John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Senator Baucus, I was a member of the conference committee as well and it was my understanding that fish would be a qualifying agricultural commodity for the purpose of this act. Is that correct?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for yielding. Mr. President, now is the time to do something about prescription drugs, but this is not the thing to do with prescription drugs. How do I go back to Louisiana, as in every State, and tell the Medicaid Program in Louisiana that this bill is going to cost my State $85 million, which we do not have, through our State Medicaid Program to have the State pick up part of the costs of this prescription drug program? How am I going to go back to my State of Louisiana and tell the 240,000 people in Louisiana that, yes, Congress passed a prescription drug program but, guess what, you are not part of it. You are going to pay 95 percent of all of your costs of prescription drugs, and the Federal Government is going to pick up 5 percent. Now is the time to do something about prescription drugs, but this Congress can do much better than this. What we ought to do is combine the best of what Government can do with the best of what the private sector can do, and come up with a program that fits Medicare that is universal, that is comprehensive, that covers all seniors, not just some of the seniors, and gives them all a program of which they can be proud. That is the concept of what Medicare was 37 years ago. We should not now divert from that concept and say one group of seniors is going to have one plan, the other seniors are going to get left by the wayside. Certainly, I think this Congress can do better than that, and we will have the opportunity to do that, working with our colleagues over the August recess to put together that type of plan. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, today is a very important day because it is the 37th anniversary of the passing of the Medicare legislation providing universal coverage of health care for all seniors. Everybody got it. No matter what your income was, there was no gap. Those with low income got Medicare, hospital, and doctor coverage. If you were of moderate income, you got it. If you were upper income, you got it. It was a concept 37 years ago that Medicare should be a universal health care plan for all seniors. Today, we are at some point going to be debating a fundamental change in Medicare by saying that only a portion of seniors are going to get real prescription drug coverage--not all seniors, but we are going to means test it. According to the piece of paper provided by the supporters of that approach, individuals below 200 percent of poverty-- which is $13,300 for an individual--are going to have a Cadillac-type of coverage plan. But if you make $13,301, tough luck. You are going to have to pay 95 percent of your drug coverage if you are not below 200 percent of poverty until you reach a figure of about $3,300 worth of out-of-pocket drug expenses, and then the Government will make up 90 percent. It is really interesting to see whom are we talking about covering. It is also important to think about whom we are not covering under this scaled-down version. The average number of people in the United States below 200 percent of poverty is 30 percent. That means 70 percent of the American elderly would not qualify by being under 200 percent of poverty. These are working people who have paid taxes when they were working, who are retired, and now, because they don't qualify as being 200 percent under poverty, all of a sudden we are going to leave them out of a Medicare Program that was supposed to provide universal health coverage for all Americans. This is a fundamental break with what Medicare was all about, which was a universal plan for all seniors, not just for seniors making under 200 percent of poverty. Seventy percent of America's elderly would not qualify for the 200 percent poverty standard. That is not what we signed into law 37 years ago and celebrate today, the advent of a Medicare Program that was universal coverage for all citizens. I understand why we are attempting to do that. That is because we are trying to spend less money. The tripartisan plan said we could spend $370 billion and reform Medicare by giving seniors new options and also provide a universal prescription drug plan that covered all seniors, not just those under 200 percent of poverty. If I were a senior who had an income of $13,301, according to their chart, I would be very unhappy with what the Senate is considering now. Seventy percent of America's seniors would not qualify under 200 percent of poverty. We can do better than that. We can do far better than that. We can do more for less, if we do it correctly and we do it in the proper fashion. We had a plan under the tripartisan plan that was a comprehensive plan. It was a $24-a-month premium for seniors who have to meet a $250 deductible, and then, after that, it was universal coverage for all seniors. They paid 50 percent coinsurance, but everybody participated. Every senior was treated equally, not just spending a substantial amount of money for a selective number of people. Medicare is not an antipoverty program; Medicaid is. Medicare is universal coverage. It is not just saying to 70 percent of our seniors, you are not going to get any real help. Some will say we are helping those over 200 percent of poverty. You are not helping them very much when you tell them they have to pay 95 percent of the cost of their prescription drugs. Ninety-five percent, what kind of coverage is that? We are going to say: We will help you with 5 percent, but 95 percent is going to have to come out of their pocket after 200 percent of poverty. That doesn't seem to be a very good deal to me. Then you say: When you get $3,300 worth of out-of-pocket drug costs, the Government will help you again. It is not really the best we can do. We can do far better than that. I think we ought to. I don't know why we are actually voting. No. 1, everybody should realize the bill did not come out of the Finance Committee, where all of this type of work should have been done, where all the compromises should have been accomplished, instead of trying to go to the floor and having one bill one day without 60 votes, another bill without 60 votes, and yet today another bill that does not have 60 votes. We are putting people on the spot unnecessarily. I suggest we put this off and begin the real work that is possible and get something that works.

Mr. BREAUX. No, thank you.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry with regard to the time situation: Is it allocated to morning business or where am I?

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I ask then if the acting Republican leader will yield me some time.

Mr. BREAUX. Parliamentary inquiry: If I understand that, it is extended by 5 minutes, that will be until 10 to noon. Let me have 5 minutes now.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to make a couple of comments--I will not be that long--on the pending business, prescription drugs. It was said before that this is sort of a unique day in the sense that this is the 37th anniversary of the signing of the Medicare Act back in 1965. What we did in 1965 was unique. It was very important. It was very special. What we did in 1965, with Medicare, was to say: We are going to establish a Medicare Program for our Nation's seniors that is going to be comprehensive. It is going to cover all seniors. It is going to be universal, in the sense that all seniors will be eligible for the same benefits under the Medicare Program. So we had a program that said to every senior: We are going to cover you. Regardless of where you live, regardless of your status in life, you are going to be covered for hospital care and other related conditions as well. We should have, at that time, added prescription drugs. Congress did not. Prescription drugs were not as important in 1965 as a hospital bed was in 1965. So Congress, in its wisdom, at that time said we are going to provide comprehensive coverage for hospitals, and later on it became also coverage for doctors and physicians as well. The unique feature about that bill is that it covered everybody and it treated everybody equally. I think when you look at a proposal we have before us today that says this program is going to be fundamentally changed. In the sense that it is no longer universal, it is no longer comprehensive, we are going to pick and choose who gets what, and different people who are eligible for Medicare will get different things--I think that is fundamentally breaking faith with the American people who, when they look at Medicare, think of it as being universal and comprehensive. That is the first mistake. Many people who talked about the tripartisan bill--some of our colleagues on the floor, some in the private sector--said we don't like the tripartisan bill because it has a gap. They called it a doughnut. The gap in the tripartisan bill was between $3,450 worth of drug expenses and $3,700 of prescription drug expenses. If you were poor, you still got your drugs taken care of through that gap, but if you were not under 150 percent of poverty, you did not get coverage in that relatively small gap between $3,150 and $3,700. Why? Because of the extreme cost associated with covering even that small gap. The point I made is that many people who were critical of the tripartisan bill said: You have a gap, so we can't support it. If we had a gap, this plan has a canyon, because it says to the Nation's seniors: If you are under 200 percent of poverty, we will cover your drugs, but if you make one dollar more, you are in a different category. I think the figures I have seen indicate it is approximately $17,720 of income as an individual. I think is the number. But if you make one dollar more than 200 percent of poverty, you are in a totally different category, you are in a category that says you have to pay about 95 percent of the drug costs. Ninety-five percent of the drug costs? What kind of help are we giving to someone who makes one dollar above 200 percent of poverty? One of the charts I saw said 70 percent of seniors are over 200 percent of poverty. Are we going to say to that group of seniors: Somehow you are going to be treated differently than anyone else the Government treats under Medicare because you make one dollar more than 200 percent of poverty? You are going to be required to pay 95 percent, and the Federal Government will pick up 5 percent of your drug costs? Is that fair? That is not what we did in 1965 when we said everybody would have comprehensive, universal coverage and access to a health care plan. That is not an insignificant number of people you are talking about. I looked at some of the statistics with regard to how many people you are talking about. In my State--and my State is a poor State--it is about 230,000 people making over 200 percent of poverty. What am I going to tell the seniors in Louisiana: If you are poor, you are going to get all this help, but if you make one dollar more, excuse me, you are out of luck? What are they going to say? They are going to say: I paid taxes all my life, I worked hard all my life, but now, for the first time under Medicare, you are going to treat me differently than anybody else? My State is a poor State, and 230,000 people would fit into that category of being outside of 200 percent of poverty. Now I have the numbers. In the United States, nationwide--these are the numbers from the Kaiser Family Foundation--there are about 18,450,000 seniors who are eligible for Medicare who are outside the 200 percent of poverty--18 million people plus. We are telling those 18 million-plus seniors they are going to be treated quite differently when they are called upon to pay 95 percent coinsurance on their prescription drugs. Are we telling them that we are giving them something? We are not giving them what we are giving other parts of our society who are seniors. These are working people who have paid taxes and in their retirement think, if you are going to have a National Government program, they should be treated like everybody else. The 200 percent of poverty is nice to talk about--how many people we are helping. But a substantial portion of the 200 percent under poverty are already covered with prescription drugs under the Medicaid Program. At about 75 percent of poverty, you have coverage under Medicare for prescription drugs already. They already have prescription drugs under the State Medicaid Program. If you are about 75 percent of poverty, in my State, you are covered for prescription drugs--the poorest of the poor. So we are really saying: Between 75 percent of poverty and 200 percent of poverty, we are really going to give you a great deal of help. But if you are over 200 percent of poverty, you are out of luck. They say we have a catastrophic plan. I am all for catastrophic coverage. It should be there. But let's be honest about how many people it covers. If you look at $3,300 of catastrophic coverage where the Government picks up the lion's share of 90 percent--I take it, in their plan--of the cost of drugs after you reach the $3,300 out-of-pocket costs, how many people is that? I am told approximately 10 percent of the seniors are going to have actual out-of-pocket costs of $3,300 and above on an annual basis, not including insurance, not including a union package, not including a former employer's package, and not including any Medigap coverage they have. If it has to be out of pocket $3,300, you are talking about approximately 10 percent of the remaining number of seniors. What do we have? We are spending almost $400 billion, and we are selectively saying some are going to get it, some are not going to get it, and some are going to get a little bit more. The tripartisan bill had about $370 billion of Medicare reform, plus prescription drugs--$340 billion on prescription drugs. That was universal and comprehensive and at a $24-a-month premium. It had a $250 deductible and 50 percent coinsurance. Everybody was treated alike. Everybody would know what they were going to get and how they were going to get it. Some say: We want a Government-run program. We want private insurance companies delivering prescription drugs. What are we coming to? It is the exact same system that I have as a Member of the Senate and that 9 million other Federal employees have. Do you think we do not have a Government-run health program? Of course it is a Government-run program. It is run by the Office of Personnel Management--a Federal agency that goes out and solicits bids from private companies, such as Blue Cross and Aetna, to provide 9 million Federal workers with comprehensive, universal health coverage which includes doctors, hospitals, and, yes, it includes prescription drugs. We are talking about saying that these providers who are big, healthy insurance companies ought to assume some risk. Why do we say that? Because if they are doing the providing and they make a bad deal, they should have to pick up the cost of making a bad deal. That is the risk. That is what makes them negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, to get the best possible deal from pharmaceuticals for prescription drugs at the best possible price. If I am a pharmacy benefit manager--so-called PBM--and I have no risk other than my contract, why am I worried about what type of price I get for prescription drugs if I know the Government is going to eat the cost of anything over what I bid? There is no risk. If there is no risk, there is not going to be any incentive to go out and get the best possible deal on prescription drugs. But to get back to the program that we have, some of my colleagues say we have to have a Government-run program. The Government-run program we have as Federal employees is exactly the same program we have recommended under the tripartisan approach. The Office of Health and Human Services' Medicare office would contract. They would do the approvals. They would supervise it. They would make sure it was being run properly. They would make sure no one was trying to scam it. And they would make sure that every part of the country had a competitive model to deliver drugs in their area. Some have said: I am from a rural area. We are not going to have a lot of private companies coming to the most rural part of the country. We said: All right, we understand your concern. We will modify our bill. We will say that if there is a rural part of the country or any part of the country where you do not have private providers competing to bring prescription drugs to individuals at the best possible price-- if that doesn't happen in your area--the Federal Government will do it just as under the Graham model. The Federal Government will contract with the PBM. They will have only the management fee at risk when they have that provision for those drugs. And in the most rural areas, you would be guaranteed a Government-run program just like in the Graham model, if you did not have the private system to be available because they just did not want to go to any part of the country. As to the concerns that have been expressed about wanting a Government-run program, ours is a Government program that utilizes the best of what Government can do combined with the best of what the private sector can do. Some on their side of the aisle may say we only need a private sector program. Some on my side of the aisle may say we need a Government-run program. The answer truly is somewhere in between. You need the best of what Government can do merged with the best of what the private sector can do in order to get a delivery system that would have Government oversight, Government supervision, and Government guarantees when the private sector does not participate to make sure the beneficiaries get the product. That is what the tripartisan bill attempted to do. The final point I will make is that this fight is not over. This proposal, our tripartisan proposal, and the previous Graham proposal-- none will have had 60 votes. The fact is that we are not going to be able to do anything unless we find a way to get 60 votes to provide prescription drugs. For the past several years, we have been giving seniors excuses. I daresay this time we are going to give them one more excuse. The Republicans will say: It is the Democrats' fault that we didn't get this done. The Democrats will say: No. It is the Republicans' fault that we didn't get this done. What we will have given seniors once again is a bucket of excuses. They can't take those excuses to a drugstore and buy one prescription. It is time that we as Members of Congress try to recognize we have to combine the best of ideas from both sides of the aisle and come up with an agreement that can get the job done. We are dedicated, and we will continue to work in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. On this amendment, on the argument in which the two colleagues were engaged, there is already an assets test for Medicare. The assets test is part of the concept of delivering health care in this country. If someone has low income but has assets--a house in Florida, a large bank account, investments in stock--those assets are always considered to determine whether a person is eligible for Medicaid. We have all supported that. It is not new. The purpose of my taking the limited time that I have is not to criticize the other approach because our approach cannot be good just because the others are deficient. The tripartisan plan should be able to stand on what it stands for, not because the Graham plan is deficient in any particular area. So I am not going to spend my time talking about any perceived deficiencies in their plan but rather explain what we have presented to the Senate. Legislating is the art of the possible. It is not trying to get something done that cannot happen. There are a number of proposals trying out how we are going to do what everybody thinks we should do, and that is an attempt to provide some reform to Medicare and at the same time do what we should have done in 1965, and that is to cover prescription drugs under Medicare. Prescription drugs today are equally as important as a hospital bed was in 1965. Mostly that is on what Medicare tried to focus. It should cover prescription drugs, we all agree. There are various proposals as to how we should do that, ranging from $150 billion over 10 years, the Hagel proposal from the Republican side; the House has a plan for about $350 billion which includes provider givebacks; the Graham proposal is $594 billion dollars; our proposal is Medicare reform and a prescription drug plan that is about $370 billion, which I think fits between the various proposals. Every one of us should remember from where the money is coming. The money on any plan is coming from the Social Security trust fund. Our plan, the Graham plan, the Hagel plan--all of it is taking the money for the people today out of the trust fund for Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. That is from where it is coming. I can say I want $1 trillion, but from where is it coming? We have to be realistic in these economic times to recognize there is not a whole lot of money floating around that we can do with what we think is appropriate without doing grave damage to the Social Security trust fund for our children and our grandchildren. What we have tried to do in the tripartisan approach is to figure out what is a good drug delivery system and what is an affordable price. I mentioned the price we have is about $370 billion, which includes about $30 billion for reforming Medicare, which desperately needs reforming. The model we have used is to ask: What has worked? One approach that has worked is the health care plan I have as a Senator--it is a pretty good plan; we wrote it--as do about 9 million other Federal employees. It is contained in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan that we get every year. We get to choose our drug plan or our health plan. We have private contractors come in and say: This is what we can offer to provide you health care at this price. What we have tried to do in the tripartisan plan is say let's combine the best of what Government can do with the best of what the private sector can do. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle would say the private sector should do everything--keep the Government out of it. Some on my side of the aisle will say we need to have a Government- run program because nothing else is going to work. The truth is, the best of what both can do needs to be combined, and that is exactly what the tripartisan plan has attempted to do. We combine the best of what Government can do, i.e., helping to raise the money to pay for it; No. 2, supervising it to make sure nobody in the private sector tries to scam it; to have Government controls and Government approvals over all segments of participation, and then what the private sector can do is bring about innovation and bring about competition to help keep costs down. So that is the proposal we have before the Senate. Some have said that is not going to work because the big insurance companies are somehow going to try to rip off the beneficiaries in this country. Well, there are insurance companies right now that provide Medicare to beneficiaries, which is supervised by the Federal Government. Blue Cross and Aetna regularly provide all of the benefits, the hospitals and doctor coverage, under a contract with the Federal Government. What we are saying is have the same type of delivery system for prescription drugs but have the plans have some of the risks. We are talking about Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna and Merck-Medco, national operations that are big boys in this business. Under the Graham plan, they say we are going to have a management contract with them, but if they overshoot their costs and their costs are more than they say they are going to be, the taxpayer is going to pay the difference. The difference in our plan says these guys are big players and if they say they can provide prescription drugs for $100 per beneficiary, and it ends up costing $102, they are going to have to assume the risk. They are going to have to eat their mistake, not the taxpayers of this country. Why is that important? It is important because if they know they are on the hook for some of the risk, they are going to have an incentive to negotiate the best possible price with the pharmaceutical companies in order to make sure the price they say they can do it for is, in fact, that price or even less. They will then have an incentive. What kind of an incentive does a provider have if they know when they bid costs more than that, the taxpayer is going to pick up the cost? That is exactly what the other approach does and why I think the approach, by saying these companies should have some of the risk, not all of it, but they ought to have enough risk to make sure they negotiate and compete, and that is one of the differences in our plan. All of this is done under the supervision of the Health and Human Services Secretary to make sure the plans they present do not try to scam the beneficiaries, do not try to cherry-pick only the healthiest. The Government can do that, and in our plan the Government does that. One of the other concerns I have had is that people have said it is not going to work in rural areas; Medicare+Choice does not work in rural areas. And that is true. One of the reasons is that Medicare+Choice has to do a lot more than just provide prescription drugs. They have to have a hospital in a rural area, doctors, emergency rooms, ambulance services, all the things that are necessary to create a health care system in a rural area. As the Presiding Officer knows, that is a very difficult challenge. If only prescription drugs are being delivered, that infrastructure is not needed. The only thing that is needed is a doctor to write a prescription and a drugstore to fill it, or a mailbox if one chooses to do it by mail order. The entire infrastructure is not needed as it is under Medicare+Choice. What we say in the bill very clearly is that every administrator shall, consistent with the requirements, approve at least two contracts to offer a Medicare prescription drug plan in an area. What that means is that every person, even in the most rural part of America, has to have at least two people or two companies offering prescription drugs to the people in that area. If only one bids, the Government can make the assumption of the risk even greater until one gets at least two plans to compete. If one ends up with only one, the Government will be the one that provides the other alternative. So rural areas are protected. Can't we tighten that up? I am certainly willing to try and do it. I think we state very clearly that every part of the country has to have at least two plans offered to them on a competitive basis. That is what the law would be. The Government has to make sure that there are two plans, and if someone does not get two plans, then the Government will come in and offer the prescription drugs to the people in the area. Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, pick the most rural part of New York or the most rural part of Montana and there is a Federal employee who probably works in one of those counties that has Federal health insurance. They get it in the most rural part of this country, under a system that utilizes private contractors to provide it. They get their prescription drugs under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. The other part is that people have said there is too much flexibility in our plan. Every plan that everybody gets, including mine, has flexibility of choice. We can pick the plan that is actuarially equivalent and pick the one that makes the most sense for us. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BREAUX. I would conclude by saying I think we have offered something that is possible, that is doable and that we can actually adopt. I think that is a good suggestion this body ought to take under consideration.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and say how much I have enjoyed working with him on the tripartisan group. The Senate will be faced, in a few moments, with an interesting proposition. We will have Graham legislation that will not get the requisite number of votes to proceed. And we will be faced with the tripartisan proposal to see if we have an opportunity to proceed with that legislation. That will be the second and final vote, I take it, today on this issue. At least, I think it will be. I don't think the Senate and this Congress can go back this year and tell our constituents that we didn't do prescription drugs because it is the other party's fault. I don't think the Republicans can say they didn't bring back prescription drugs because it is the Democratic Party's fault, and I don't think we will get very far saying we didn't have a prescription drug plan because the Republicans would not support ours. I think the seniors are wising up and know that this blame game is no longer going to help them one bit. You cannot take an excuse to the drugstore and buy prescription drugs. What the seniors need is both sides to come together and create a program that would work. Our tripartisan bill is somewhere between the two versions that I have described--the Hagel bill at $150 billion, and the Graham bill at about $594 billion. All of that comes out of the Social Security trust fund money. We have tried to be responsible in how much we can spend to make sure we have a sufficient number of votes to actually pass something and also create a delivery system that can work. What we have suggested is that for people in the Medicare Program, just like those of us in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan-- the program that we have drug coverage under and all of our insurance-- that private companies compete for the right to sell us that coverage. They compete for the right to sell us prescription drugs. The company that can do it the cheapest is the one, in most cases, from which we purchase the plan. That is what we are suggesting. We are also suggesting that these companies are big people, big players. There are PBMs like Merck-Medco or Aetna or Blue Cross. These companies are used to assuming risk. That is their business. Why should we say we are going to get companies to deliver the product, but if they underestimate how much it is going to cost, the taxpayers are going to cover their loss? Our bill says if these companies bid $100 to provide prescription drugs for seniors, and it costs them $102, then that is their responsibility. That is the risk they have to assume. Why should the taxpayers say: Look, we don't care how much it actually costs, the taxpayer will pick up the difference no matter what. Regarding rural areas, our legislation says there will be at least two competing plans in every area of the United States. The Government will ensure that there are at least two competing plans. It is not like an HMO. Here you had to have a hospital and doctors and emergency rooms. The only thing you need to deliver drugs in a rural area is a drugstore to have the prescription filled and a doctor to write the prescription. We guarantee that every part of the country will have at least two competing plans. What do we do if neither side has 60 votes? Do we give up? I suggest we try to find common ground. I think we can do that and we will continue to work in that regard.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you very much. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi who I think is preparing an amendment which will be offered later on in the debate on the whole question of importation of drugs, which in essence is the same amendment that 97 Senators voted for the last time we addressed this issue on the question of importation of drugs. Let me mention, to start with, that I think the topic of the debate on how we can provide prescription drugs for all of our Nation's seniors is really the challenge that is before the Senate. We can get waylaid, or delayed, or sidetracked by saying we are going to fix the problem by opening our borders to imported drugs coming from foreign countries or from Canada. That is something we need to discuss. But it is certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination, going to solve the problem of prescription drugs for seniors until we come up with a comprehensive, across-the-board Medicare package that can guarantee insurance coverage for prescription drugs just as every Member of the Senate has when we buy prescription drugs. That is the type of plan we have. People compete for the right to sell us those drugs. We have a choice between the plans that best can serve our families' needs at the best possible price. That is the type of system on which I think we should be working and, in fact, on which we are spending a great deal of time. With regard to the specific issue before this body at the current time--the question of importation of prescription drugs from our neighbors to the north in the country of Canada--the concern I have with that is guaranteeing, before you allow these drugs to come into this country, that they are going to be just as safe and just as real as the drugs we buy in this country which are certified by the FDA and tracked from the manufacturer all the way to the pharmacist and to the customer. We had hearings just a week ago in the Senate Aging Committee where we discussed the issue of counterfeit drugs. We had U.S. Customs come in, we had the FDA Administrator come in, and give us information from their perspective about imported drugs coming from Canada or from other foreign countries. Here are some statements from the FDA about the issue of imported drugs. It is not just a question of whether they are cheaper. Of course, they could be cheaper. I can get open heart surgery in Juarez, Mexico, a lot cheaper than I can get it at the Houston Medical Center. The question is, Is that the type of open heart surgery I want? The answer, from my perspective--and I think most Americans--is that it is not. I want it to be not just the cheapest price, I also want the best service. The issue is not where you can get the cheapest drugs but where you can get drugs that are also affordable and are also the real thing. It is estimated that about 8 percent of the drugs coming into the United States right now are counterfeit, and the projection is, if you open up the borders, that amount will increase greatly. Here is what the FDA said when testifying before the Senate Aging Committee: For those who buy drugs overseas, we have been consistently saying that you are really taking a great risk. You certainly risk your pocketbook, but you may be risking your health, and you may even be risking your life. FDA also said: Unapproved drugs and reimported approved medications may be contaminated, subpotent, superpotent, or counterfeit. The final thing they said, which I think is significant because the argument is this is from Canada, and they are our friend, they are a democracy and not a third-world country, and it is all right to do it from Canada; we are not going to let you do it from Bangladesh, they said in our hearing: Throwing the door open to drugs purchased by individuals directly from Canadian sellers will encourage unscrupulous individuals to devise schemes using Canada as a transshipment point for dangerous products from all points around the globe. It is not just going to be drugs manufactured in Canada that can penetrate our border under an importation policy but drugs manufactured in Colombia, manufactured in Bangladesh, and manufactured in some very unsettled parts of the world that can be transshipped through Canada and come into the United States. Here is an example. I have a lot of examples. Some of our colleagues have held up two bottles and said: This bottle cost $350 in America, and this bottle of the same stuff cost $20 in Canada. That is fine, if it is the same stuff. The problem is when it is not the same stuff. Here is an example of a product that is supposed to be an anti- inflammatory drug. This is great. This is a prescription drug. In this particular case, they took a white powder. They stamped the name of the product into the little bitty pills. You can't tell the difference in the pills. They put it in a blister pack and sold it as the drug Ponstan. The only problem is that it sure looks like Ponstan. The package looks like Ponstan. It has every word on it that the real thing has, and the dosage is the same in fine print. The pill is exactly the same. It has the name Ponstan stamped into it. Here is what is really in it. When you analyze it, the yellow powder which they put in it, instead of being the real thing, ended up being stuff that could do grave damage. This happens to be boric acid, floor wax, and yellow, leaded highway paint. That is a heck of a thing to be able to do. Is this cheaper than the real stuff? Oh, yes, it is a lot cheaper. But I don't want to take a pill that says it is the real thing but is yellow, leaded highway paint which they pressed into these packages and sold. Can they sell it a lot cheaper? Yes. I can sell it for 2 cents a pill. I don't care what I sell it for because it does not cost much to make yellow, leaded highway paint and sell it as a pill and take it across the border. It is my understanding, in reading the legislation and amendment before this body, that you can immediately suspend importation, but after the fact, after they have exhibited a pattern of importation of drugs ``that is counterfeit or in violation of [these] requirement[s] . . . or poses an additional risk to the public health.'' After we determine that it is being done, then you can stop it from being done. Isn't it better to have to have that certification up front before we allow them to start bringing things over the border that may be real or may not be real; may be half real and half not real? Shouldn't we establish what the rules are before we let them in? The Senate has discussed and debated that issue. And by a unanimous vote, every single one of us who voted on this issue before supported the Cochran amendment, 97 to 0, that said, before we can allow it to start coming in, we have to have a system in place that is guaranteed by our Food and Drug Administration that it is coming in and it is not counterfeited; it is safe; we have tracked the manufacturer and we know how they make it, what they are doing, and what is in the little packets of pills. The legislation before the committee, I fear, now says that only after our Government determines that there is a pattern of counterfeiting or a pattern of bringing in drugs that pose a risk to the human health--then, and only then, can we suspend their operations. Don't do it after the horse is already out of the barn. You have to stop it before it starts. How many people are going to have to take yellow, leaded highway paint before they can show there is a pattern of doing this in order to come in with a suspension of these importations? Do we have to have five people--to create a pattern--get sick from taking yellow, leaded highway paint? Do we have to have 100? I would not want to be 1 of the 100, if that is the establishment of what we have to do before we can suspend their operations. It is far superior to take the approach: Yes, we will let you bring in imported drugs from Canada, but only if there is established, prior to the time it starts, a guarantee that these drugs can be brought in and are not counterfeit and are not harmful to your human health and are, in fact, not yellow, leaded highway paint.

Mr. BREAUX. I am happy to.

Mr. BREAUX. I am not sure where it was from. The point I make is, Canada is our good friend, a civilized society, with high-quality manufacturers. But what Food and Drug says about Canada is the following: Throwing the door open to drugs purchased by individuals directly from Canadian sellers will encourage unscrupulous individuals to devise schemes using Canada as a transshipment point for dangerous products from all points around the globe.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my State of Louisiana recently mourned the death of one of our most notable and renowned religious leaders, Reverend James L. Stovall, a minister of the United Methodist Church for thirty years and the founder of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism. In 1989, fearful of the rise of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Reverend Stovall led the effort to bring together people of faith and other citizens to oppose the hatred and bigotry espoused by Duke and many of his supporters. As a participant in the Louisiana Senate election of 1990 and the governor's election the following year, I can attest to successful efforts of Reverend Stovall and his Coalition in exposing for Louisiana and the world Duke's harmful and divisive racist record. Those who did not know James Stovall might not have known that his role in forming and leading the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism was merely the culmination of a life and career dedicated to championing human rights and better relations among people of all faiths, ethic backgrounds, and nationalities. As one of his daughters said to a newspaper reporter after his death on May 17, ``He had a genuine sense of caring about people and a strong sense of right and wrong.'' James Stovall was born in Winn Parish, graduated from Centenary College in Shreveport and the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. During the Second World War, he served this country as a chaplain attached to the Marine Corps. Following the war, he returned to Louisiana where, for thirty years, he served Methodist churches in Eunice, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Metairie, and Monroe. A strong believer in ecumenism, he was a leader in the creation of the Greater Baton Rouge Federation of Churches and Synagogues, and from 1976 to 1991, he served as executive director of the Louisiana Interchurch Conference. Reverend Stovall served not only the church, but held several positions in State government. He was executive director of the Governor's Office of Elderly Affairs from 1979 to 1980, chairman of the Governor's Pardon and Parole Study Commission in 1976, and a member of the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights in 1992. At his funeral service in Baton Rouge, one of Reverend Stovall's good friends, Dr. Lance Hill, who is executive director of the Southern Institute for Education and Research at Tulane University New Orleans, shared a powerful story about his legacy. I would like to quote from that eulogy at this time: Many years ago Jimmie told me that John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, once noted that a man's achievements in this lifetime are fleeting and insignificant; what is meaningful is the shadow that he casts into the future. We formed the Southern Institute for Education and Research at Tulane University nine years ago to continue the work of Jimmie Stovall and the anti-Duke coalition, but this time through a proactive program that taught young people the consequences of prejudice and the individual moral obligation to speak out against the oppression of others. The Southern Institute is very much Reverend Stovall's gift to Louisiana. I told Jimmie years ago that we should have named it the Stovall Institute, but people might think it was a [football] clinic. Jimmie just laughed, but he knew what I meant. The work of the Institute is part of Jimmie's vast shadow cast into the future. A few months ago, I returned to St. Catherine of Sienna, a school in the middle of [David] Duke's old legislative district. We had worked with the teachers and students there for years. That day I watch 150 students mesmerized by the story told by Eva Galler, a Holocaust survivor. The students heard the story of Eva's leap from the train to Auschwitz; the destruction of her family; the end of the world as she knew it. Eva told them that this was not simply a story of Jews and Nazis, it was a story of racism and hatred. It could happen anywhere, anytime, and they had a moral obligation to resist hatred at every turn. I watched three young boys on the back row, sitting on the edge of their seats, straining to see over the tall girls in front of them. They were transfixed by Eva. And as Eva spoke, I saw the soft, warm shadow of Reverend Stovall envelop the children. These children, the next generation of leaders in Louisiana, these children were his legacy. In this sense, James Stovall achieved a kind of immortality that only the best of us can ever dream of. We will miss him in body, but he will always be with us in spirit. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Reverend Stovall's daughters, sisters, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. In the midst of their grief, I hope that they will be comforted to know that his important work and the principles that guided him in that work will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as we address the importance of seaport security and homeland defense, we must remember the bravery and courage of the Federal, State and local law officers who place their lives on the line to protect us. On October 30, 2001, Senior Customs Inspector Thomas Michael Murray tragically gave his life while inspecting a vessel loaded with scrap metal in the Port of Gramercy, LA. Mr. Murray was asphyxiated while he was conducting an inspection of the commercial vessel, M/V Sakura I. Mr. Murray is survived by his wife and six children. Mr. Murray served with distinction in the U.S. Customs Service for 26 years. That is an extraordinary record of dedicated public service for which the people of Louisiana and our Nation owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Murray and his family. As Mr. Murray's personal family and extended Customs family assemble to remember his life, his passing reminds us that we must always look for ways to protect the brave officers who protect us each and every day.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, on may 4-6, 2002 more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution program, the most extensive education program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am proud that a class of 25 students from John Ehret High School in Marrero will represent the State of Louisiana in this national competition after having won first place at the state level. These young scholars from Marrero have worked diligently to reach the national finals, where they will demonstrate a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I applaud their teacher, Mr. George W. Allen, Jr., for his leadership and dedication to the program and his students. The 3-day long event, modeled after hearing in the U.S. Congress, consists of oral presentations by high school students on constitutional topics followed by a period of questioning by a panel of adult judges who probe their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I wish these constitutional experts the best of luck at the We the People . . . national finals. It is inspiring to see students at the high school level successfully master the fundamental ideals and principles of our government. As competitors on a national level, these young scholars have proven their ability to achieve lofty goals, including any they may face in the future. Congratulations and best wishes to the following John Ehret High School students who represent the future leaders of Louisiana and our nation: Crystal Baum, Jeremy Beasley, Keshawn Chopin, Hong Dao, Cara Davis, Heather Deese, Sherryl Escondo, Anita George, True Ho, Courtney Joseph, Maher Judeh, Bridgette Lai, Scott Le, Marquis O'sirio, Matthew Potter, Jason Pryor, Clark Regas, Ray Rivarde, Katie Roberts, Ronald Singleton, Danielle Smith, Torea Torry, Lisa Tran, Stacy Wing, and Byron Young.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Nickles, Cleland, Brownback, Miller, Hutchison, and Hutchinson to introduce legislation that is designed to rejuvenate the struggling telecommunications and high-tech sectors of our economy. The Broadband Regulatory Parity Act of 2002 requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to adopt rules that establish a level playing field for all broadband service providers in order to spur investment in broadband technology and to ensure that consumers can obtain the benefits of free and open competition. Federal and State regulations on the books today governing high-speed Internet access are based largely on an outdated view of the telecom and high-tech industry. Both Federal and State regulators continue to view the emerging broadband market through different sets of eyes, focusing their regulatory policies on the type of provider rather than the type of service. Cable, wireless, and satellite providers face no regulation of their broadband networks, while telephone companies are heavily regulated. The effect of this disparate regulatory treatment among providers has been to construct a barrier to new investment in broadband networks by incumbent local telephone companies. I am not alone in calling on the FCC to level the regulatory playing field for broadband providers. Several weeks ago, the High Tech Broadband Coalition, a group comprised of six leading trade associations representing the computer, telecommunications equipment, semiconductor, consumer electronics, software and manufacturing industries, filed comments with the FCC requesting the removal of burdensome, outdated regulations that are hindering investment and limiting competition in high-speed Internet access. In order to promote free and fair competition in the broadband market, my legislation requires the FCC to promulgate regulations, within 120 days of enactment, to achieve regulatory parity between broadband services providers and facilities. The key provision in my bill is, I believe, the 120-day requirement for FCC action. The FCC, to its credit, is attempting by means of a tortuously slow process to move in the direction of regulatory parity among broadband services and providers. Once the FCC completes action on its rulemakings, however, its orders will certainly be appealed, just as the FCC's March 14, 2002, order declaring cable modem service to be an information service has already been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To effect this needed regulatory parity, we need the expert agency to accomplish this reform with the necessary fine tuning that will further the public interest, but we need the force of Congressional action to bring about prompt results. I urge prompt action on this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Nickles, Cleland, Brownback, Miller, Hutchison, and Hutchinson to introduce legislation that is designed to rejuvenate the struggling telecommunications and high-tech sectors of our economy. The Broadband Regulatory Parity Act of 2002 requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to adopt rules that establish a level playing field for all broadband service providers in order to spur investment in broadband technology and to ensure that consumers can obtain the benefits of free and open competition. Federal and State regulations on the books today governing high-speed Internet access are based largely on an outdated view of the telecom and high-tech industry. Both Federal and State regulators continue to view the emerging broadband market through different sets of eyes, focusing their regulatory policies on the type of provider rather than the type of service. Cable, wireless, and satellite providers face no regulation of their broadband networks, while telephone companies are heavily regulated. The effect of this disparate regulatory treatment among providers has been to construct a barrier to new investment in broadband networks by incumbent local telephone companies. I am not alone in calling on the FCC to level the regulatory playing field for broadband providers. Several weeks ago, the High Tech Broadband Coalition, a group comprised of six leading trade associations representing the computer, telecommunications equipment, semiconductor, consumer electronics, software and manufacturing industries, filed comments with the FCC requesting the removal of burdensome, outdated regulations that are hindering investment and limiting competition in high-speed Internet access. In order to promote free and fair competition in the broadband market, my legislation requires the FCC to promulgate regulations, within 120 days of enactment, to achieve regulatory parity between broadband services providers and facilities. The key provision in my bill is, I believe, the 120-day requirement for FCC action. The FCC, to its credit, is attempting by means of a tortuously slow process to move in the direction of regulatory parity among broadband services and providers. Once the FCC completes action on its rulemakings, however, its orders will certainly be appealed, just as the FCC's March 14, 2002, order declaring cable modem service to be an information service has already been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To effect this needed regulatory parity, we need the expert agency to accomplish this reform with the necessary fine tuning that will further the public interest, but we need the force of Congressional action to bring about prompt results. I urge prompt action on this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the provision that the Senator from Florida seeks to take out of the bill is part of a very carefully balanced and level tax package that should remain in this bill. We should table this amendment. Simply stated, the situation is, if you produce oil, you pay a royalty. You can deduct it. But if the price of oil drops, you have to pay delayed rental payments, and you pay the payments to the Government. You should be able to deduct those payments as you can deduct royalty payments when they are paid. That is what the bill says. That provision should be kept in the bill. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I object.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Ship, Seafarer and Container Security Act, along with my ranking subcommittee member, Senator Gordon, Senators Hollings and McCain. This legislation will be crucial in providing the type of information and analysis that we need to protect the United States from potential acts of terrorism against our Nation through international trade at our seaports. This legislation is the product of field hearings that my Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee held at various seaports around the Nation. This legislation augments the Senate-passed seaport security bill, S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security Act, and I intend to push for the inclusion of the provisions of this bill in the context of a House- Senate conference on seaport security legislation The United States has more than 1,000 harbor channels and 25,000 miles of inland, intercoastal, and coastal waterways. These waterways serve 361 ports, and have more than 3,700 terminals handling passengers and cargo. The U.S. marine transportation system each year moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight, imports 3 billion tons of oil, transports 134 million passengers by ferry, and hosts more than 7 million cruise ship passengers. Of the more than 2 billion tons of freight, the majority of cargo is shipped in huge containers from ships directly onto trucks and railcars that immediately head onto our highways and rail systems. Oceangoing sea containers are a vital artery of the U.S. economy. Indeed, 46 percent of all goods imported into the United States, by value, arrive at our Nation's seaports, mostly in containers, and currently, we are able to physically inspect less than 2 percent of those containers. Since September 11, we have faced up to the task of securing our seaport and affiliated transportation systems. We are now faced with the need to adapt the most efficient transportation system, with the most secure and efficient system of transportation. To do so, given the complexities of the task, we need to rely on all parties in the transportation chain, not just Federal agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and INS, but State law enforcement and the private sector. The enormity of the task we face, and the potential catastrophe we face if we do not strengthen our systems of security, mandates we work on this issue together. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, all U.S. airports were closed. Fortunately, we have a good degree of control of our aviation system and were able to re-exert a degree of normalcy 4 days after the September 11 attacks. If similar attacks had occurred at a U.S. port, I am not sure whether we would be comfortable opening our borders in 4 months. We obviously have a huge stake in ensuring the protection of our maritime transportation system and respective arteries of business. To this end, I was disappointed the President's budget request did not include any funds to help our State port authorities and private ports secure the type of infrastructure and security equipment necessary to protect this Nation. Not providing funding to our seaports is clearly an unfunded mandate for States that have seaports, such as my home State of Louisiana, and it is our duty as a nation to secure all of our borders, including our maritime borders. This issue simply has to be addressed, and a Federal commitment is required to help secure our maritime boundaries, and secure our international trade. As I mentioned seaport security is simply too important to disregard. While visiting the Port Everglades in Florida, the Ports of New Orleans, Houston and Charleston, SC, during my subcommittee hearings, I became aware of the incredible role that information plays in security strategy at our seaports. Given the scope of trade and security, it is necessary that we know more about ships, the seafarers on those ships that enter the United States, the systems that we use to secure cargo so it is not tampered with or used for illegal purposes, and also the system we uses to analyze the risks of shipping and to secure our marine environment. The Ship, Seafarer, and Container Security Act requires certain vessels to carry transponders to allow their positions to be transmitted and tracked and ensure the Coast Guard can track United States and foreign vessels. When an aircraft leaves a U.S. airport we track it wherever it goes, however, when huge oil tankers and hazardous material ships carrying tons and tons of explosive cargoes enter U.S. waters, we do not. This is not right, and not prudent. My bill will also require the Department of Transportation, DOT, to negotiate an international agreement in 2 years, or if the agreement has not been negotiated within 2 years to submit legislation to Congress, to: One, identify foreign seafarers; two, to provide greater transparency of the ownership of ship registration, so that we can track vessel ownership; and, three, mandate stronger standards for marine containers, and for anti-tampering and locking systems for marine containers. Importantly, the bill would also require DOT to better assess the risks posed by certain vessels, and areas they designate as secure zones, and require recommendations to better secure them. Last year, the U.S. Coast Guard, identifed over 1,000 Panamanian seamen operating with licenses they fraudulently obtained for a couple of hundred dollars. At the time, it did not create that much of a ruckus, although perhaps it should have, because the primary focus was on the safe operation of the vessel. In the aftermath of September 11, it gives rise to the potential use of the system of maritime licensing to disguise entry into the United States. The system of registration and identification of vessels is equally obtuse. In the aftermath of the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Mombassa and Dar-El-Salem, we attempted to track the shipping assets of Asama Bin Laden that were used to convey explosives. NATO experts reportedly indicated that tracking banking assets was far easier than identifying the shipping assets owned by the terrorists. I would also mention that, a recent report in Lloyd's List, a business publication specializing in ocean shipping and international trade, indicated that the Coast Guard interdicted at sea a container ship, with an improperly sealed container filled with nuclear warheads. According to the article, the cargo manifest, indicated that it was carrying explosives, and the master of the vessel was a citizen of Yemen, while the materials turned out to be without fissile materials, it still raises considerable concern about our shipping practices. This legislation is another critical step in addressing some of the many crucial requirements to ensure our nation has a secure system of international trade, allow us to protect and foster our transportation chain, and provide public safety. The issues facing our Nation in seaport security are very serious issues. The consequences of relying on our current systems of openness, and with our focus on efficiency could be disastrous. However, at the other end of the spectrum, is being so excessively obsessed with security that we cause the suffocation of trade and business. The system we had in place prior to 9-11 was insufficient. I believe that S. 1214 coupled with the legislation I am introducing will help remedy the flaws of pre- 9-11 security and enhance seaport security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Ship, Seafarer and Container Security Act, along with my ranking subcommittee member, Senator Gordon, Senators Hollings and McCain. This legislation will be crucial in providing the type of information and analysis that we need to protect the United States from potential acts of terrorism against our Nation through international trade at our seaports. This legislation is the product of field hearings that my Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee held at various seaports around the Nation. This legislation augments the Senate-passed seaport security bill, S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security Act, and I intend to push for the inclusion of the provisions of this bill in the context of a House- Senate conference on seaport security legislation The United States has more than 1,000 harbor channels and 25,000 miles of inland, intercoastal, and coastal waterways. These waterways serve 361 ports, and have more than 3,700 terminals handling passengers and cargo. The U.S. marine transportation system each year moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight, imports 3 billion tons of oil, transports 134 million passengers by ferry, and hosts more than 7 million cruise ship passengers. Of the more than 2 billion tons of freight, the majority of cargo is shipped in huge containers from ships directly onto trucks and railcars that immediately head onto our highways and rail systems. Oceangoing sea containers are a vital artery of the U.S. economy. Indeed, 46 percent of all goods imported into the United States, by value, arrive at our Nation's seaports, mostly in containers, and currently, we are able to physically inspect less than 2 percent of those containers. Since September 11, we have faced up to the task of securing our seaport and affiliated transportation systems. We are now faced with the need to adapt the most efficient transportation system, with the most secure and efficient system of transportation. To do so, given the complexities of the task, we need to rely on all parties in the transportation chain, not just Federal agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and INS, but State law enforcement and the private sector. The enormity of the task we face, and the potential catastrophe we face if we do not strengthen our systems of security, mandates we work on this issue together. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, all U.S. airports were closed. Fortunately, we have a good degree of control of our aviation system and were able to re-exert a degree of normalcy 4 days after the September 11 attacks. If similar attacks had occurred at a U.S. port, I am not sure whether we would be comfortable opening our borders in 4 months. We obviously have a huge stake in ensuring the protection of our maritime transportation system and respective arteries of business. To this end, I was disappointed the President's budget request did not include any funds to help our State port authorities and private ports secure the type of infrastructure and security equipment necessary to protect this Nation. Not providing funding to our seaports is clearly an unfunded mandate for States that have seaports, such as my home State of Louisiana, and it is our duty as a nation to secure all of our borders, including our maritime borders. This issue simply has to be addressed, and a Federal commitment is required to help secure our maritime boundaries, and secure our international trade. As I mentioned seaport security is simply too important to disregard. While visiting the Port Everglades in Florida, the Ports of New Orleans, Houston and Charleston, SC, during my subcommittee hearings, I became aware of the incredible role that information plays in security strategy at our seaports. Given the scope of trade and security, it is necessary that we know more about ships, the seafarers on those ships that enter the United States, the systems that we use to secure cargo so it is not tampered with or used for illegal purposes, and also the system we uses to analyze the risks of shipping and to secure our marine environment. The Ship, Seafarer, and Container Security Act requires certain vessels to carry transponders to allow their positions to be transmitted and tracked and ensure the Coast Guard can track United States and foreign vessels. When an aircraft leaves a U.S. airport we track it wherever it goes, however, when huge oil tankers and hazardous material ships carrying tons and tons of explosive cargoes enter U.S. waters, we do not. This is not right, and not prudent. My bill will also require the Department of Transportation, DOT, to negotiate an international agreement in 2 years, or if the agreement has not been negotiated within 2 years to submit legislation to Congress, to: One, identify foreign seafarers; two, to provide greater transparency of the ownership of ship registration, so that we can track vessel ownership; and, three, mandate stronger standards for marine containers, and for anti-tampering and locking systems for marine containers. Importantly, the bill would also require DOT to better assess the risks posed by certain vessels, and areas they designate as secure zones, and require recommendations to better secure them. Last year, the U.S. Coast Guard, identifed over 1,000 Panamanian seamen operating with licenses they fraudulently obtained for a couple of hundred dollars. At the time, it did not create that much of a ruckus, although perhaps it should have, because the primary focus was on the safe operation of the vessel. In the aftermath of September 11, it gives rise to the potential use of the system of maritime licensing to disguise entry into the United States. The system of registration and identification of vessels is equally obtuse. In the aftermath of the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Mombassa and Dar-El-Salem, we attempted to track the shipping assets of Asama Bin Laden that were used to convey explosives. NATO experts reportedly indicated that tracking banking assets was far easier than identifying the shipping assets owned by the terrorists. I would also mention that, a recent report in Lloyd's List, a business publication specializing in ocean shipping and international trade, indicated that the Coast Guard interdicted at sea a container ship, with an improperly sealed container filled with nuclear warheads. According to the article, the cargo manifest, indicated that it was carrying explosives, and the master of the vessel was a citizen of Yemen, while the materials turned out to be without fissile materials, it still raises considerable concern about our shipping practices. This legislation is another critical step in addressing some of the many crucial requirements to ensure our nation has a secure system of international trade, allow us to protect and foster our transportation chain, and provide public safety. The issues facing our Nation in seaport security are very serious issues. The consequences of relying on our current systems of openness, and with our focus on efficiency could be disastrous. However, at the other end of the spectrum, is being so excessively obsessed with security that we cause the suffocation of trade and business. The system we had in place prior to 9-11 was insufficient. I believe that S. 1214 coupled with the legislation I am introducing will help remedy the flaws of pre- 9-11 security and enhance seaport security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I did not want to speak if the chairman wanted to speak at this time, but in the absence of his desire to speak at this particular moment, I will make a few comments on the Nickles- Breaux amendment. I have joined the Senator from Oklahoma in cosponsoring this amendment. This is a good amendment. It is good for consumers, certainly, it is good for the renewable energy industry in this country, and it is also good for the traditional suppliers of energy in this country. Let me state at the very beginning that I support the so-called renewable portfolio standard. If I were in Louisiana, I would try to explain it by saying it is a requirement of the Federal Government that power companies have to look for renewable sources of energy in producing energy in this country. What do we mean by that? Windmill power, for instance, biomass power, renewable alternative forms of energy that should be encouraged in this country. I am for that. I am from a traditional oil-and-gas-producing State, but I found out that we also have one of the largest manufacturers of windmills in Louisiana for the production of energy through wind power. That makes sense. It is not going to solve all of our problems, but it can contribute to a proper mix of renewable energy, as well as traditional forms of energy. We have a substantial number of tax credits in this energy bill coming from our Finance Committee to encourage these alternative sources of energy. As an example, there is already in the legislation a 1.7 cent production tax credit to be received by wind and biomass producers. Mr. President, 1.7 cents per kilowatt is a lot when one considers that the wholesale price of energy is about 3 cents a kilowatt. When we are giving people who produce alternative sources of energy a 1.7 cent per kilowatt subsidy, that is significant. The person who produces those windmills in Louisiana are going to say: Wow, look, if I get a 1.7 cent per kilowatt tax credit, this is a good deal. People are going to want to buy power from windmill producers if it means 1.7 cents less per kilowatt than the ordinary regular 3 cent per kilowatt wholesale price of energy in this country. The legislation, as it is, encourages these alternative sources of energy through the Tax Code. This is the second issue we are talking about right now. The legislation also requires energy producers to reach a certain standard, a percentage, required by Congress using these alternative sources of energy by the year 2019. The legislation currently says 10 percent of a power company's production in the year 2019 shall come from these alternative sources of energy. Some people wanted it at 20 percent. It is down to 10 percent. I support that. That is an achievable goal that power companies can reach, especially if we give them a 1.7 cent per kilowatt subsidy to encourage them to do it. That is good public policy. The concern is there is an additional subsidy that is proposed in the legislation, and this is what the Nickles-Breaux amendment addresses. The legislation says, if you do not reach that 10-percent goal of using alternative sources of renewable energy, we are going to, in essence, penalize you 3 cents per kilowatt; that you are going to have to make up that 10-percent goal by purchasing power from other producers that have met that goal or purchasing power from the Department of Energy through tax credits, and you are going to have to pay up to 3 cents per kilowatt for that extra energy you will be required to buy from other companies that have met that standard. What does that mean in the real world, to the person in their home who turns on the light switch every day and is concerned about the cost of electricity? What it means is if you add the 3 cents plus the 1.7 cent tax credit, you are talking about a huge subsidy which I think is far more than it needs to be. The problem is that if they are required to purchase that tax credit from the Department of Energy at 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, they could be looking at doubling the cost of electricity per kilowatt hour. The concern I have is, who is going to pay for this? It is not going to be the power companies. If they have to purchase additional electric tax credits at 3 cents a kilowatt, they are just going to pass the cost on to the consumer, back to the person in the house who flicks the switch. That person is going to pay not 3 cents but double that price per kilowatt for the electricity they use. Power companies are going to pass it through, and in a deregulated market they are going to add it to their bill at the end of the month. In a regulated market, they are going to go to the public service commission and say: Look, we are having to pay 3 cents more per kilowatt and we want it to be passed on to our rate base; we are just going to charge you 3 cents a kilowatt more than you are paying now. You are already paying 3 cents, so we are going to pay 3 cents more. That is too much. We do not need more incentives than are necessary. The tax credit of 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour and the Nickles-Breaux amendment with a penalty, in essence, of another 1.5 cents is a substantial incentive to encourage the development of what we call the renewable portfolio standard on the use of alternative sources of energy. It is interesting. I have a letter from the Electric Consumers' Alliance which says: On behalf of Electric Consumers' Alliance, its more than 300 member organizations representing all 50 states, and its tens of millions of residential and small business constituents, I am writing to indicate our strong support for Senator Nickles' proposed amendment to S. 517, the pending energy bill. The only disagreement now is the Nickles-Breaux amendment. But the support from consumers is clear. Support from people who provide electricity is very clear. They support it. The simple fact is that, when put together, the credit price of 1.5 cents, coupled with the tax credit of 1.7 cents, means consumers and taxpayers will be providing a subsidy to wind power and to these biomass producers at a level of 3.2 cents. That is currently above the wholesale cost of power. That is a huge subsidy and incentive to developing sources of power. With the Nickles-Breaux amendment, we will still have a substantial subsidy, but it will be at a less cost to taxpayers and consumers of electric power. Bear in mind, every time we add 1 cent or half a cent, it is going to be passed on to the consumers of electricity in this country. The Nickles-Breaux amendment is a good approach and one that should be supported. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Electric Consumers' Alliance, to which I referred.