be in the near future for us to privatize the collections of the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. PRYOR. I will be proud to yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I do not know how much time I have left. But I would respond to my friend from Illinois that I have been here now for 16\1/2\ years. I have watched us rely, as a Government, more and more on private contractors--and we are not holding down the cost of Government, as the distinguished Senator from Illinois has stated. We are continuing to have the cost of Government rise, while the accountability of Government falls. This is of great concern to me. It concerns me that the private contractors are under no code of ethics whatsoever. They have no Government code of ethics and they are out there in a competitive work force trying to get the Government grants in order to perform services that our Government should perform in the first place.