John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. The Senator's point is well taken. If you have to dig up a pipeline, obviously that is going to cause an interruption of supply. Sometimes lines have to be dug up to be inspected. That creates a disruption of supply. That does not mean that inspection should not be done. What we are trying to get at is interruptions that would work an undue hardship on communities by having an inspection that may not be necessary. That is what we are talking about--not a normal interruption, but an unnecessary interruption that would cause real problems for a community to be without any natural gas, for instance, at a time when they desperately need it.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleagues for the remarks they have made on this legislation already. I was particularly pleased to be here when Senator Murray from Washington was making her remarks. As the chairman of the committee acknowledged regarding her contributions, she was an active participant in the drafting of this legislation in the last Congress, actually to the point of being invited by the chairman to sit in the committee and participating as a member because she made valuable contributions in developing this legislation. I rise in strong support of the bill that is now before the Senate. It is a major step in ensuring the safety and the integrity of a system of pipelines that is covering the entire United States, bringing necessary energy to our families, to our businesses, and to our industry. We worked over a year in the last Congress, saying we have to do a better job than we have done in the past. What we produced last year was an important contribution. It took into account concerns of both the operators and owners of pipelines, as well as those who are served by those pipelines. We all have a common interest in seeing that these lines have integrity, that they are technologically the best we could have in this country. The bottom line is, they are safe. We produced a bill in the last Congress that passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. That was not an easy accomplishment. There were a lot of different sides with opinions on how the legislation should look and what it should do. Some, quite frankly, thought it went too far. Others felt it didn't go far enough. The bottom line is that at the end of last year this bill came to the Senate in essentially the same form it is in today and passed by a unanimous vote. That indicated there was general agreement, obviously, on what the content should be. Unfortunately, the House took the legislation up on what they call a suspension of the rules and it failed by a 23-vote margin from being adopted in the House. That was most unfortunate. Had the other body been able to do what I think most of them wanted to do--a majority, in fact, voted for it--this issue would be behind us and we would have in place today a new system of inspection, a new system for qualifications for the operators, and community right-to-know provisions would be the law of the land. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Therefore, under the leadership of our chairman, Senator McCain, and other members of the Commerce Committee, and Members of the Senate, we are back on the floor where we left off last year with the product that already passed, essentially, the Senate in the last Congress by unanimous consent. It is an important issue for my State, an important issue for me. We have over 40,000 miles of pipeline in my State alone--33,000 on shore and about 7,000 miles in the Gulf of Mexico--bringing the largest supply of natural gas in North America from the Gulf of Mexico. We have 7,000 miles of pipeline buried under the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico that brings the natural gas on shore, and that is distributed through a pipeline system throughout the United States. Mr. President, 33,000 miles of those pipelines are in my own State of Louisiana. We have a very strong interest in making sure those lines are secure and safe. What does the bill do? No. 1, we require periodic pipeline testing. That will be a requirement. A line can be inspected by internal devices such as a ``pig,'' which is basically the name for a device that is run through the pipeline, a very sophisticated piece of technology. It is referred to as a ``pig'' because it sort of squeaks through the pipeline and takes various measurements as to integrity of the line. It tests for corrosion of the line, tests for leaks or potential leaks of the line. A very sophisticated and very accurate piece of equipment that we require would be run through all of these pipelines on a periodic basis. However, it is important to note that only about 35 percent of the natural gas pipelines are susceptible to being tested through this type of technological instrument called the ``pig'', the rest of them are not. In the legislation, we allow that in the areas where the so-called ``pig'' technology is not suitable because of the type and size of the line or the bends in the line, there be other methods of testing that would be periodically required by the legislation. For instance, we require the operators perform direct assessments of their lines. What do we mean by direct assessments? It is not a term of architect; it is pretty much what it implies. We require operators to actually dig up the lines and physically inspect them for corrosion and any other abnormalities that may be interfering with the integrity of the lines actually by physical inspection of the lines, looking at them, and other methodologies they would employ after the lines are actually dug up to ensure they are safe. We also leave room for other technology. We want to use the best technology available to inspect the lines, and we certainly leave room for that. We also had some concerns in the legislation which I think now have been satisfactorily worked out with regard to employees who may potentially be involved in any type of an accident. We still believe people are innocent until proven guilty, but there are certainly circumstances when people are involved in an accident where we do not want to keep them doing the same thing at the same time and in the same place until the responsibility for the accident is determined. That is not to say we in any way presume someone to be guilty. We have worked out a satisfactory methodology for handling people involved in these types of accidents. We are also required, with regard to the operator qualifications, to make sure the people who operate the lines, the people who have the capability of shutting them off when there is something that has happened, have the best training and the best information and knowledge in order to be involved in operating something as sophisticated as a natural gas pipeline. We require operator qualifications so that we make certain the people in charge are qualified, and they should be tested in order to make sure they are qualified. This is a big improvement, something that is very important. We also invest in a new technology to which I was referring. Senator Bingaman was involved in wanting to ensure that we are encouraging the development of better technology to improve the inspection process, which we do by this legislation. Also, the States are given an increased role in their inspection of the interstate pipelines. There is a legitimate argument that the lines run through 50 States and you cannot have 50 different sets of standards, 50 different departments investigating and inspecting them. It needs to be coordinated, but the States need to be involved. We have given an increased role to the States to be involved in this. I think that is positive. Also, for the communities--providing increased involvement in pipeline safety. Operators are required under this legislation, I think probably for the first time, to maintain a relationship both with the State and local officials and providing them the information they need on a local and State level to make sure their constituents are also aware of where the lines are located, and additional information about potential hazards and other information they would need to know. Again, let me conclude by saying some people say it should be a lot stronger than this. Others say this is far too regimented an operation and it should not be that restrictive. But I do think, because of the good faith on both sides, we have come up with something that is a balanced approach. It is a major improvement over the current system. I think we should do as we did in the last Congress, pass this bill by unanimous consent. The other body will work their will. There will be a conference. There will be differences, I point out, between the House version and the Senate version. For those who think the right thing to do is try to amend it here, I suggest, in all good faith, it may be better to take a look at what the House does and work within the conference to get what may be more to their viewpoint. I think it would be a mistake, just from the politics of handling this, to offer amendments on the floor of the Senate that may not pass, and have a recorded vote which would prevent the Senate, when the bill comes back, from accepting something that maybe, frankly, may be more to its liking. There is a process here that people should be cautioned about. In order to improve the legislation in the way they may like to see it improved, I caution them and I recommend the best thing to do is pass this bill in its current form, work with the House in the conference, and then see what happens when the conference comes back. To all colleagues who have helped produce this bill, I thank them; I congratulate them for a job very well done, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have discussed this amendment of the Senator from California and I certainly find no objection to it. In fact, it can be a very positive contribution. The National Academy of Sciences is eminently qualified to take a look at the things this study requires. I look forward to their recommendations. I will just mention the obvious difference in creating a reserve for crude oil. We have stored crude oil in salt domes, most of which are in my State and the State of Texas, which is quite different from setting up a reserve for natural gas. I think the author understands that, but that is the purpose of asking the National Academy of Sciences to take a look at it, and perhaps they can come back with good recommendations. The amendment of the Senator from California is helpful, and we certainly support it.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I agree with his explanation of that section.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments. Let me make just a couple of comments to hopefully maybe put out some additional information on what exactly I think the amendment does and why I can be supportive of it. I think all of us want to have as much inspection of pipelines as necessary to ensure their safety. There are a couple of problems with just an arbitrary statement that says we have to inspect all the pipelines every 5 years. No. 1, some of them should be inspected more than every 5 years. Pipelines that are in high-risk areas or are in danger of being interrupted because of natural causes should be inspected more than every 5 years. On the other hand, there are pipelines that do not necessarily need to be inspected every 5 years for various reasons. So just to have an arbitrary date, as I think originally was being considered, is not appropriate. What we have here is a requirement which is a general requirement that all lines be inspected every 5 years, but giving the Department of Transportation, through the inspector general, some ability to make decisions on how that should be actually conducted. What the amendment says is: Yes, they will be inspected every 5 years unless there is not the capability to do so. We all know so-called pig inspection, where you run equipment through the line, is only capable of doing about 30 percent of the lines. So we have to look at the capability to do it in that fashion or in another fashion. The Department of Transportation, through the inspector general, will have the obligation to make the determination of the capacity to do this. I would like them to develop the capacity. That is going to be part of the appropriations process. We have some key people in that process to give them greater capability. The second exemption would be if it is determined, again by the Department of Transportation through the inspector general, that it is unnecessary because of other technology being used--to assure the safety of that line. For instance, there are lines that have constant monitoring on them. They are not inspected every 5 years. They are constantly monitored and inspected for any corrosion or any leaks. I think it would be foolish to require that line to undergo an additional inspection every 5 years if in fact it were being monitored on a constant basis. That is the type of thing we are talking about in that part of the amendment. The third thing is to say it would be inspected every 5 years unless that inspection would create an undue interruption of supplies. I wouldn't want to shut down Newark, NJ, on a line that is running perfectly and has a good history, to do an inspection, if that would be unnecessary and unduly interrupt the supplies of natural gas to that area. So I think, with those caveats, the concept of doing it every 5 years is OK. It is fine. I think we are putting the burden where it belongs, on the Department of Transportation and the Office of Pipeline Safety, through their inspector general, to make sure that the inspections are doing what we want. I think the bill addresses a number of the concerns of our colleagues from New Jersey and Washington about making sure we have trained workers. This bill says what the worker training programs will be and they have to file it with OPS and make sure they have an adequate training program for all of their workers. The public's right to know has been greatly increased. I know Senator Murray had a great deal to do with the public's right to know. I don't know if every individual in the country needs to know where every high- pressure valve is on a pipeline. There is some security involved here. We are concerned about sabotage of lines or disruption of lines by people intent on doing violence to areas. To make that type of information available to everybody all the time without any consequences is going a little bit too far. People who are involved in safety, fire departments and safety people, will get that information quickly as soon as it is on file. And the public will have a right to know the information that they need to protect their local communities. So I think the concerns have been addressed by our colleagues. The bill does an awful lot to improve the current situation, because of their involvement in this amendment, as I understand it to be, and it would be an improvement as well.

Mr. BREAUX. Yes.

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

Mr. BREAUX. Equal or superior.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. It is Breaux by a nose. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for making time available on this very important nomination as to who is going to be the new Secretary of the Interior, a very important position for all Americans. We as a nation have a major interest in knowing that the person who is to be in charge of the managing of all of our public lands and much of our public resources is going to be a person who brings a balanced philosophy to that task. It is an immense task for which I imagine no one who would be nominated would ever be considered the perfect nominee. What I mean by that is it seems to me there will be some, and I think a minority of people in both camps, who would say they would perhaps like to have a Secretary of the Interior who would bring almost no management responsibilities to that task, who would basically say we should let the private sector develop the resources of this country in whatever way they saw fit. There is probably another group of people in the country--again a very small number--who would say no, when it is public lands, they cannot be utilized for private purposes ever; that it should be micromanaged by the Federal Government out of Washington; you can limit activity to only what is absolutely needed. I think the better philosophy for this very important job is to bring a balance. In my conversations with Gale Norton, I have come to the conclusion that she is a person who can bring a management-type philosophy to this job. Neither of the two extremes that I describe will probably be very happy with the approach she uses. Some will say in many cases she is being far too restrictive and limits to too much detail what can be done on our public lands. Others will say she is not being aggressive enough in allowing for development on these resources. The answers to these questions, simply stated, are that we want a balanced person for the job. We want someone who brings commonsense policies to this important task, and commonsense policies is a phrase I have heard used in describing Gale Norton. In addition, I think she will be a person who will consider multiple use of these valuable properties. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that Federal lands owned by our Government can be used for more than just one purpose; yes, there are lands that are particularly set aside as wildlife refuges and conservation areas and wilderness areas. My argument is that these areas can be subject to multiple use in a fashion that preserves the intent of why this area was set aside in the first place and at the same time allows for balanced development which is compatible with that purpose. There has been a great deal made about the new administration's consideration of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alaska. I happen to think that is something that can be done. It is not without risk. Nothing we do as a society is without some risk, some adverse consequences, but history tells us that we can have a wildlife refuge in an area of the country where ANWR is located and find there are uses that are compatible to that refuge that make sense from a public policy standpoint. That is where the question of whether it is going to be balanced comes into play. I note that when I met with Ms. Norton in my office, we talked about that, and I suggested she look at the record in Louisiana where we have had exploration and development on wildlife refuges for over 60 years. We have almost 1,700 wells that have been drilled on wildlife refuges, both Federal and State refuges, including property owned by environmental groups, that has been done successfully. Because we have been doing it since the 1940s, we have made mistakes that would not be made in the year 2001 and beyond because we, in fact, have learned from those mistakes. I argue that an area such as ANWR, which is covered over in the winter months with solid sheets of ice, an area where there would be no necessity for dredging canals to get to the property, where there is already a major pipeline running from Prudhoe Bay down to Valdez, is an ecosystem that can allow for exploration and production in a manner that would be compatible with the purpose of the refuge. I argue the refuges in Louisiana where we have that type of production are much more complicated. We have much greater abundance of wildlife than they do in ANWR. We have everything from alligators to fur-bearing animals, to waterfowl, ducks, geese, shrimp, oysters, and fin fish, all within the same ecosystem in a very fragile wetland area. If we are able to do it under those circumstances, I argue that certainly ANWR can also allow for the compatible exploration and production in their area if it is done carefully in a managed fashion. As far as what is potentially available in that area, they tell me the latest estimates are that it could produce up to 1.5 million barrels a day of oil for at least 25 years, a sum that is equal to nearly 25 percent of our daily oil consumption. Some people say: That is not that much. Yes, it is. It is a considerable amount, and if you look at California, which is experiencing blackouts and operations which are being curtailed because of either unavailability of energy or because of the high cost of energy, how can we say that we are going to just build a fence around an area which will potentially be the second largest energy-producing region of all of North America? We have to take a balanced approach, look at it carefully, look at what we have done in other areas, and then make a decision not based on emotion but based on the facts of the situation. When I spoke with Ms. Norton and listened to what she was thinking of doing, that was a balanced position she would bring to this job. I am pleased to stand and urge my colleagues to support her. This Congress will watch carefully how she conducts the affairs of the Department of the Interior because this is something that affects all Americans, whether you are a Westerner, a Southerner, or someone in an urbanized area in New England. I think she can do a good job, will do a good job, and I look forward to working with her. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. More or less.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from Nevada for expressing his thoughts and concerns with S. 2792, and I want to express my thoughts on this matter as we pass this legislation. I agree that it was never the intent of S. 2792 to circumvent regulation of gaming. This bill simply provides for the Coushatta Tribe to lease or transfer land without further approval. This bill in no way provides for any gaming regulatory loopholes.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Let me conclude by saying there were problems in the program back in the early 1990s that are being corrected--have been corrected. I think the fact is, Congress is showing that we are going to provide careful and adequate oversight to this program. I think it is very important. We, on the aging committee, have spent an incredible amount of time, under Chairman Grassley's leadership, looking at programs that benefit seniors. We are making sure we have GAO looking at these programs, and making sure they are run properly. I can tell you, they are getting a great deal more scrutiny than they have had in the past. The end result is that we have a better program than we had back in the early 1990s. It is essential. It is important. It is necessary. It has widespread, across-the-board support. I commend Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for at last being able to bring this to the floor of the Senate. They eliminated all the roadblocks. I think this is well on its way to passing as a clean bill. I strongly support it and strongly oppose any amendments which would probably result in the bill not passing because of the lateness of the hour. I add my strong voice to the support of those who know this is the right thing to do and the right time to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Five minutes is fine.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield me time?

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me some time to make some comments on this very important legislation. The Older Americans Act is a piece of legislation that is incredibly important, not only to the 14 percent of all Americans who are legally classified as being elderly--those who are over the age of 65--but it is a piece of legislation that is incredibly important, not only to them but also to their children, to their grandchildren, and to other members of their family and friends who are concerned that, while we make great strides in technology in this country in keeping people living longer, it is also extremely important we recognize that just having medical technology to allow people to live longer is not as important as also making sure we allow them to live better. It is one thing to live longer, but if you are living longer in conditions that are not what we, as Americans, think are ideal, sometimes people wonder whether, in fact, it is really worth it. So the Older Americans Act clearly addresses some of these types of issues and questions about how do we, with medical science, as a society, allow our citizens to enjoy living longer lives but also living better, more fruitful lives in their golden years. Part of that is the Older Americans Act, which provides, in many cases, some of the services that allow people to live better lives. It really is a wonder that this act is supported not only by seniors in this country but, I think, by most Americans by a very large margin. It has not been reauthorized in over 5 years. People would say: What is the matter, Congress? Don't you realize the importance and the numbers of older Americans who depend on this particular piece of legislation? In many cases, they depend on it for their transportation because many seniors are homebound and have no way of getting around. It is a program that provides hot meals delivered to the homes of seniors who do not have the ability to go outside their home for meals. That is extremely important. It is a program that encourages the employment of more and more seniors in the workforce, which is incredibly important at a time when we actually have a labor shortage in this country. It has been shown, very clearly, that the shortfall can be made up, in many cases, by talented, experienced, learned seniors who can contribute to the workforce past their normal retirement years. It is a program that provides assistance for adult day care, which is extremely important now, as more and more of the traditional caregivers are working themselves. It is a program that helps provide adult day care for seniors in this country, which is incredibly important. It is a program that addresses the question of abuse prevention, and helps elders in this country to know what their civil rights are to make sure they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous telemarketers, for instance. All of those things are done by the Older Americans Act, which expired 5 years ago. Finally, today, this body--and the House did a couple days ago, I think--will be able to reauthorize this very important program. I am delighted that part of the program contains legislation that I have introduced called the National Caregiver Program. I introduced it along with Senator Chuck Grassley and other distinguished Members of the Senate. This is now going to be part of the Older Americans Act. If I may take a moment to say what the National Caregiver Program does, I think it addresses something that is an incredibly serious problem, and one that is growing every day, of the so-called ``sandwich generation''--those adults in this country who are trying to raise small children but also are having to divide up their time by helping to take care of their senior parents. That is a very serious problem for many Americans--making sure I am taking care of my children, that I am raising them properly, but that I am also taking care of my parents who have given me so much and it is now time for me to help them in their golden years. The National Caregiver Program will provide $125 million a year. It is an authorization to provide assistance for all of those who are caring for an aging parent or an aging spouse, for instance, in their home. I think this is very important and something that this legislation, for the first time, will make available. We have had hearings in Louisiana by the aging committee, of which I serve as the ranking Democratic member, with Chairman Chuck Grassley. We are told there are about 22 million families in America who are struggling every day in their lives to provide care for their children and at the same time trying to balance that with caring for a senior parent or a senior spouse. The National Caregiver Program that is now part of this legislation will provide information to these families about available services of which many of them are not aware. This program will offer individual counseling to these family caregivers about support groups and how you go about making caregiving work more efficiently and better. It will provide respite care, which is so incredibly important. Sometimes families who are providing 24-hour-a-day care, 7 days a week, 12 months out of the year for their children, and are trying to do it for their parents as well--in the same home--quite frankly, need a break. They need a rest from this 24-hour-a-day burden, which they are happy to do. It is a joy to be able to be in a position to provide this type of service. But every now and then you simply need a break. The National Caregiver Program will be able to provide what we call respite care, to give someone a break, to get out of the house, to go out with their family and enjoy a meal outside of the home, or to take a child to a school function, knowing that someone will be there to take care of their adult family member who still resides in their home. Also, it can provide some other supplemental services, which I happen to think is incredibly important. So I say to my colleagues--both on the Republican side as well as on our side of the aisle--this is good legislation. It is important legislation. Everywhere I went in Louisiana over the past couple days, I spoke with senior groups and aging councils, and they all asked the same question: Senator, when is Congress going to get around to passing the Older Americans Act? For the life of me, I never had a good reason to tell them why we have not done it before. Is this a program that has some things that are not run 100 percent correctly? We have had examples of that in the past, but you cannot tell me a Federal program that can't be improved upon.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask for 2 more minutes, if that is all right.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill that is called the Freedom to Fish Act. The legislation cosponsored by Senator Hutchison addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our nation's public coastal resources. I understand that it is very late in the session to be introducing new legislation, but I believe this matter is significantly important to require immediate recognition. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. Many in the environmental community are lauding the creation of these undersea national parks as the silver bullet solution to our over-exploited fisheries and degraded habitat. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our nation's approximately ten million marine recreational anglers. For while I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters. I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to protecting and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. However, I believe that restricting public access to those waters is not the appropriate vehicle for accomplishing that goal in most cases. The notion of a marine park is certainly not new, having its origins in successful land management practices. The establishment of wildlife refuges, national parks and forests has shown clear benefits to the natural species living on those lands and fresh waters. However, in the transfer from the land to the marine waters one very important aspect of the protected area has been neglected. While sport fishing is nearly universally accepted throughout this nation's terrestrial parks, and wilderness areas, those advocating the use of marine parks take pains to specifically restrict the access of recreational anglers. This seems ironic to me, as an increasing number of recreational anglers practice catch and release fishing and all contribute money to their state's fish and game departments through the payment of license fees and taxes. I believe these anglers to be among this nation's first conservationists and their contributions to the resource need to be recognized. In response to criticism and attacks against our Nation's sportsmen and women, I introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. The act establishes guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources is preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the angling public will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Second, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that recreational anglers will be prohibited from an area only when they have been shown to be causing significant adverse effects on that fishery resource. Further, should prohibitions be justified, this bill prevents areas larger than scientifically necessary from being closed. In those cases, criteria will be established so that once certain goals have been reached, the area will reopen to the public immediately. Restricting public admission to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection. With that, I submit the Freedom to Fish Act for your review and discussion.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill that is called the Freedom to Fish Act. The legislation cosponsored by Senator Hutchison addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our nation's public coastal resources. I understand that it is very late in the session to be introducing new legislation, but I believe this matter is significantly important to require immediate recognition. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. Many in the environmental community are lauding the creation of these undersea national parks as the silver bullet solution to our over-exploited fisheries and degraded habitat. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our nation's approximately ten million marine recreational anglers. For while I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters. I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to protecting and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. However, I believe that restricting public access to those waters is not the appropriate vehicle for accomplishing that goal in most cases. The notion of a marine park is certainly not new, having its origins in successful land management practices. The establishment of wildlife refuges, national parks and forests has shown clear benefits to the natural species living on those lands and fresh waters. However, in the transfer from the land to the marine waters one very important aspect of the protected area has been neglected. While sport fishing is nearly universally accepted throughout this nation's terrestrial parks, and wilderness areas, those advocating the use of marine parks take pains to specifically restrict the access of recreational anglers. This seems ironic to me, as an increasing number of recreational anglers practice catch and release fishing and all contribute money to their state's fish and game departments through the payment of license fees and taxes. I believe these anglers to be among this nation's first conservationists and their contributions to the resource need to be recognized. In response to criticism and attacks against our Nation's sportsmen and women, I introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. The act establishes guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources is preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the angling public will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Second, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that recreational anglers will be prohibited from an area only when they have been shown to be causing significant adverse effects on that fishery resource. Further, should prohibitions be justified, this bill prevents areas larger than scientifically necessary from being closed. In those cases, criteria will be established so that once certain goals have been reached, the area will reopen to the public immediately. Restricting public admission to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection. With that, I submit the Freedom to Fish Act for your review and discussion.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I don't want to belabor the point, but when I walk into a drugstore, the retail price may be $100. But because of volume purchasing, it may only cost me $70, and because I have coverage, I don't pay $70. I pay a small copayment of maybe $30. I walk out of the drugstore with $100 worth of drugs paying only $30 because I am covered. A Medicare recipient who has no coverage pays the full retail price of $100. That is what is wrong with the system as it is currently constructed. The answer clearly is not to say we are going to allow people to import drugs from Bangladesh or Pakistan or other countries around the world where we cannot guarantee the quality. That is not the way to do it. It was a sham when it left the Senate. It is a sham as it is being presented to the Senate today. We should have the political courage to address this in a very serious way. To those of our two colleagues who have worked so hard on this, I thank them for their understanding and their participation. I do not fault them for what has happened. It passed the House by a huge margin. It passed the Senate by a huge margin. It is not the right policy and doesn't solve the problem. I wanted to bring it to the attention of my colleagues. Having said that, I intend to vote for the overall product because of the many good things it has in it for American agriculture and American farmers. I think our two leaders are to be congratulated for that product they bring before the Senate.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, congratulations to the chairman and Senator Kohl for the work they have done on this Agriculture appropriations bill. It indeed has been a very difficult endeavor. I plan to vote for final passage of this Agriculture appropriations bill because I think it is very important and there are many very important things in it dealing with agriculture, which is with what we would think an Agriculture appropriations conference report should deal. I highlight, however, one thing that I think is very bad public policy; that is, the question of an amendment to this bill allowing for the importation of foreign drugs manufactured in foreign countries, under foreign standards, to be imported into the United States under the guise of ``this is the solution'' or even a partial solution to the high costs of prescription drugs and the unavailability of prescription drugs under our Medicare program for the 40 million senior citizens in this country who need prescription drugs. Many people said when the bill left the Senate that this provision that was added was a sham. I thought it was a sham when it left and it has come back and it is a worse sham than when it left. This is ``Son of Sham,'' or a double sham, in the sense that this makes absolutely no sense. Members of both sides of the aisle have said: We are against drug price controls because that is un-American; that is not the way we encourage businesses to operate; we want businesses to compete against each other and the companies that can do the best job for the best price get the business. That is what the American system is all about. Instead, we have in this bill a provision that says, we might not like price controls in this country, but we are going to import not only the drugs from other countries but their price control systems--as if that somehow makes it all right. The concept is other countries have price controls; therefore, it is cheaper. The fact is, in Canada, to which so many of our people point, there are some drugs that are cheaper because of price controls, but there are many other drugs that, in fact, cost more in Canada than they do here. In many cases, the drugs we have here are simply not available in Canada at all, or maybe a year or two after they are available in the United States, because of the adverse impact of a price control system we are now trying to import into this country. In addition to that reason that this is bad policy, there are about 10 former Food and Drug Administration agencies that said: Wait a minute; hold on, Congress. What in the world are you doing? This is not a safe process you are legislating into law. We are not going to be able to determine the safety of these drugs. Maybe in Canada it would be all right, but what about Pakistan or what about a Third World country or what about a country we have very little to do with? Are we going to let the drugs come in from those countries as well, which this bill allows? How are we going to be able to guarantee that the same safety or precautions that are in effect in a Third World nation are in effect here in the United States in order to protect the consuming public? How are we going to know that the little pill that is the same color and approximately the same size has in it the same material that it has in this country, that has been approved by our Food and Drug Administration? This may give some of our colleagues a feeling we have done something to solve the prescription drug cost problem for our seniors. It does not. It does not come close. This is not even a fig leaf of coverage for those who reply to: What have you done on the issue of prescription drugs? The answer is, we probably made the system worse by bringing in drugs the quality of which we cannot guarantee. We cannot guarantee where they came from, how they were produced, or who has been protecting them since they left the factory and ultimately found their way into the United States. The answer is not that complicated. What it takes is a lot of political courage to do what is right and to tell our seniors there are no real easy answers to this problem. What we need to provide to America's seniors is the same thing that I have as a Member of the Senate, that every one of my colleagues has and every one of the Members of the other body has and the other 9 million Federal employees have; that is, coverage under their health insurance plans that cover prescription drugs. When I walk into a drugstore, I do not pay full retail price, not one of us does. We get a discount because we do volume purchasing under our Federal insurance plan. In addition to the volume purchasing, we also have a very small copay, which allows us, instead of having to pay full price, to pay only a fraction of the price. That is the same type of system we should put into effect for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization bill. First, I thank Chairman McCain and the other Senate conferees. We have come to a bi-partisan agreement after many months of conference and now we have the opportunity to pass a NASA Authorization bill for the first time since fiscal year 1993. As you know, NASA is one of the agencies of government that captures the spirit of the American people. Who can fail to be awed by the liftoff of a Space Shuttle, a walk in space, or the discovery of water on Mars? Because NASA is such a treasure, it is important that we in Congress exercise our duty to oversee and authorize its programs. And that is just what this conference report does. H.R. 1654 would authorize funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the appropriated level of $13.6 billion in FY 2000. It provides $14.2 billion in FY 2001 and $14.6 billion in FY 2002, slightly more than the President's requested level. The bill fully funds the Space Shuttle program, the International Space Station, and the Space Launch Initiative. It provides authorizations above the requested levels for the Space Grant College program, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, and NASA's research into aircraft noise reduction and cleaner, more energy-efficient aircraft engine technology--research that can improve the quality of life of Americans who live near airports. When we were nearing the finish line with this bill, the Administration contacted us about several key concerns they had with the bill. We have resolved their concerns, and now I would like to run through these issues: our interaction with International Space Station partners, commercialization of the Space Station, Trans-Hab, Shuttle Safety, and Triana. International partners and the space station: We successfully altered House-proposed lauguage which was overly punitive. The provision contained in H.R. 1654 encourages NASA to provide for equitable use of the Space Station by seeking reduction in utilization rights (like crew allocation) for International Partners that willfully violate any of their commitments to the program. Space station commercialization: The conferees agreed to leave in place the Space Station Commercial Development program and did not agree to the House's proposal to eliminate the program. We did, however, shorten the period of time for which the program is authorized from 2004 to 2002. The program will be up for reauthorization at the same time that NASA itself is due for reauthorization. Trans-hab: NASA has considered replacing the ``hard'' habitation module for the Space Station with an inflatable ``Trans-Hab.'' The House had sought to prohibit NASA from using its funds to develop an inflatable habitation module. The conference agreement clarifies that NASA is permitted to lease or use a commercially-developed Trans-Hab. It is my understanding that NASA is currently evaluating a very serious commercial proposal for an inflatable space structure capable of accommodating humans in space, and this language should allow them to participate in such an agreement. Shuttle safety: The Administration was concerned that the Senate- passed cost cap on the International Space Station and Shuttle flights to assemble the Station might send the wrong message about Shuttle and Station crew safety. That concern sent up a red flag to the conferees-- no cost limitation proposed in this legislation should make NASA hesitate for one moment in launching the Shuttle if a life was at stake. No one wants to jeopardize the life and safety of the crew of the Space Station. We inserted language to ensure that the cap would not apply to costs incurred to ensure or enhance the safety or reliability of the Space Shuttle and another provision to allow the Administrator to use monies provided beyond the cap to improve safety or to launch a shuttle to protect the Station and its crew. Triana: Finally, the House agreed to take out its provision to terminate the Triana program. Triana will be the world's first Earth- observing mission to L1, the gravitational mid-point between the sun and the Earth. From this vantage point, the satellite has a continuous view of the Sun-lit portion of the Earth. Over 90 percent of the instrument development has already taken place, and we've already spent about $40 million. NASA highlighted several legislative provisions which they feel would be beneficial, yet are not included in the bill. While I would not support all of those provisions, I am disappointed we could not include some of the provisions that represent their greatest needs in this Conference Report. I would also like to highlight a few of H.R. 1654's other major provisions. The Conference Report imposes a $25.0 billion cost cap for International Space Station development and a $17.7 billion cost cap for Space Shuttle launch costs in connection with Station assembly. The cap would not apply to operations, research, or crew return activities after the Station is complete. An additional contingency fund of $5 billion for Station development and $3.5 billion for Space Shuttle is authorized to provide flexibility in case of an emergency or other unusual circumstance. As you know, I am a strong supporter of the International Space Station Program. The Space Shuttle Discovery is currently on the 100th Space Shuttle mission, putting cargo and other items in place so that the Station is ready to be occupied by its permanent crew next month. The cap on Station development in the bill does not seek to alter or impede that program in any way. It merely seeks to limit the development costs so we stick to the plan and put a fully-operational Space Station on orbit in a timely manner. The bill also directs NASA, after Congressional review of their plan, to establish a non-governmental organization (NGO) to manage Space Station research and commercial activities upon completion of the Station. I understand that some members are concerned about this provision. I will simply note: (1) NASA is already in the process of evaluating and establishing an NGO to manage station research; and (2) our bill allows Congress nearly 4 months to react to NASA's proposal before it can be implemented. If we don't like what they come back with, we can tell them not to do it. H.R. 1654 represents the culmination of several years of hard work, and it is a good piece of legislation. I don't like every provision in the bill, but it represents a fine compromise--and one it looked like we might never reach. Again, I would like to thank Chairman McCain and Senator Frist for their hard work and to thank our staffs, in particular Floyd DesChamps, Elizabeth Prostic, and Jean Toal Eisen. I urge the swift adoption of the conference report.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, on the evening of Friday, November 3, the people of Shreveport will gather to pay tribute to one of the most exceptional people the State of Louisiana has ever produced, Virginia Shehee. The tribute to Virginia is organized by the Biomedical Research Foundation of northwest Louisiana, whose establishment is but one of the remarkable achievements in the life of this remarkable woman. It is my pleasure and honor to tell my colleagues in the United States Senate about my friend Virginia Shehee. She is a superb model for everything she has done: wife, mother, businesswoman, political leader, community activist and economic visionary. My former colleague, Senator Bennett Johnston, once said, ``In a state that is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, Virginia Shehee may be Louisiana's single greatest natural resource.'' I certainly know that is a view shared by many of those who know Virginia best and who have benefited from her lifetime of dedication to improve lives in Shreveport and northwest Louisiana. Nothing better exemplifies her accomplishments than the creation of the Biomedical Research Foundation, and the construction of the Biomedical Research Institute that today stands proudly adjacent to the LSU Medical Center in Shreveport. It is an understatement to say that none of this would have been possible without the foresight, determination and hard work of Virginia, and other community leaders nearly 20 years ago. Like so many advances in today's new economy, Shreveport's move into the world of biomedicine and biotechnology emerged from the difficulties caused by the decline of the old economy. In northwest Louisiana, where the steadily declining price in oil in the early 1980's caused community leaders to conclude that efforts had to be undertaken quickly to produce other economic sustenance for the area, they of course turned to Virginia Shehee. In a matter of a few short years, Virginia had formed the Biomedical Research Foundation and gathered several million dollars in local support. She leveraged local dollars into a much larger state support and then converted that into significant support by the Congress and the Department of Energy. As a result, a 10-story, $40 million, state- of-the-art wet-lab research facility was built that today houses world- class researchers and serves as a growing economic engine, producing knowledge-based jobs for northwest Louisiana. Beyond the work taking place in its own facilities, Biomed can point with great pride to the growing number of companies it has attracted to Shreveport's own technology park, InterTech, with technologies ranging from manufacturing and diagnostics to telemedicine and orthopedic devices. We in the Louisiana delegation often point to the success of Biomed as a textbook model of partnerships between Washington and local communities looking to build a better future for their citizens. It is true, Mr. President, that Biomed has become a success because it has merit on its side. But all of us who have played some small part in this effort know that a big reason for the success is Virginia Shehee is someone who long ago learned not to take no for an answer. Her efforts have led to a mighty legacy in science and economic development in Shreveport. It is fitting the facility is now the ``Virginia K. Shehee Biomedical Research Institute,'' and it is fitting the community is gathering next month to say thanks. It is my pleasure to join so many in saying how blessed Louisiana is to have Virginia Shehee's generous service and how fortunate I am to have her friendship.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today as ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging and am proud to inform you that after the culmination of years of investigation and attention to the relationship between nursing home staff levels and quality of care, today Senator Grassley--my colleague on the Committee--and I are introducing legislation on this important issue. Our ``Nursing Facility Staff Improvement Act of 2000'' would encourage increased quantities of staff but also would improve the quality of those caring for our loved ones in nursing homes. Chairman Grassley and I have been committed to ensuring that our seniors are getting the best quality care possible in our nation's nursing homes, and the Aging Committee has held numerous hearings regarding the best way to reach this goal. We have been working with HCFA to determine the best way to ensure state surveyors are appropriately monitoring the quality of care their residents receive. Additionally, we held a hearing to learn from industry representatives about the links between nursing home bankruptcies and quality care. And we have continually and consistently sent the message that we will remain involved and committed to improvement for as long as it takes. The bill we introduce today--the Nursing Facility Staff Improvement Act of 2000--is the result of bipartisan efforts to put something on the books that will not only provide real incentives for nursing home staff to strive to do their jobs well but will also be a huge step toward defining what optional nursing home care should entail. I commend President Clinton for building on the Aging Committee's findings and making this very important issue one of his priorities. More specifically, this bill will: Call for the Secretary of HHS to establish a competitive grant program to the states to increase or improve the recruitment and retention of direct care nursing staff. Provide for $1 billion over two years. Require that HCFA complete Phase II of their Nursing Home Staffing study and report back not later than July 1, 2001. Appropriate use of grant monies would include: establishing career ladders for nurse aides; improving nursing management; providing additional training programs for staff. In conclusion, it is exciting for me to put forth a piece of legislation that offers tangible incentives to current and future staff and also directly encourages appropriate nursing home care for our loved ones. This effort has truly been one of joint cooperation between my Republican colleague on the Aging Committee and myself and I am proud to introduce it to you today.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today as ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging and am proud to inform you that after the culmination of years of investigation and attention to the relationship between nursing home staff levels and quality of care, today Senator Grassley--my colleague on the Committee--and I are introducing legislation on this important issue. Our ``Nursing Facility Staff Improvement Act of 2000'' would encourage increased quantities of staff but also would improve the quality of those caring for our loved ones in nursing homes. Chairman Grassley and I have been committed to ensuring that our seniors are getting the best quality care possible in our nation's nursing homes, and the Aging Committee has held numerous hearings regarding the best way to reach this goal. We have been working with HCFA to determine the best way to ensure state surveyors are appropriately monitoring the quality of care their residents receive. Additionally, we held a hearing to learn from industry representatives about the links between nursing home bankruptcies and quality care. And we have continually and consistently sent the message that we will remain involved and committed to improvement for as long as it takes. The bill we introduce today--the Nursing Facility Staff Improvement Act of 2000--is the result of bipartisan efforts to put something on the books that will not only provide real incentives for nursing home staff to strive to do their jobs well but will also be a huge step toward defining what optional nursing home care should entail. I commend President Clinton for building on the Aging Committee's findings and making this very important issue one of his priorities. More specifically, this bill will: Call for the Secretary of HHS to establish a competitive grant program to the states to increase or improve the recruitment and retention of direct care nursing staff. Provide for $1 billion over two years. Require that HCFA complete Phase II of their Nursing Home Staffing study and report back not later than July 1, 2001. Appropriate use of grant monies would include: establishing career ladders for nurse aides; improving nursing management; providing additional training programs for staff. In conclusion, it is exciting for me to put forth a piece of legislation that offers tangible incentives to current and future staff and also directly encourages appropriate nursing home care for our loved ones. This effort has truly been one of joint cooperation between my Republican colleague on the Aging Committee and myself and I am proud to introduce it to you today.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Mother Katharine Drexel. Born into one of the wealthiest families in America in 1858, Mother Katharine turned down a life of privilege to start the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament in 1891. She dedicated her life to building a brighter future for underprivileged African-American and Native American children. In honor of her hard work and dedication to the disadvantaged and disenfranchised, on October 1--just 45 years after her death--Pope John Paul II canonized Mother Katharine into sainthood, the highest recognition a Catholic can receive. She is the fifth American to reach this honor, and only the second who was born in America. The prestigious Xavier University of Louisiana owes its entire existence to Mother Katharine Drexel. When founded in New Orleans in 1925, Xavier's mission was to prepare its students for positions of leadership. Today, Xavier is widely recognized for sending more African-Americans to medical school than any college in America. Its 70 percent medical and dental school acceptance rate is almost twice the national average, and 93 percent of those who enter these programs earn their degree. Xavier also ranks first nationally in the number of African-American students who earn degrees in biology, physics, pharmacy and the physical sciences. In fact, since 1927 Xavier has graduated nearly 25 percent of the black pharmacists practicing in the United States. Thousands of Xavier's graduates are prominent scientists, scholars, musicians, and community leaders in Louisiana and across the country. Notable graduates include Department of Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, and retired, four-star Air Force General Bernard Randolph, former head of the Space and Defense Systems Command. Proof of Mother Katharine's superior works lies in the achievements of three of her former students. One of Mother Katharine's students at Xavier was a young man who shined shoes, but wanted an education. Today, Dr. Norman Francis is president of Xavier University and a nationally recognized leader in higher education. Another of her former students, Lionel Hampton, found his gift for music under Mother Katharine's tutelage at Xavier. Hampton later earned platinum and gold records, and became the first African-American to play in the Benny Goodman Band. Hampton joined another jazz great and New Orleanian, Louis Armstrong, to play for Pope Pius XII. Mother Katharine also spread her goodwill elsewhere across the country. When Marie Allen entered Mother Katharine's St. Michael's Indian School in Window Rock, Arizona, she was an impoverished young child who spoke no English. Today, Dr. Marie Allen heads the Navaho Nation Special Diabetes Program to educate Native Americans about diabetes, a deadly disease that plagues American Indian reservations. Even more, over the past 10 years, 90 percent of students graduating from St. Michael's Indian School have gone to college. These are just three examples of the multitude of students who have been inspired to greatness by Mother Katharine Drexel. In the midst of a hostile culture, she used kindness and compassion to fight injustice and indignities, and in the process forged a brighter future for America's poor and underprivileged. When Katharine Drexel died at the age of 97 in 1955, more than 500 of her disciples were teaching in 63 schools on American Indian reservations and in African-American communities. This is a true testament to her ability to inspire and lead. History is full of truly remarkable people whose individual acts of kindness have left an indelible mark on our hearts, our souls and our conscience. Mother Katharine Drexel is no different. Her actions are a true testament to the power of strong religious faith and a moral obligation to those less fortunate. On behalf of the thousands of people around the world who have been touched by her work, I pay tribute to the life and work of Mother Katharine Drexel. She may have been a teacher to some, but Mother Katharine is a saint to many.