John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to introduce legislation to restore America's estuaries. Our bill is entitled the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997''. Estuaries are a national resource and treasure. As a nation, therefore, we should work together at all levels and in all sectors to help restore them. I am also pleased that 15 other Senators have joined with Senator Chafee and me as original cosponsors of the bill. Together, we want to draw attention to the significant value of the Nation's estuaries and the need to restore them. It is also my distinct pleasure today to say with pride that Louisianians have been in the forefront of this movement to recognize the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, an organization which is well known for its proactive work on behalf of the Louisiana coast, has been from the inception an integral part of the national coalition, Restore America's Estuaries, which has proposed and supports the restoration legislation. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's Estuaries are to be commended for their leadership and initiative in bringing this issue to the Nation's attention. In essence, the bill introduced today proposes a single goal and has one emphasis and focus. It seeks to create a voluntary, community- driven, incentive-based program which builds partnerships between the Federal Government, State, and local governments and the private sector to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration projects. In Louisiana, we have very valuable estuaries, including the Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems. Louisiana's estuaries are vital because they have helped and will continue to help sustain local communities, their cultures and their economies. I encourage Senators from coastal and noncoastal States alike to evaluate the bill and to join in its support with Senator Chafee, me and the 15 other Senators who are original bill cosponsors. I look forward to working with Senator Chafee and other Senators on behalf of the bill and with the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's Estuaries. By working together at all levels of government and in the private and public sectors, we can help to restore estuaries. As important, we can, together, help to educate the public about the important roles which estuaries play in our daily lives through their many contributions to public safety and well-being, to the environment, and to recreation and commerce.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to introduce legislation to restore America's estuaries. Our bill is entitled the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997''. Estuaries are a national resource and treasure. As a nation, therefore, we should work together at all levels and in all sectors to help restore them. I am also pleased that 15 other Senators have joined with Senator Chafee and me as original cosponsors of the bill. Together, we want to draw attention to the significant value of the Nation's estuaries and the need to restore them. It is also my distinct pleasure today to say with pride that Louisianians have been in the forefront of this movement to recognize the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, an organization which is well known for its proactive work on behalf of the Louisiana coast, has been from the inception an integral part of the national coalition, Restore America's Estuaries, which has proposed and supports the restoration legislation. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's Estuaries are to be commended for their leadership and initiative in bringing this issue to the Nation's attention. In essence, the bill introduced today proposes a single goal and has one emphasis and focus. It seeks to create a voluntary, community- driven, incentive-based program which builds partnerships between the Federal Government, State, and local governments and the private sector to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration projects. In Louisiana, we have very valuable estuaries, including the Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems. Louisiana's estuaries are vital because they have helped and will continue to help sustain local communities, their cultures and their economies. I encourage Senators from coastal and noncoastal States alike to evaluate the bill and to join in its support with Senator Chafee, me and the 15 other Senators who are original bill cosponsors. I look forward to working with Senator Chafee and other Senators on behalf of the bill and with the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's Estuaries. By working together at all levels of government and in the private and public sectors, we can help to restore estuaries. As important, we can, together, help to educate the public about the important roles which estuaries play in our daily lives through their many contributions to public safety and well-being, to the environment, and to recreation and commerce.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the tenor of these proceedings. MMS is the Federal agency charged with the responsibility to manage the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf in an environmentally sound and safe manner and to timely collect, verify, and distribute mineral revenues from Federal and Indian lands. So, I want to know that this proposal is the best way to get at the objective that underlies it--a fair and reliable royalty system. But, I also want to ensure that the individuals and businesses affected by the MMS proposal are accorded every opportunity to have their concerns heard. I agree that MMS needs access to G&G information to discharge its important duties. But, it ought to accomplish that duty in a way that does not risk disrupting one of the Federal Government's most successful revenue programs. The G&G industry estimates that the proposed regulations will, if adopted, require the renegotiation of thousands of existing license agreements and, until that renegotiation is complete, no data can be licensed. This renegotiation process may take several months, if not years. During that time, there will be no exploration. Thus, the process that recently led to another record oil and gas lease sale on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, providing needed revenue to the Federal Treasury, will come to a grinding halt. This is an interruption we cannot afford. For 50 years, oil and natural gas have been produced from the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] underlying the Gulf of Mexico. This production represents more than 83 percent of total OCS oil production and more than 99 percent of all OCS natural gas production. In 1995, production from this area accounted for 15 percent of all oil produced in the United States and about a quarter of the natural gas. Maintaining public trust in our royalty system is critical to the future of oil and gas leasing, both onshore and offshore. Federal royalty policy must balance the need to encourage public resource development with the need to ensure that the public gets its fair royalty share. That balancing act requires government and industry to work together. The OCS leasing program is one example of government and the private sector working together--reflected by the recent record leases, records bonus payments and increased exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. I hope we can advance that partnership here. Let's take another opportunity to learn from each other what is working, what is not working under the current system--and how the MMS proposal addresses those problems. Then, we can move forward with a balanced policy that assures timely and accurate royalty payments for the people of the United States.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as one of the original authors of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, I can advise the Senate that we spent a great deal of time and effort in developing a law that would result in the information, data, and interpretation remaining confidential. Any steps that would put that confidentiality at risk are contrary to the spirit and intent of what we were trying to accomplish in 1972. At that time, geophysical contractors were particularly concerned about the data sharing and confidentiality provisions of the OCSLA because they felt any breach of that confidentiality would destroy the market for the data, which is the geophysical contractors' sole asset. To protect that confidentiality, provisions were adopted requiring MMS to make sure the agency obtained permission from the permittee and anyone to whom the permittee sold the data under promise of confidentiality before sharing any data obtained from the permittee with a State government. Shortly after the amendment of the OCSLA, MMS promulgated regulations spelling out the mechanics of how data was to be made available to it and how it was to be protected once it had been turned over. Among those rules is one that mandates that the permittee, who had agreed to make its geophysical data available to MMS as a condition of the permit, require any party to whom the data is transferred to agree to the terms of the permit regarding data sharing as a condition of the transfer. Industry contends that when that regulation was proposed, MMS proposed to define the term ``transfer'' in a way that included nonexclusive licensees, but dropped that requirement from the final rule. Industry believes that MMS has now proposed to extend its data sharing requirements to nonexclusive licensees and to amend its regulations in several other significant ways. MMS contends that, in the 25-year span of its statutory responsibility to hold geophysical data confidential, this confidentiality has never been breached. And, MMS believes its current rulemaking is fully consistent with its authority under the OCSLA. In other words, MMS is going forward with its rulemaking without further public input.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Sean P. Allerton, a member of the Boy Scouts of America's Troop 189 in New Orleans, LA. In 1992, the 102d Congress amended the Constitution of the United States of America by ratifying the 27th amendment. In doing so, thousands of Government textbooks and educational tools throughout the country became outdated. American government students around the world were retrieving information in libraries, in classrooms and in textbooks that reported the Constitution as only having 26 amendments. Sean Allerton recognized this lack of current information, and as his Eagle Scout project, decided to rectify the problem. He called upon numerous organizations and individuals in the New Orleans area to sponsor his goal of getting 6,600 copies of the new Constitution distributed to every American government and civics student in New Orleans. On August 21 of this year, he received a letter and a check from State District Court Judge Lloyd J. Medley, Jr., who believed in the importance of Sean's project and donated the financial backing to carry it forth. On September 17, mayor of New Orleans Marc Morial will hold a press conference to congratulate and thank Sean on his endeavor, and to distribute the new copies of the Constitution to the students of New Orleans. I, too, would like to send words of support and thanks from the 105th Congress to Sean P. Allerton, for reminding us of the value of service and the patriotism that strengthens this country's heart. Thank you, Sean.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, it has been interesting to hear all of the various Members of the Senate come to this floor and talk about the product that is before us. We have had a few people who have expressed concerns to the extent that they cannot support the agreement that is now before the Senate. I think that is unfortunate. I remember, when I first came to the House of Representatives, I read a book that was written by Lawrence O'Brien, who had been in the service of both President Kennedy and President Johnson as the head of congressional relations. The title of that book was ``No Final Victories.'' The gist of the story that he was trying to convey was simply that in this business of governing, in this business of politics, there are never really any final victories. There are a whole series of small steps that are taken, small accomplishments and small achievements that are reached. But there is really never any final victory because the job is really and truly never done. When I look at the package of spending cuts and the package of tax reductions that we have before the Senate this week, I am really reminded of that whole theme and thesis of Lawrence O'Brien in ``No Final Victories.'' Because if you ask a question, Is this a perfect package? the answer, obviously, is no. If you ask the question, Should we have done more? the answer is obviously yes. If you ask the question, Are you disappointed and discouraged that things that you worked on are not in this package? I would say, absolutely. Discouraged and disappointed in some areas, yes. But defeated, no. Because I think on balance these agreements that are now before the Senate are major achievements. They are major steps in the right direction. The work is not yet finished. There is a great deal more that needs to be done. But we have, I think, set this country on a course and moving in a direction which is the correct one for all of us. One of the things that I am so encouraged by is the fact that we were able to do it in a bipartisan fashion. The vote in the Senate of 80 to 18 and the vote in the Senate of 72 to 27, I think, on spending cuts and tax reductions is in fact a major accomplishment. These problems are too difficult and too serious for one party to be able to do by themselves. The only way we are ever going to be able to reach these agreements that put us on the path of really reforming the Government is to do it together. I think that where we worked best was when we worked with both sides trying to meet in the center and trying to cooperate in a fashion that could really bring true reform to this institution. The disappointment that I see in the bill is that we missed, for one, an opportunity to really reform Medicare. I think that what we essentially did was to follow what I call the SOS premise --same old, same old. We essentially looked at Medicare and said, ``Well, we have a lot of problems with it and we all know it is going to go bankrupt and insolvent at the end of the year 2001. So let's appoint a commission to try to recommend to Congress what we already know needs to be done.'' I stand here with a great degree of pride and am so pleased that our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, is on the floor with us today because some of the things that we all know need to be done we already did when we worked together in the Centrist Coalition in the last Congress and recommended some real strong, difficult things that needed to be done with regard to the Medicare Program--which was offered by our group, a bipartisan group equally divided in the last Congress, when we took on the tough recommendation of means testing for wealthier seniors to help contribute more to ensure that the program is going to be there for their children, for their grandchildren, and for their great grandchildren. We needed to recognize that people live longer. So we took the position of recommending a gradual increase, I might add over the next 30 years, in the eligibility age for Medicare recipients merely reflecting the increase in life expectancy of all of our citizens, which is a very good thing to do. We also made tough recommendations, I think, in trying to bring about more competition in the Medicare System. But basically those ideas and those concepts, which got 46 votes on the U.S. Senate floor in the last Congress, were dumped in the conference, dumped not really on the merits but because we needed more political cover. What is the political cover that we have decided upon? Well, it is ``same old, same old,'' let us appoint a commission. I would love to serve on the commission, quite frankly. I would love to try to make the recommendations that are needed for us to be able to take the action that is necessary. Unfortunately, while the commission will prepare a report by March 1999, Congress does not have to act on any of their recommendations. We can just say: Thank you. It's been a wonderful opportunity to hear what you have to say, but we don't have to do anything about it. I think my colleague from Nebraska said: Wait a minute; we already had a commission. I served as a cochair of it. We have already made these recommendations. Why do we need another commission? Why do we need a commission at all? Why doesn't Congress act as a commission? You know what. Maybe the answer is that we can designate ourselves a commission, and instead of calling ourselves the U.S. Senate, we will call ourselves the U.S. Commission and then we can make the same recommendations that we have already made and act on it and say, well, the commission made the recommendation to get the job done that way. But I think we have missed an opportunity, and that is unfortunate. If we can't do it this year, it is going to be difficult to do it in an election year. I am always amazed that everybody tells us to fix it. How many times have we heard seniors and others tell us to fix Medicare. They say fix it but don't increase the premium; fix it but don't increase the age of eligibility. I have said several times before, if not now, when? When are we going to do it? And if not this, what? And if not us, who? Someone has to take the actions to do the things that are difficult and make the tough decisions needed to fix the problem. What is going to happen when we wake up on December 31 in the year 2007 and we still haven't acted on the recommendations of the commission and we need to do something to fix a program on the brink of insolvency again? What kind of an answer are we going to come up with in an emergency? It is far better to try to do this at a time when the economy is good and people are working together in a bipartisan spirit. So the fact we have another commission which succeeds the last commission which succeeds previous commissions is certainly not an act of courage. It will not make a chapter in the next Profiles in Courage book that is written about what we have done in the Congress, and that is unfortunate. But I say that because we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in the sense that we will never be for anything unless it is perfect. While this is not a perfect package by any stretch of the imagination, it is a good package. It is one that merits our support. As long as we know that this package, the tax cut and the spending cuts and what we have done in Medicare is not the final answer but just a beginning, I think I would say this to our colleagues who have worked together on this: At least we have paved the road to make it easier for future Congresses to reach tough conclusions and make tough decisions that are really necessary to save Medicare. So I support the tax package and commend Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for doing something that has not been done in a long time, maybe since the days of my predecessor, Senator Russell Long, on the committee, when both sides were able to say, all right, we are different parties but we are all Americans and we need to ultimately work together if anything is going to be done. I always take the position that in politics it is better to get something done and then fight over who got it done, rather than to get nothing done and then blame the other side for failure. I am glad that the Finance Committee was truly able to work together and get something done in a bipartisan way. Now we can go fight about who got it done. But at least we got something done for the American people. We did that in this Congress. We did that with these bills. We made tough decisions both in taxes and in spending. I hope that one day in the not too distant future the rest of the Congress will be able to act in an equally bipartisan fashion and get the rest of the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, under the previous agreement, I guess on the Democratic side, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senators for clarifying that point.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage the bill managers and Senator Stevens in a colloquy. As a chief cosponsor of S. 39, my understanding is that the appropriate standard of judicial review that would apply to the Secretarial findings in section 5 on whether dolphin encirclement is having a significant adverse impact on dolphin stocks in the standard under the Administrative Procedures Act. Is that the understanding of the bill managers and the sponsor of the bill?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my staff person, Paul Deveau, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator and start by congratulating her on the effort she has made in this regard, and Senator Stevens from Alaska for the work he has done along with Senator Kerry, and also acknowledge Senator Barbara Boxer's longstanding commitment on doing what is necessary to preserve and protect dolphins. As we bring this legislation to the floor, it is very, very significant, for we have been working on this for 25 years to try to improve on a program that I think has made great progress in preserving the ability for the tuna industry in the United States, one of the most popular fishing resources in the entire world, to be able to continue to operate in a manner that does not cause death or mortality or serious harm to dolphin, which conflict, many times, with the tuna fish themselves. This industry, I think, is to be commended because they have made tremendous strides in trying to preserve their industry, at the same time protecting dolphins. So they are to be congratulated for the great work they have done. This legislation hopefully will be an improvement. I commend all of those who have had a chance to be involved in it. One concern that I do have is directly related to the labeling issue. As many of you know, the debate on the tuna-dolphin issue has a long and tortuous history. It was our own industry, primarily the U.S. canners, who started the dolphin-safe movement by voluntarily adopting that label back in 1990. It took several years and many millions of dollars to educate the American consumer about what the dolphin-safe label means. It was because of the industry's efforts and congressional backing that we still have that label today. But today, when we pass S. 39, the Congress will establish criteria by which to evaluate the appropriateness of the dolphin-safe label. The definition of the label may change, based upon further scientific studies. But let us not fool ourselves that there are some people who will oppose this change at all costs. One way to do this is through the use of alternative labels. The existence of alternative labels alone is not problematic, but the misuse of those labels to deceive or mislead the American public is a problem. The original version of S. 39 recognized this fact and prohibited other labels that referred to dolphins or other marine mammals on a can of tuna. It made sense from a practical point of view--if the Congress is establishing very strict criteria for a Government dolphin-safe label, then it should be the only such label. Opponents to this provision would argue on the right to free commercial speech. We must remember that commercial speech is not given the same degree of protection as individual speech. If a significant Government interest exists, then the Government can regulate such commercial speech. I believe that the conservation goals of the International Dolphin Conservation Program are such a significant Government interest. But in the spirit of compromise, I was willing to allow alternative labels under some strict conditions. Alternative labels can exist if they meet the minimum standards of the dolphin-safe label, including the no mortality or serious injury standard as well as the support of a tracking and verification program similar to that found in S. 39. If you want to claim that you are as safe as dolphin safe, then you must be able to prove it. Alternative labels are subject to all applicable labeling, marketing and advertising laws and regulations of the Federal Trade Commission Act-- this only makes sense. But the concern on the misuse of alternative labels continues to exist. Our compromise would address this concern by forbidding any campaign or effort to mislead or deceive consumers about the level of protection afforded dolphins under the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Finally, we ask the Secretary of Commerce to monitor the situation. If alternative labels are used in such a way to undermine the conservation goals of the International Dolphin Conservation Program, then the Secretary will make a report to the Congress. If our efforts here today, and over the past 2 years, are being thwarted by a campaign to undercut the label or International Dolphin Conservation Program, then we should know and we should take action to eliminate this problem. Mr. President, I hope these safeguards are sufficient in dealing with the misuse of alternative labels. I can only support this bill if I know that our efforts and the goals of the binding international program are not being undone by a campaign which uses alternative labels to cerate market distinctions for the purpose of customer confusion or deception. I believe that we addressed this concern with our compromise. If not, I am sure that we shall visit this issue again. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of my friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, who has helped guide this bill through to this day. I also would like to note the efforts of Senators Snowe and McCain who took a personal interest in protecting dolphins through an international agreement. My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, helped to forge the compromise agreement which we stand to implement today. Of course, Senators Biden and Boxer should be noted for their continuing concern for dolphin protection--I am glad that our common interests were merged into common legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 39.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to discuss with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Hollings, and my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, an important safety issue facing Jefferson Parish, LA. As my colleagues know, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office is one of the most progressive and notable law enforcement offices in the country. Unfortunately, they have been forced to use a conventional 450 MHz UHF radio system that is far too small and antiquated to handle current traffic volumes and to provide the secure and varied communications capabilities necessary in today's law enforcement environment. Replacing this old system with a new 800 MHz digital system is necessary to ensure the safety of its residents and guests, and to enhance the operational efficiencies of the sheriff's office. Hurricane Danny recently demonstrated the dire need for this new communications system. Grand Isle, off the southern-most part of Jefferson Parish, is a barrier island with approximately 2,500 residents. There is, however, only one road leading from Grand Isle to the mainland. When it appeared this road was at risk because of Danny's 70-75 mph winds and high tides, the sheriff's office decided to evacuate the island. Unfortunately, before the island could be safely evacuated, one of the radio towers was damaged and rendered inoperable by the hurricane. The sheriff's office was forced to borrow cellular telephones in order to evacuate the island.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as my colleague knows, the sheriff's office of Jefferson Parish has sought assistance in the past and has helped to highlight the need for Federal assistance to help local law enforcement agencies replace outdated communications equipment. In fact, the sheriff's office was influential in getting a discretionary grant program created in 1994 that would provide funds for these types of activities. However, Congress has consistently earmarked these funds, leaving no funds for grant applicants.

Mr. BREAUX. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee in this matter. I would like to thank them and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, for joining me in this colloquy. odyssey maritime discovery center exhibits and lecture series

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. The problem of bringing up the amendment is there is no requirement that the tax credit be used for the child. This is a per- child tax credit. We think there should be at least some encouragement that it be used for the child.

Mr. BREAUX. I would like to ask a question of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee concerning a provision in the tax bill.

Mr. BREAUX. Section 761 of the bill provides standards that a State- sponsored workers' compensation company must meet in order to be exempt from Federal income tax for future years. As the chairman is aware, a large number of the States, including Louisiana, have State-sponsored workers' compensation companies that have been operating as tax-exempt agencies for several years. It is my understanding that the standards that we have proposed for the future are intended to codify the standards that exist under present law and that a company, such as the one established by the State of Louisiana, that met these standards in prior years should be confident that it is, in fact, tax exempt under current law. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. My friend from Texas would refer to this provision as the ``rotten'' provision. I am sure what he meant to say was the ``forgotten'' provision, because he obviously forgot what we did to this in the Finance Committee when we greatly improved it. If anyone wants to have a $500-per-child tax cut, we presume that it is for the children. Under the suggestion of the Senator from Texas, we would give the family a $500 tax rate to use for whatever they want. If they want to use it to go to the casino, fine. If they want to use it to buy a six- pack of booze every week, fine. It is about $9.66 a week, so under the provision of the Senator from Texas they could take it, put it in their pocket, and don't use it for children at all--just do whatever you want with it. Interestingly, the Citizen Council, a respected voice of both parties, says, ``In our view, a no-strings child credit is a cruel hoax on the very children who are supposed to benefit from it. We expect that most of the credits would disappear into the family's general budgets, or be used to pay bills''--and I add, not for the children, that the tax credit is supposed to be for. What we have done is to craft a compromise from zero to 13, the family can use it for anything they would like, no strings attached, but from 13 to 17, when children need to be educated, there is an obligation that the tax credit be used to educate the children. For all of us who want to help children and our families and help parents raise those children, what is better than to give that family help and assistance in educating that child? Some say the Tax Code should not tell people what to do. The Tax Code is full of examples--a mortgage deduction is only available if you buy a house; a charitable contribution is only available if, in fact, you give to charity. So what I think the Finance Committee was able to do was to erect a compromise, a blending of what that suggestion was coming from this side, blending it with what many of our people said, use it for educating children. If we are going to have a tax credit for children, let's at least ensure that part of the time it is used for one of the basic functions that a family has as an obligation to those children, and that is to educate those children. So I think that what we have come forward with makes a great deal of sense. It is a legitimate compromise. It adds to the education package which I think everyone is for, and it helps families with small children.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Biomaterials Access Assurance and Health Safety act of 1997. While other legislation has been introduced that is intended to protect suppliers of raw materials used in the construction of important medical implants from liability, I believe that my legislation strikes the proper balance between the legitimate concerns of these suppliers and the health insurance and legal rights of patients. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to biomaterials legislation that has been introduced independently by Senator Lieberman and as a part of S. 5, the Product Liability Fairness Act. It does, however, differ on several important points. First, this bill would not immunize negligent suppliers or supplies who fail to warn of the harmful effects of their products. Second, this bill would be limited to the protection of suppliers of raw materials. Other biomaterials bills, while speaking only of the need to protect suppliers of raw materials, use overly broad language that immunizes a whole host of product manufacturers. Third, unlike the legislation sent to the President last year, this bill would not cover suppliers of materials used in breast implants. Mr. President, there are two other important differences between this legislation and other biomaterials liability legislation that has been introduced. I believe that this bill can be passed by Congress. I'm not sure that other biomaterials bills can. We know too well that the larger product liability bill will be controversial, and that its passage and enactment are uncertain at best. This biomaterials bill has been introduced as a stand-alone measure and can move independently of the product liability bill. I also believe that this legislation can be signed into law by President Clinton, and I'm not too sure that other biomaterials liability legislation can. When the President vetoed the product liability bill sent to him by the 104th Congress, H.R. 965, which included biomaterials language similar to that in Senator Lieberman's bill, he noted that he wanted to enact fair and balanced biomaterials liability legislation. However, he felt that the language before him went too far, particularly because it immunized negligent biomaterials suppliers. I believe the President will find the provisions of my bill acceptable. Mr. President, I think that this bill is the best hope we have of passing fair and meaningful biomaterials legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. I won't be that long. I rise to commend the Democratic leader on our side, Senator Daschle, and others who have put together a major effort in trying to offer a package of democratically oriented tax cuts which, in great sincerity, many, many people feel would be, by far, the better way to proceed--a more balanced, more honest package of tax cuts and how those tax cuts should apply to society. I think that what he is offering is yeoman's work in terms of fairness and making sure that if there is going to be a tax cut, people who need them the most will benefit the most from those tax cuts. While I praise my Democratic leader, I rise to say that I will not be able to support that package when it is called to be voted. I say that because we do not live in a perfect world. Neither is the Congress a perfect place. Neither is the Finance Committee a perfect group of individuals who have the wisdom of Solomon to craft a perfect bill. But what we have crafted in the Senate Finance Committee, because of the work of both Democrats and Republicans working together, I think is a package that merits our support. It is a better package from many perspectives, but let me concentrate just on the Democratic perspective of why the bill, in fact, is better than when it started. First of all, there is $24 billion more money which is directed at children for health care, for young children who today do not have health care. That is a major, significant achievement. That was achieved in a bipartisan fashion with major input from Democrats who insisted that whatever money we are able to generate should be used for children who need help and need assistance. That is in this package which is before us today. There is $8 billion of additional assistance that was achieved because, in a bipartisan fashion, we agreed to raise the cigarette tax on tobacco products and use a portion of those revenues for insuring the most vulnerable among us, the children, for one of the most important things that we can help children with, and that is their health care, both now and in the future. That is the result of a bipartisan working arrangement in the Senate Finance Committee. In addition, I think that we have taken what was originally a Republican proposal to give everybody a $500-per-child tax credit that you could use for whatever purpose. You could use it to take care of your children, but you could also use it to buy alcohol, you could use it to go to the racetrack, you could use it for whatever purpose. In a bipartisan fashion, we worked to craft an amendment that said you will have these additional tax credits if you use a portion of it to educate your children. I suggest that there is not a better thing that we can do for families with children than to help those parents educate those children for the future so they can be successful members of our society. We, as Democrats, I think, argued against indexing of capital gains saying we can't afford it. Let's take a capital gains reduction, we hope it will increase jobs and increase expansion in business, but also don't take the next step of indexing it. Because of working it in a bipartisan fashion, that in fact is in the bill. Again, working in a bipartisan fashion, we made some tough decisions on Medicare and Medicaid, as a result of what we did, to try and bring about competition, to try and say we will make the tough decisions now and no longer will we have to say to people who tell us to fix Medicare, no longer will we say not now, not with us and not with this program. We have taken the tough decisions, and we have accepted them. When people say fix Medicare, this Finance Committee can say that we did what was necessary when we were called upon to make those decisions. So I think as you look at the total package, it is better than when it started. I, for one, as a person who participated in that process would feel less than totally honest if I was able to get the things that make it better in the package, and then when it came to vote for that package, walk away and say, ``No, I am going to vote for something else.'' That is not, I think, the way things should operate in a democratically elected body which is a divided Government. But while we have a divided Government, we do not have a divided Finance Committee. I think because of that bipartisan spirit and what we were able to do, today we have a better package before us. Again, I commend our Democratic leader for offering something that I think if we were in control would be the bill that would be before this committee. But that is not the case. But what is the case is a fairly arrived at package that makes this bill much better. I think it deserves our support.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Biomaterials Access Assurance and Health Safety act of 1997. While other legislation has been introduced that is intended to protect suppliers of raw materials used in the construction of important medical implants from liability, I believe that my legislation strikes the proper balance between the legitimate concerns of these suppliers and the health insurance and legal rights of patients. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to biomaterials legislation that has been introduced independently by Senator Lieberman and as a part of S. 5, the Product Liability Fairness Act. It does, however, differ on several important points. First, this bill would not immunize negligent suppliers or supplies who fail to warn of the harmful effects of their products. Second, this bill would be limited to the protection of suppliers of raw materials. Other biomaterials bills, while speaking only of the need to protect suppliers of raw materials, use overly broad language that immunizes a whole host of product manufacturers. Third, unlike the legislation sent to the President last year, this bill would not cover suppliers of materials used in breast implants. Mr. President, there are two other important differences between this legislation and other biomaterials liability legislation that has been introduced. I believe that this bill can be passed by Congress. I'm not sure that other biomaterials bills can. We know too well that the larger product liability bill will be controversial, and that its passage and enactment are uncertain at best. This biomaterials bill has been introduced as a stand-alone measure and can move independently of the product liability bill. I also believe that this legislation can be signed into law by President Clinton, and I'm not too sure that other biomaterials liability legislation can. When the President vetoed the product liability bill sent to him by the 104th Congress, H.R. 965, which included biomaterials language similar to that in Senator Lieberman's bill, he noted that he wanted to enact fair and balanced biomaterials liability legislation. However, he felt that the language before him went too far, particularly because it immunized negligent biomaterials suppliers. I believe the President will find the provisions of my bill acceptable. Mr. President, I think that this bill is the best hope we have of passing fair and meaningful biomaterials legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I have a unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent Michelle Prejean, a member of my staff, be allowed floor privileges today.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. President, this is really an interesting dialog because on the one hand we have some facts that are uncontested; that is, if we do not do anything to fix Medicare, it is not going to be around for anybody by the year 2001 because that is the year when, if we do not do anything, we are not going to have enough money in the Medicare Program to pay benefits to nobody. So it is very clear that Congress now has to do something if it is going to be around for everybody who is counting on it when they reach retirement age. It is really interesting. In the Finance Committee we have had people come before the committee all of the time saying, ``You all have to fix Medicare. If is very important. It is the lifeblood or lifeline for seniors in this country.'' Then we ask them when they tell us to fix it, ``All right. Do you want to increase premiums?" ``No. We don't want you to do that.'' Then we say, ``Well, would you want to decrease the payments going to doctors and hospitals?" They generally say, ``Don't do that either because doctors and hospitals will soon quit treating Medicare patients because they are not getting paid enough for those services.'' Then we say, ``Well, would you like us to increase the age limit of people who are eligible for Medicare?" They say, ``Oh. No. Don't do that.'' But then, the bottom line: They say when they leave the committee room, ``Be sure you fix it, by the way. Make sure it doesn't go broke in the year 2001. Fix it. But don't, don't, don't do anything that is necessary in order to fix it.'' That is an impossible suggestion for the members of the committee and the Members of Congress to adopt. If we do nothing it will not be around for anyone. In 1965, when Congress in its wisdom passed the Medicare Program, the life expectancy for people at that time was 66.8 years of age for men; 73 years of age for women. So Congress in its wisdom at that time said, ``Well, let's make an appropriate date for the beginning of Medicare benefits at 65.'' Guess what has happened since 1965? For every year the life expectancy of Americans has increased. But the eligibility age for Medicare has not been increased one time. We did it for Social Security. What this committee does is to say, ``Let's put the glidepath for Medicare eligibility the same as Social Security, recognizing that people in fact live substantially longer and draw Medicare benefits substantially longer, I might add as well. It almost sounds like we are getting these calls in our offices from people who are retiring, none of which are affected by this amendment--not a single one because they already are on Medicare. In fact, it goes down quite a ways before anybody is affected whatsoever. An interesting point is that it sounds like we are talking about having all of this going into effect immediately, when just the opposite is true. The amendment that was offered, I guess by Members from our side, takes 24 years to increase it 24 months. It doesn't increase it the first year to the age 67. You start off right where you are today, and it is increased 2 months a year and over 4 years we get to the age of 67 which is comparable to what we have in Social Security. Would it be nice if we didn't have to do that? Sure. Would it be nice if we didn't have to do anything to fix Medicare? Absolutely. The problem is we have a system that is in the tank as far as being able to survive, if we do not do anything. It would be wonderful to say make no changes and everybody continues to get exactly what you get at the time you are eligible for it. That is not an option. None of the options are easy. This one I would argue is far easier than any of the others, and it helps allow for Medicare to continue for a long period of time.