Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I got a call from a good friend of mine tonight. His question was, what is this big difference of opinion between the White House and the Congress? What is it all about, and what can we do about it in the short time that remains? As we discussed it, it occurred to me that maybe the differences are not as wide as we think they are, at least in rhetoric, and maybe they are wider than we would like them to be perhaps in substance. In rhetoric, the President of the United States in 1993 appeared on ``Larry King Live'' and promised a 5-year plan to balance the budget, not a 10-year plan like he came out with in 1995. A 5-year plan. This year, just recently he said, ``Well, maybe I could go along with a 7- year plan. Maybe I could, if I liked the way it was done.'' But in 1993 he promised a 5-year plan. You would think we could come together tonight. Also in 1993, the President spoke out very forcefully and I think very courageously on the question of Medicare and Medicaid. His words then were that we cannot let these two programs grow at three times the rate of inflation without them going bankrupt or bankrupting our future. He called for a reduction in growth. In fact, in his 10-year budget plan this year he called or a $192 billion reduction in the growth of Medicare. That is on the same baseline we use here in Congress. He called for a $120 billion reduction in the growth in Medicaid according to our congressional baseline. That is some pretty severe reductions in growth. Our Democratic leadership would call that cuts. The President said, ``Don't call that a cut.'' He said, ``I'm talking about reducing the growth of the spending out of these programs, the excessive amount they spend, because they are driving the programs and our future into bankruptcy.'' At least the President said that. You would think perhaps we are closer than we think tonight, because if we are talking about reducing the growth in Medicare and Medicaid, the President himself has conceded that that has to get done and he has recommended some pretty healthy reductions in the growth in Medicare and Medicaid. Finally, the President in 1992 when he ran for election, when he asked us all to vote for him, promised a middle-class tax cut. He did not give us one. What he did last year was to raise taxes. Just recently he appeared before a group of supporters and said, ``I know you think I raised your taxes too much, and guess what, I think I did, too.'' You would think the President would be supporting a balanced budget plan that included some tax relief for Americans. You could think we would be a lot closer than we are tonight. In fact, we are not. The reason we are not closer than we think tonight is that those who want a clean CR, those who want no changes in the way this Government operates and spends money, those who want us to send the President a clean CR, a clean extension of the debt, simply want to keep on going like we are going. That is wrong. The President knows that is wrong, you know that is wrong, I know that is wrong. The President has said he believes we ought to balance this budget in at least 5 years, or 7, or 10. He believes that Ameicans deserve a tax cut, he taxed them too much last year, and he believes we need to reduce the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending. One would think we could come to terms tonight. What holds us apart? One, we have a majority in this House [[Page H 12171]] but not a two-thirds majority. We have got a majority in the Senate but not 60 votes to override a filibuster attempt, nor a two-thirds majority to override a veto. So the President can use his veto pen to stop changes here in Congress that he opposes. What kind of changes? Changes like changes in the regulations of this country. When you hear this talk tonight about, well, we are going to have dirty water and dirty air and dirty food as a result of what we are proposing, remember, this House voted for changes in the way regulations are made in those areas, to require a simple cost-benefit analysis. That is all that is in the CR, just the regulatory reform this House voted upon. You would think that there was something awful about the Congress trying to reform the Medicare Program, but the President himself said it has to get done. His trustees said if you do not do it in 7 years, your parents and my parents will not have a Medicare Program to depend upon because it is going bankrupt. You would think that there would be an interest in this House, in this Chamber and the other Chamber, to come to some kind of conclusion on a good Medicare reform. We have tried to deliver one, and this House passed one, but we do not have two-thirds to get it through. We do not have 60 votes to get it past a filibuster in the Senate, and so the red pen is being waved tonight. There is a big difference in substance, not much difference in rhetoric but a big difference in substance. Hopefully in the next few days those differences can be resolved and we can get about the business of reforming this country and bringing a balanced budget for our future and our children.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I read with dismay this morning's story about the foolish waste of taxpayer dollars by staff at the Secretary of Energy's office to pay for consultative review of press coverage of the Secretary and her Department. It is but one more example of agency spending on image building and lobbying that I hope to address in legislation which Mr. Clinger and I are now preparing. We cannot and should not tolerate such abuses any longer. But if one is to legitimately call upon the President to ask for the Secretary's resignation over this, we should be prepared to ask that the entire Cabinet resign. Every department in one form or another, is equally guilty of abusive waste and inappropriate spending on image building, lobbying, and public relations efforts. All of which should be equally condemned and rendered illegal. Secretary O'Leary is entitled to no special favors on this. Energy Secretary O'Leary's standing in our Government and the Cabinet should not be called into question on this incident. She should be judged and regarded by how successfully she conducts the proper affairs of the Department of Energy, and on that basis she has every right and duty to continue her service to the President and to our Nation. Secretary O'Leary and every Cabinet official, however, need to instruct their collective staff to end this practice of public relations spending and inappropriate lobbying. If they are unable to do so, the Congress, I believe, is ready to make those practices illegal, as they are both dumb and inexcusable.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. As a matter of fact, CBO did say this would yield $100 million to the Treasury in the next 5 years. Confusion has come up when CBO tried to go 25 years out and estimate income and revenue as opposed to losses under the program, and CBO did a classic economic mistake in that analysis. They failed to count the present value of money. Minerals Management has done an analysis as well. Minerals Management, under the Secretary of Energy, has concluded that this bill will produce at least 630 additional leases which would be sold for a total increase in bonuses of $485 million over the next 5 years. Their analysis over the 25-year period is it not only reduces the deficit but it also adds, they believe, about $200 million to the Treasury. [[Page H 11861]] Now, we can debate. Economists are arguing about what is going to happen 25 years from now. But one thing we cannot deny is that the 25- year outlook by CBO originally done, which has been corrected by Minerals Management and the Department of the Interior, failed to take into account a very simple economic principle, the present value of money. When you do that, this is a net gainer for the Treasury. It is a net gainer for the Treasury in the first 5 years. It is a net gainer over the 25-year period, if the bill were extended beyond the first 5 years. In fact, this is good for the Treasury. This produces jobs, economy. It produces income for Americans, and it does something even more vital than that. It produces oil and gas in regions that would not otherwise be produced in the Gulf of Mexico, only in an area where, in fact, economies of scale and deep-water drilling would not permit those drills to occur. This is good for the country. Too many of our young men and women have gone to battle to defend oil products in somebody else's land. It is about time we produce on the leases we have authorized to be produced here in the Gulf of Mexico. I would urge support for this rule and to keep the oil and gas relief bill intact when we send it back to the President.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first correct the record. If anybody is trying to help the Senator who was mentioned in his reelection bid, he is not running for reelection. Second, if anybody assumes that people are rushing to the Gulf of Mexico to drill in those deep waters, let me point out, we have lost 180,000 jobs in Louisiana alone, 400,000 jobs in America because of the fact that people are rushing to somebody else's waters, somebody else's lands to drill because we have made it uninviting to drill and produce in America. That is the truth. If anybody is coming to the Gulf of Mexico, it is because my friend from California and others have led the charge to make sure you cannot drill anywhere else in America offshore but in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska. That is the only place you can go. While we are discussing it, let us discuss the numbers. The gentleman from California said in response to the gentleman from Texas, who quoted him, then when he said on June 25 it would cost $15 billion, and when he said today on the floor that it would cost $400 million, that he was right both times, the numbers still stand. That is a little over a 3,000-percent discrepancy, 3,000-percent differences, but he asks us to trust those numbers. On the other hand, Minerals Management Service, who estimated what it would raise and what it would cost, estimated that this amendment would save the American Treasury not just the $200 million extra it would raise in royalty bonuses but about $600 million in interest payments on the Federal debt because that $200 million would cost that much over that 25-year period that nobody seemed to pay much attention to--$600 million in addition to the $200 million. [[Page H 11877]] It just so happens that Minerals Management has been doing this kind of estimation for 10 years. What is their record of failure? They have missed it over the 10-year period by not 3,000 percent but by 3 percent. So we are asked today on this floor to take the advice of folks who are estimating numbers who are going to miss it by as much as 3,000 percent as opposed to Minerals Management who has been wrong only 3 percent in all of their estimates for 10 years. Minerals Management Service, the people that run the offshore program for our country, the people that lease the lands and collect the royalties and collect the bonuses, tell us this thing is going to win for us $485 million of new bonus royalties. It is going to save the American taxpayer $600 million in interest payments over this 25-year period. Who do you want to trust, Minerals Management or someone who comes to the floor and admits that his numbers are 3,000 percent different from June 25 to November 8, and those numbers still stand? I want to say again this bill has changed. It only affects the Gulf of Mexico. It is not the same bill we voted on earlier. Second, it is limited to 5 years. Even CBO estimates that, in that 5- year period, it is going to make $100 million for this country. And, finally, if you believe in this country as we all do, if you believe in the strength of this country and its workers and its productive capacity, why would you not want to incentivize an industry that is moving offshore rapidly because we make no room for it in this country, particularly an industry that is producing energy for our people? Why would you want to depend upon people, when we have to go to war to defend those oil reserves, when you could produce it at home? That is the choice today. Let us produce oil for Americans, by Americans, here in this country. That is what this is all about. Vote ``no'' on the recommittal by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, two corrections. Number one is that oil was drilled because it is a huge reserve, what is left of small reserves, which are uneconomical. Second, we received, since OCS drilling began, $56 billion in bonus bids versus only $47 billion in royalties. We receive more money in bonuses than we do in royalties today.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young, and I thank the chairman of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Miller motion to recommit this conference report to strike from it the deep water royalty relief provisions. I think it is important to understand what the provisions are. Number one, they are temporary. They are a 5-year program. We authorize them again in 5 years, if in fact it has worked as well as our own Government believes it will work. Our President, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Energy all support this provision. Second, it applies both to new leases and existing leases. It is only eligible in existing leases if the Secretary determines that a drill will not occur unless there is some sort of new arrangement to encourage that, critical to drill, based on the economies of deep water drilling. I will explain that in a second. Finally, it is not the same bill we voted on earlier. It has been amended now to say it only applies to the central Gulf of Mexico and the western Gulf of Mexico, not to any other area where moratoria or different laws apply to drilling offshore. It is not the bill you voted on earlier. Finally, it is a bill that it likely, according to early CBO estimates and NMS refinements of later CBO estimates, to yield money to the Treasury of the United States. Why? Because we collect more money in this country in bonuses paid for the right to drill than we actually collect in royalties. If we can encourage people in fact to engage in more drilling, we are going to in fact ensure more money to the U.S. Treasury. There is a bigger reason why this is essential. I want to show Members that big reason. The gentleman from California indicated we are not talking about deep drilling. This is a picture of what auger, the shell platform that costs $1.3 billion to build, looks like superimposed over Washington, DC. You say, ``Wait a minute, Washington, DC does not have any tall buildings.'' So we imposed auger over the city of Houston, which does have tall buildings. You can see how tremendously deep these projects are. The bill says about 1,800 feet, 1,800 feet or more before you are eligible to qualify under this program. Number two, you have to prove that you would not drill it anyhow, unless you get some kind of relief, the sort of deal two business people would make by saying we are not going to take dividends out of the project until we prove it works, until there is income for all of us to share. Let me tell you what auger did for the rest of the country. Auger, this $1.3 billion project, produced contracts across America, not just in the Gulf of Mexico. This is good economy for the country, not only producing oil, not only producing more revenues to the Treasury, but producing jobs, 20,000 jobs across America. When we look at the reasons why this is necessary, I think it is important to understand what is happening in terms of offshore drilling. What is happening is that there are very few high-production drills left in the offshore. What is left are marginal areas with a limited amount of production, but you have to go real deep to find them, and the economies are such that oil companies would much prefer to go produce offshore in somebody else's country than take a risk in the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the new fields are smaller production fields, but in deep water. That is the problem. Second, the second problem is that in terms of cost, what it costs you to get a drill platform going, when you look at drills on the shelf in shallow water compared to drills in deep water as this bill provides, you can see a huge increase in the cost of actually putting the drilling rig out there and drilling the wells. Not only are the facilities and platform much more expensive than on-shelf drilling, but drilling the wells themselves is much more expensive, a much bigger risk, not only to those who go out and put capital out there, but, indeed, to the country, because we need those resources. Finally, if you look at the production delay impact, what it costs, how much longer it takes to produce a barrel of oil at the deeper limits of the outer Continental Shelf, you will see that the present value of a barrel of oil is only 50 percent of what the present value of a barrel of oil is if you drill onshore in America. It is simply high cost, terrible economics, and yet we need those resources. Why? Why do we need to drill deep offshore? Here is a comparison of U.S. net oil consumption, U.S. net imports as opposed to oil consumption, and the United States' oil bill for imported petroleum. We are now at over 50 percent dependence upon foreign sources. I took this mike at another year, in another Congress, to make a speech one day. It was right after the Persian gulf war, when we discovered that more young men and women in Louisiana per capita had served in that war than any other State, and we wondered why. It suddenly dawned on us why. Because they could not work in the oil fields in America, they signed up with the Army Reserve, they had signed up with the National Guard, and they found themselves, all of a sudden, fighting over somebody else's oil in the Persian Gulf instead of working to produce oil here in America. This incentive bill will put Americans back to work producing oil for Americans. That is why it makes sense. It makes sense because it is going to produce areas that would not be produced otherwise. It will produce income to America that would not be produced otherwise. It will give us some decent hold on our reserves that we have in this country, that we ought to produce for the sake of our country. I urge Members to reject the Miller motion to recommit.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, while I am in support of Chapter 2 (FCC Authorization) of Subtitle A in Title III of H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues three concerns in the statutory language which I hope will be addressed in conference with the Senate. First, Section 3017, giving the FCC the authority to reject tariffs, in whole or part, would disserve the public interest as it would inhibit the introduction of new services, impede competition, and complicate the FCC's processes by adding an additional unnecessary layer of regulation. Carriers seeking to introduce new services would be hesitant to introduce new services if the FCC were to put tariffs on public notice, invite opposition, and then reject them. Authority to reject part of a tariff, while requiring the carrier to continue to offer the service, is contrary to the concept of carrier-initiated rates. This process of public notice and comment (including oppositions) before a service can be provided is followed with respect to Section 214 applications. The Section 214 process significantly inhibits telephone company provision of cable services; this provision would extend a similar obstacle to all common carrier services. This obstacle would similarly impede competition by slowing the introduction of services designed to respond to competition, and giving competitors an opportunity to use and/or abuse Commission processes and impose costs on other competitors. This tariff rejection authority is unnecessary to protect ratepayers. The Communications Act already provides for hearings as to the lawfulness of new rates, terms and conditions; rates found unlawful can be suspended, and subject to an accounting order at the beginning of such proceedings. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 204(a),(b). If the rates are later found to be unlawful, the accounting order permits refunds to be made. Notice and comment proceedings as to the lawfulness of tariffs add nothing to this ratepayer protection, and create an additional regulatory burden. Secondly, in part because the Commission can order refunds for rates found to be unlawful, it is unnecessary to give the Commission authority to order refunds for rule violations which may affect rates, as proposed by Section 3018. Additionally, since there is no rate element necessarily involved nor an accounting order associated with application of rules to a particular rate, calculation of the impact on rates of any of the violations described (e.g., violations of depreciation and other accounting rules), is likely to be difficult and arbitrary. The provision essentially appears to serve as a device by which the Commission can intimidate carriers. This type of device is particularly unnecessary since common carriers are already subject to substantial forfeitures of $100,000 for each violation--up to $1,000,000. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 503(a)(2)(B). Finally, the legislation would amend Section 503(b)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Section 3023) to extend the statute of limitations on forfeitures, and permit the Commission to impose forfeitures on common carriers even when discovered five years after the fact. This provision, intended to permit the Commission to impose forfeitures for rule violations discovered during audits, is unnecessary for two reasons. First, direct review of rates which would be affected by such violations is already available, as described above. Therefore, this provision adds little in the way of ratepayer protections. Additionally, such discriminatory treatment of common carriers is unwarranted. The statute of limitations applicable to other entities subject to forfeiture authority is one year. It would be unnecessarily discriminatory to extend the period to five years for common carriers alone. Moreover, we recommend that the forfeiture authority itself be revised to end unnecessary discrimination against common carriers. Presently, Section 503 of the Communications Act provides that broadcasters are subject to potential forfeitures of $25,000 for each violation, other parties $10,000, while common carriers are subject to potential forfeitures of $100,000. The legislative history of this provision suggests that the increased authority for common carriers was intended to permit the FCC to impose meaningful fines, in proportion to the size of the violator. Yet, there is no reason to discriminate between large non-common carriers, e.g. Time Warner (subject only to a $10,000 maximum) and small telephone companies (subject to a $100,000 maximum) on that basis. Accordingly, Section 503 should be amended to provide for a single dollar maximum for any type of entity--the FCC would still be permitted to tailor the fine as appropriate. Additionally, we recommend that rather than being permitted to assess penalties for violations of the FCC-prescribed rate of depreciation, the FCC should not have the authority to regulate depreciation. In a competitive environment, carriers will need to depreciate assets at faster rates than allowed by the FCC. Under price regulation, a carrier has no incentive to depreciate assets faster than appropriate, since any additional booked costs do not permit the carrier to obtain a corresponding rate increase. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on these issues in the next few weeks.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, October 26, 1995, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners [CIBO] will pay tribute to its founder, Mr. William B. Marx, in honor of his retirement. I would like to join his family, many friends, and associates in honoring his distinguished career and the many contributions he has made to the industrial community and the energy industry of this great United States of America. Bill Marx was born in Easton, PA on December 20, 1923. He graduated with a bachelor of arts degree from Lafayette College in 1948, including 3 years as a first lieutenant in field artillery. He earned a masters degree from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy in 1949, and began working for the CIA in the Far East and other locations. After marrying his wife Marge 45 years ago, he returned to the States where he raised three bright and independent daughters. His career in the energy industry included TransAmerica, Babcock & Wilcox, and executive director of the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, finally founding the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners. In 1986 Bill was named ``Coal Man of the Year'' by the Washington Coal Council. In 1978 Bill saw the need for a voice to represent the highly diverse industrial energy user community to bring the facts of the industrial situation, the production base of the United States, to Washington to ensure the development of technically sound, rational and cost- effective energy and environmental legislation and regulations. Bill, through his leadership, initiative, foresight, and perseverance in unifying this group, brought reality to the public policy debates on these issues; and, was instrumental in achieving the dual objective of maintaining a strong industrial energy base and simultaneously improving the environment. The task that Bill successfully accomplished was extremely important to the long-term economic health of the industrial energy community, and it helped improve the Nation's environment. His accomplishments are numerous and will benefit the United States in ways yet to be seen in the many years to come. Mr. Speaker, please join me and my colleagues as we recognize, with honor and respect, Mr. Marx's contributions as he retires to enjoy the benefits of this great country he has helped promote and preserve.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me first pay my respects to my blue dog Democratic friends and acknowledge the effort they have made in presenting an alternative budget for us today. The fact that there is a second budget, which does promise us a balanced budget in 7 years, is encouraging. Let me also congratulate the President for saying that he, too, believes that we can do this thing in 7 years and end this terrible debt we are creating for our children by balancing our budget over 7 years. Let me also acknowledge the fact that the President admitted that maybe he did raise taxes too much last Congress. For all of my colleagues who believe that in this choice between the Republican balanced budget, which includes the capacity to reduce the tax burdens on Americans and the balanced budget proposed by my friends, the blue dog Democrats, let me suggest to them something: If my colleagues oppose those tax increases the President now regrets, if Members opposed that bill last year, then they ought to be for the Republican budget which promises that we are at least going to repeal about two-thirds of those awful tax increases that my colleague opposed last Congress.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to say it again. If anyone in this House voted against that tax increase bill that President Clinton gave us last Congress, if Members opposed it, they ought to this year be for repealing two-thirds of it, which is what the Republican budget reconciliation bill promises. It promises both the balanced budget in 7 years, and it promises to repeal at least two- thirds of that awful tax increase in the last Congress. Let me make one final pitch to my colleagues. I am going to try to put this in terms I think families understand. I was raised, I think most of my colleagues were raised, to believe that we ought to leave something good to our children. We ought to leave them some patrimony, something of an inheritance out of what we earn and do not spend. If we were raised to believe that we ought to leave something to our children that they can build their future on, then I think members will understand what I am about to say. We talk about crime in America. If we take all the crime that is committed on the streets of America and lump them all together, they are a misdemeanor compared to the crime we commit here in Washington when we budget not only the income we make this year but the income or children have not yet earned. When we spend every year the unearned income of our children and grandchildren to satisfy whatever we think is important for our life this year, we violate the most sacred pledge I think we make as parents to our children. We ought to be giving them something good to build on. Instead, we are giving them debt and mortgage. We are giving them a promise that they will spend 80 percent of their income in Federal taxes to pay this debt. Can we not agree to end it now? Can we not agree to pass a balanced budget amendment, and can we not agree to repeal some of that awful tax increase of the last Congress?

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as we begin this historic debate on the Medicare Preservation Act, I would like to lay a few principles on the table: The first is that no one in this Chamber should dare suggest that they love their parent or grandparent any more than anybody else in this Chamber. As I speak today, my mother, 77 years old last week, twice a cancer survivor, is laying in a hospital bed in room 219 of Thibodaux General Hospital in my hometown. She is doing fine. My sisters are with her, and I speak to her every hour. She is on Medicare, one of the prime beneficiaries in this country of a great system. To suggest that anyone in this room does not love their parents enough to sustain that system is simply wrong. We can do better than that in this debate. The second principle I would like to lay down is, we all agree the Medicare trust fund will begin running out of money next year and run out of money in 7 years unless we do as the trustees suggest; fundamentally change the system to keep it out of bankruptcy, to preserve it for my mother and your parents and grandparents. Now, we differ on how to accomplish that. We should debate those differences and not challenge each other's motives here. Our differences are simple. We believe, as President Clinton believes, and as he has said, ``Medicare and Medicaid are going up at three times the rate of inflation''. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. Mr. Chairman, when we hear all this business about cuts, let me caution Members that that is not what is going on. We are talking about increases in Medicare and a reduction in the rate of growth. We believe as the President does, that we have to substantially cut back the waste, the fraud, and the inefficient spending in Medicare to save it. Second, we believe seniors should have the choice to stay in Medicare, and our plan lets them stay. To choose Medicare, to choose their own doctor, choose their own hospital, or, if they want to, like my mother, remain in the system. Our plan allows that. We also believe seniors should have the same choices we Members have, other options, and that is what our plan provides. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this good bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to give you some good news. I just talked to mom again in her hospital room. She is up on her feet and doing much better. She apparently exerted herself too much to the senior Olympics last week where she won three medals in the Baton Rouge State competition. The third medal was bronze for javelin throwing. So do not mess with mom. She is doing fine. Let me first of all make it clear that what we are debating now finally is their comparison of two alternative plans, which I would hope we would have debated all day instead of motives and intentions and everything else. We are finally looking at the two alternative plans. And the plan we are examining now is a plan that simply says, we are going to try to save about $90 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, inefficiencies in the Medicare program in order that it not be bankrupt as opposed to the plan offered that saves as much as $270 billion out of waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies in the program. Why one not the other? Well, if we only want to Band-Aid the Medicare Program through the next election cycle, we have an alternative now we can vote for. If we want to fix it permanently, structurally, not for just the election but for the generation to follow, if we want to make sure that working Americans are not, after this election, taxed by payroll deduction increases that could double the payroll tax deduction, if we want to avoid that, then we have offered a plan that produces savings for the program and solvency for the next generation. That is the choice. Even the blue dog Democrats have offered a third alternative which unfortunately is not on the floor. They recommended $170 billion in savings. President Clinton recommended $192 billion in savings. At least we are getting down to it here. What is the right number in order to fix the program temporarily or permanently? We propose a permanent fix. We propose fixing the program so it does not go bankrupt, not just for the election but for the next generation.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this is not about turtle excluder devices, but it is just like the turtle excluder device process. This issue involves another device which the agency and the Federal Government has invented called a fish excluder device. A fish excluder device, or FED, is what the agency wants to compel shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to carry in their shrimp nets. They are already carrying a TED, a turtle excluder device. Now they want them to carry a new invention, a fish excluder device. The language the committee adopted said hold off a second. Let us give this thing a year. Why do we not do what the House voted on earlier this year? Why do we not subject this fish excluder device to the new test of peer review by scientists outside the agency and examination of what other devices or what other techniques can best avoid the bycatch problem in the fisheries of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico? A cost-benefit analysis called for in the regulatory reform bill that passed this House is over waiting for action in the Senate right now. But, no, this amendment says, go ahead, do not worry about whether it is cost-benefit effective. Do not worry about whether there may be better ways to deal with the bycatch issue than requiring fishermen to carry another device in their shrimp nets. Just go ahead and impose this fish excluder device on the shrimp fishing industry, just like we imposed the turtle excluder device on the shrimp fishing industry in years past. So the two are somewhat related. The two are very related. This House voted overwhelmingly to change the rules by which the agency regulates in this area. What did we say? We said, look, before you impose a recovery plan or a management plan like a fish [[Page H 10238]] excluder device, look at all the alternatives available. Look at the ones which work without putting people out of business. Look at the ones which will get you the same results without forcing someone to sell their shrimp boat or to give it up or to give it up because they cannot pay the payments on the mortgage. Look for all the ways to solve these problems before we impose a Government-inspired new device upon the industry without any consultation in terms of alternatives and good scientific evaluation of whether this new device is going to help or hurt. But, no, this amendment comes in and says, let us go forward. Let us rush this fish excluder device, put it out, force it on the industry, whether or not it makes good sense, whether or not it meets the cost-benefit analysis of the bill that is awaiting action. Why the rush? I will tell you why the rush. The rush is on to do this regulation, impose this new device because they are afraid that the Senate just might one day pass our regulatory reform bill, and the government agency that is trying to impose this new device just might have to subject it to the kind of review that agency regulations ought to be subject to, the kind of review that includes a wide range of discussions of what might work in bycatch and a wide-ranging discussion of what the cost-benefit analysis of this new requirement is. Let me give my colleagues quickly a summary of the results on the TED's. Yes, we have a 98 compliance rate with the TED's in the Gulf of Mexico today, a 98 compliance rate. Unfortunately, 25,000 fishing families have now been reduced to 12,000 fishing families. We held a task force hearing in my district to talk to some of those fishermen who were left, the ones who are still surviving. What they have told us without exception is, if you let the Government impose a new device like a fish excluder device on it, without examining the cost-benefit relationships, without working with us to reduce bycatch or to utilize bycatch more efficiently, if you do not work with us, the rest of us are gone in short order. Now, there are Members in this House who would just as soon see the commercial shrimp fishing industry gone. There are Members in this House who would be satisfied for America to live on imported shrimp and not have a shrimp industry in America. There are Members in this House who do not much care about whether there is a gulf fisheries shrimp industry alive or not. But there are 12,000 families in my district who still support themselves by fishing shrimp, supplying it to the American household. There are 12,000 families asking us to do a simple thing: Ask the agencies not to impose this device until we have had a chance for the new regulatory reform bill to pass and to go into effect. Why the rush? The rush is on because the environmentalists want to see this FED imposed. They want to see an end to the shrimp fishing industry. That is what this is all about. If Members want to please them, if we want to throw a vote to them again today, then vote for this amendment. But if we want to see the end of shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, that is what we will be accomplishing. I urge Members not to adopt this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I simply want to rise in support of the amendment and also indicate that the amendment as drafted could mean that not only are these devices going to be required on other countries that are required on our fishermen, but they are going to be enforced the same way they are enforced on our fishermen. We have a similar law of TED's right now that is not enforced in Mexico, not enforced in other countries. That is wrong. If this is such a great thing that has to be foisted on the industry with or without cost-benefit analysis, we want to make sure it is enforced on other countries equally as it is enforced on fishermen in our country.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman's last oratorical flurry was in answer to the gentleman's very complimentary words that we have exempted our region. We have not. We have not exempted our region. We have simply said get the scientific work done and make sure it does apply. If you are not striking to make sure it does not apply to everything, I am grateful, but you ought to get it done right so your fisheries and my fisheries have the same good science making these determinations, not some science that says, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], pointed out, we are not going to test everything. We just want to impose this Federal Excluder Device, this FED, on everybody, without ever checking out to see if there is a better way to do things.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman says is correct.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out what the gentleman's amendment will delete from the bill, and I call the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to this particularly. They will delete the section that says any measure implemented under this act to reduce incidental mortality of nontargeted fisheries or sources shall apply to such fishing throughout the range of the nontargeted fishing resource concerned. In short, we are trying to make sure when these regulations do go into effect, they cover everybody, not just a selected area. Second, let me point out that our amendment adopted by the committee did not create an exemption for the gulf. It did not. It simply said that before the regulations were put in place, that several things had to occur: First, that a cost-benefit analysis under our regulatory reform had to occur; second, that technological devices and other changes in fishing operations to minimize bicatch should be examined so that all options are open to the fisheries councils in the various regions; and third, whether it was practicable to utilize nontargeted fisheries resources which were unavoidably caught; in short, to do the complete work. You heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] point out that the agency refused to allow a side-by-side test to find out what really worked and what did not work. This business of going forward without the full science, without a cost-benefit analysis, without an evaluation of what else might work, so we do not impose these mandates on our fisheries that are not imposed on other countries that import to America, is wrong. We ought to tell the agency, do it right, if you are going to do it. We ought to tell the agency when you do it, when you require it, require it across the whole range. Do not stop at North Carolina. If the fish are getting caught in the gulf waters and in the waters off Massachusetts, and you have to have this device, make sure it is applied all over the range of those fisheries, not just some of it. But most importantly, this is not an exemption which the amendment tries to strike. It is simply a requirement that the agency follow the rules we adopted in the House; cost-benefit analysis, alternative resource recovery devices, good science behind the study before you promulgate another device, and fair treatment for Americans who are trying to earn their living and produce food and fiber for this Nation. Now, if that is not a correct plea, then what is? Should we not ask the agency to follow the rules we adopted this year? Why this rush to judgment? I suggest to you they want to rush it out because they are not prepared to defend it under the new rules, and they know they cannot defend it under the new rules. They want to rush it out, impose it, and then we are stuck with it, the way we have been stuck with a lot of other Federal regulations that do not make good sense. The gentleman from Alaska has asked us to pay attention. If this amendment is adopted, there will be an amendment to follow it. Please pay attention to the next amendment, if this one should, by all worst reasons, get adopted. The next amendment says we ought not treat our Americans differently than we do others. Watch for that one when it comes. We ought to at least do that. We ought to defeat this amendment, make sure good science and proper evaluation of these devices occurs before we go forward.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman has made a very complimentary statement that this gentleman has done a great job of exempting his region from coverage by the regulation. I am covered by the TED's. The region in Massachusetts where turtles are found is not covered by the TED's regulation. I wonder why? I wonder how that happened. Perhaps I should compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman has pleaded that we not treat one area different from the other. Would the gentleman tell me whether these turtles are found in the waters of Massachusetts and whether the waters of Massachusetts are covered by the TED's regulation? The answer is they are found, and you are not covered by the TED's regulation. They stop at the Carolinas. The answer is these regulations do not apply to the gentleman's region. They have been very specially applied to our region.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield further, would the gentleman confirm for me that the TED's regulation stops at the Carolinas?