John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today Senator Roth and I are introducing the Savings and Investment Incentive Act of 1997. We have introduced this bill in past Congresses but it is even more timely now as the pressure builds to secure the retirement of the baby boomers. The facts are staring us in the face. Within 30 years one out of every five Americans will be over 65. The baby boomers are 76 million strong, doubling the number of Social Security beneficiaries by the year 2040. At the same time, Social Security outlays will begin out pacing Social Security receipts in 2013 and the Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt in 2029 if we don't take the necessary steps to preserve it. And our national savings rate is only 1 percent of GDP. This is one-half of what it was in 1970. By comparison, we save half as much as the Germans and one-third as much as the Japanese. This is a serious problem. We need to address it by reducing the budget deficit and eliminating the drain it places on our national savings but we need to address it in other ways, as well. The Super IRA bill makes changes in the rules governing IRA's that will expand the availability of the IRA as a savings vehicle. The income caps will be eliminated over a 5-year period. Our bill creates a new kind of IRA that allows taxpayers to earn tax-free income. Funds can be withdrawn from either the current form of IRA or the new IRA to purchase a first home, meet a family's income needs during an extended period of unemployment or to pay for educational expenses. IRA's have broad bipartisan support as demonstrated by the list of cosponsors. I hope that we will work together to pass this legislation this year.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today Senator Roth and I are introducing the Savings and Investment Incentive Act of 1997. We have introduced this bill in past Congresses but it is even more timely now as the pressure builds to secure the retirement of the baby boomers. The facts are staring us in the face. Within 30 years one out of every five Americans will be over 65. The baby boomers are 76 million strong, doubling the number of Social Security beneficiaries by the year 2040. At the same time, Social Security outlays will begin out pacing Social Security receipts in 2013 and the Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt in 2029 if we don't take the necessary steps to preserve it. And our national savings rate is only 1 percent of GDP. This is one-half of what it was in 1970. By comparison, we save half as much as the Germans and one-third as much as the Japanese. This is a serious problem. We need to address it by reducing the budget deficit and eliminating the drain it places on our national savings but we need to address it in other ways, as well. The Super IRA bill makes changes in the rules governing IRA's that will expand the availability of the IRA as a savings vehicle. The income caps will be eliminated over a 5-year period. Our bill creates a new kind of IRA that allows taxpayers to earn tax-free income. Funds can be withdrawn from either the current form of IRA or the new IRA to purchase a first home, meet a family's income needs during an extended period of unemployment or to pay for educational expenses. IRA's have broad bipartisan support as demonstrated by the list of cosponsors. I hope that we will work together to pass this legislation this year.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Stevens and others, I am introducing legislation that will implement the Panama Declaration for the protection of dolphins in the tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The United States signed the Panama Declaration on October 4, 1995, along with the Governments of Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. by agreeing to the Panama Declaration, these countries have demonstrated their commitment to the conservation of ecosystems and the sustainable use of living resources related to the tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific. By implementing the Panama Declaration, we will strengthen the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC], which has proven to be an extremely effective international resource management organization. Implementing the Panama Declaration will ensure the reduction of dolphin mortalities associated with tuna fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In addition, we will enable American tuna fishermen to re-enter that tuna fishery on the same footing as foreign fishermen. Since 1949, the IATTC has served as the regional fishery management organization for the tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, managing that fishery in an exemplary manner. Managing migratory species requires a multilateral approach, one which the IATTC is well- suited to perform. The yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, which the Panama Declaration addresses, falls under the auspices of the IATTC. In that fishery, tuna fishermen use dolphins to locate schools of large, mature yellowfin tuna which, for unknown reasons, associate with schools of dolphin. Once the schools of dolphin have been located, the fishermen use purse seine nets to encircle the dolphins with the objective of catching the tuna swimming below. The dolphins are then safely released before the tuna is hauled abroad. In recent years, there has been some concern about these fishing practices which, in the past, have resulted in excessive incidental mortality to dolphins. In 1992, in an effort to address this problem, 10 nations with tuna vessels operating in the eastern tropical Pacific signed an agreement known as the La Jolla Agreement. The La Jolla Agreement established the International Dolphin Conservation Program [IDCP], which is administered by the IATTC. The regional objective of the IDCP is to reduce dolphin mortalities to insignificant levels approaching zero, with a goal of eliminating them entirely. Pursuant to that program, the number of dolphins killed accidentally in the tuna fishery has been reduced to less than 4,000. annually from a previous average of over 300,000 killed annually. The current dolphin mortality represents approximately four one-hundredths of 1 percent of the 9.5 million dolphins of the eastern tropical Pacific. Thus, the IDCP has been remarkably successful in achieving its goal of reducing unintended dolphin mortalities to biologically insignificant levels approaching zero. This legislation will implement the Panama Declaration, formalize the 1992 La Jolla Agreement and make it a legal agreement binding on the member countries of the IATTC. The Panama Declaration strengthens the IDCP and furthers its goals by placing a cap of 5,000 per year on dolphin mortalities. Although U.S. fishermen developed the techniques now used in capturing tuna and safely releasing dolphins, they effectively have been forced from fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific since the 1992 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prohibit the encirclement of dolphins. The legislation to implement the Panama Declaration will eliminate the inequitable treatment of United States tuna fishermen and enable them to re-enter this important fishery on an equal footing with foreign fishermen. The 1992 ban on encirclement of dolphins has required fishermen to use alternative fishing practices which have serious environmental consequences. Alternative fishing practices lead to excessive bycatch of endangered sea turtles, sharks, billfish, and great numbers of immature tuna and other fish species. In an attempt to manage a single species, in this case dolphins, we have caused serious harm to the entire ecosystem. This legislation will result in a reduction of this bycatch problem as well as permit fishermen to encircle dolphins as long as they comply with the stringent regulations imposed by the IATTC. The purpose of this bill is to improve and solidify efforts to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, eliminate the bycatch problems caused by alternative fishing methods, and recognize the tremendous gains by other countries in reducing dolphin mortality. The Panama Declaration establishes a common environmental standard for all countries fishing in the region. By formalizing the La Jolla Agreement, U.S. and foreign fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific will be subject to the most stringent fishery regulations in the world. The Panama Declaration represents a tremendous environmental achievement, and it enjoys support from such diverse interests as major, mainstream environmental groups, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, the Clinton administration, and other countries whose fishermen operate in the eastern tropical Pacific. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from Vice President Gore be entered into the Record. I am encouraged that the majority leader, on the Senate floor on September 30, 1996, had promised to provide floor time at the beginning of this Congress to vote on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation in order that we may implement this important international agreement.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, diabetes is the fourth leading cause of death from diseases in the United States. Deaths accountable to diabetes or resulting complications number about 250,000 per year. Diabetes also results in about 12,000 new cases of blindness each year and greatly increases an individual's chance of heart disease, kidney failure, and stroke. The terrible irony, Mr. President, is that diabetes is largely a treatable condition. While there is no known cure, individuals who have diabetes can lead completely normal, active lives so long as they stick to a proper diet, carefully monitor the amount of sugar in their blood, and take their medicine, which may or may not include insulin. In order to take proper care of themselves, diabetics need to take self- maintenance education programs--at least once when they are diagnosed with the disease and then periodically after that to keep up with the latest treatments and any changes in their own condition. Appropriate preventive education services for diabetics have the potential to save a great deal of money that would otherwise go for hospitalizations and other acute care costs--not to mention a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering. CBO projects that this proposal would save Medicare money in the long-run. Medicare currently covers diabetes self-maintenance education services in inpatient or hospital-based settings and in limited outpatient settings, specifically hospital outpatient departments or rural health clinics. Medicare does not cover education services if they are given in any other outpatient setting, such as a doctor's office. Even the limited coverage of outpatient settings that is currently permitted under Medicare is subject to State-by-State variation according to fiscal intermediaries' interpretation. Medicare also covers the cost of the paper test strips that are used to monitor the sugar levels in the blood--but only for diabetics who require insulin to control their disease. All noninsulin dependent diabetics must purchase these test strips at their own expense. Today, I am introducing the Medicare Diabetes Education and Supplies Amendments of 1997. This legislation would provide Medicare coverage for outpatient education on a consistent equitable basis throughout the country. The bill would extend Medicare coverage of outpatient programs beyond hospital-based programs and rural health clinics and direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do two things: First, to develop and implement payment amounts for outpatient diabetes education programs; and second, to adopt quality standards for outpatient education programs. Only qualified programs would be eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement. Furthermore, this legislation would mandate test strip coverage for all diabetics. This preventive measure is a sensible one that will show savings for the Medicare Program in the long run. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage this Congress.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will correct a serious inequity in Louisiana's judicial districts. My legislation adds an additional judge to the middle district of Louisiana, based in Baton Rouge. U.S. District Judges John Parker and Frank Polozola, the two Baton Rouge, judges, each have almost 2,000 cased pending. The national average for federal judges is 400 cased pending. Case filings in the Middle District have totaled more than four times the national average. The Baton Rouge district also ranks first among the Nation's 97 federal court districts in total filings, civil filings, weighted filings and in the percent change in total filings last year. Louisiana's Middle District is composed of nine parishes. The state capital and many of the State's adult and juvenile prisons and forensic facilities are located in this district. The Court is regularly required to hear most of the litigation challenging the constitutionality of State laws and the actions of State agencies and officials. The District now has several reapportionment and election cases pending on the docket which generally require the immediate attention of the court. Additionally, because numerous chemical, oil, and industrial plants and hazardous waste sites are located in the Middle District, the Court has in the past and will continue to handle complex mass tort cases. One environmental case alone, involving over 7,000 plaintiffs and numerous defendants, is being handled by a judge from another district because both of the Middle District's judges were recused. Since 1984, the Middle District has sought an additional judge because of its concern that its caseload would continue to rise despite the fact that its judges' termination rate exceeded that national average and ranked among the highest in numerical standing within the United States and the Fifth Circuit. Both the Judicial Conference and the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit have approved the Middle District's request for an additional judgeship after each biennial survey from 1984 through 1994. Mr. President, I know that my colleagues will agree with me that the clear solution to this obvious inequity is to assign an additional judge to Louisiana's Middle District. I look forward to the Senate's resolution of this important matter.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this Democratic leadership bill--the youth violence, crime, and drug abuse bill. Crime ranks among the highest concerns of all Americans, no matter what their race or social background. Louisiana is no exception. In a recent poll, 86 percent of Louisianians said crime is a serious problem, ranking it as the No. 1 problem in our State. The city of New Orleans is experiencing a murder rate that is eight times higher than the national average. People want us and their local governments and State governments to do something about this problem. The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently released statistics showing that serious and violent crime dropped nationwide in the first half of last year. It is good news, certainly, that violent crime in this country has gone down; but the bad news is that juvenile crime is on the increase. Youth crimes, particularly homicides perpetrated with guns, have skyrocketed. The average cost of incarcerating a juvenile for just 1 year is somewhere between $23,000 and $64,000. I strongly support this Democratic legislation because it focuses directly on juveniles, punishes violent youthful offenders, and provides more access to treatment and prevention programs. We must continue the success of the COPS Program and put 25,000 more cops on the beat. We must create a new Federal crime targeting the interstate franchising spread of criminal street gangs and other changes aimed at gang violence, such as increasing the penalties for witness intimidation. We must extend the drug court program to force some 500,000 drug offenders to engage in rigorous drug testing and treatment, or face imprisonment and, finally, we must continue to provide funds to arrest and prosecute batterers and shelter 400,000 battered women. Mr. President, this bill includes all of these provisions, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. For the sake of generations to come, it is time that we attack crime with a renewed vigor. Today's juvenile criminal becomes tomorrow's adult criminal. We must pass this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Children's Health Coverage Act of 1997, a bill designed to expand health insurance for an estimated 10 million American children who have no health insurance. Last year, when Congress passed the Kassebaum/Kennedy bill, it took a big step towards increasing the availability of private health insurance coverage for certain children. While the Kassebaum/ Kennedy legislation will increase access to the health insurance market for many people, there are still too many low-income working families in this country who are unable to afford coverage even though it may be more readily available to them. According to a 1994 GAO report, 14.2 percent of all children are uninsured, the highest rate in any industrialized country. In Louisiana alone there are 254,952 children without health insurance. Nine out of ten of these children live in families with working parents. These parents go to work every day to earn a living and provide for their families. Some might say that providing for one's family should include health insurance but when you've got food to buy and rent to pay, health insurance to many parents is an unaffordable luxury. Perhaps even more troubling is that the number of uninsured children is expected to grow as employers continue to cut back on dependant coverage, leaving many working parents unable to afford insurance for their families. While Medicaid has picked up some of these children and will continue to do so, these expansions won't be enough to completely offset the loss in private coverage in this country. Mr. President, an important lesson we have learned in recent years is that big government mandates won't work. But I believe expanding coverage of children is a necessary next step to follow up on the significant progress we made last year. We should build on the momentum from Kassebaum/Kennedy bill to help low-income working families buy health insurance they need for their children. Basic primary and preventive care services that insurance provides are critical to a child's healthy development, and like all kinds of preventive care, it's cheaper than treating a child once he or she gets sick. As we all know, uninsured children are more likely to get care in an emergency room at later stages in their illness and are more likely to require an expensive hospital stay. This bill is a market-based plan that will provide tax credits to help working families buy the health insurance they need. Our goal is to stimulate a competitive market for children's health plans which are relatively inexpensive but have a big economic payoff. I am hopeful that Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together on this issue because it's in everyone's interest that our nation's children have the health care and health insurance they need since they are the future of this country. For the future of a healthy America, we need healthy kids now.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about S. 12, the Education for the 21st Century Act, and our efforts to improve elementary and secondary educational opportunities for our Nation's children, as well as make higher education more accessible for adults. Quality education is necessary not only for the future of our children and our families, but for the future of our Nation. A better educated workforce is essential to compete in the global economy and to maintain a strong democracy. Every Member of this body knows that a high school diploma is worth far less in today's marketplace than a generation ago. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 60 percent of all jobs created between 1992 and 2005 will require education beyond high school. Modern society has little room for those who cannot read, write, and compute effectively; solve problems; and continually learn new technologies and skills. The Education for the 21st Century Act includes a number of important initiatives that, if enacted, will make educational opportunities more accessible for Americans: The HOPE Scholarship, the tax deduction for higher education expenses, the student loan interest deduction, and the technology literacy and America Reads initiatives. Another area of concern that S. 12 addresses is the declining physical condition of our Nation's schools. According to a June 1996 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office, nationwide, about a third of public elementary and secondary schools have at least one building needing extensive repair, and about 60 percent need extensive repair, overhaul, or replacement of at least one major building feature. Nationwide, about 58 percent of schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition (i.e., lighting, heating, ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics for noise control, and physical security). Nationwide, 21 percent of schools need to spend over the national average ($1.7 million) to bring their facilities into ``good condition.'' Although a national problem, it is mirrored in every State. In my own State of Louisiana, about 38 percent of public elementary and secondary schools have at least one building needing extensive repair. Fifty-six percent of Louisiana schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. Twenty-three percent of Louisiana schools need to spend over the national average to bring their facilities into ``good condition.'' Sixty-five percent of Louisiana schools lack telephone lines for computer modems. It is important that we help schools, libraries, and local governments bring advanced telecommunications to millions who otherwise cannot participate in the new information age. Computer services like the Internet give young people in the most poor and remote communities access to the same information available in the best libraries and institutions in the country and the world. Unfortunately, many States and local governments have had to cut back on investment in education because of budget problems and limits on debt capacity. Some have argued that the proper role of Government is to try to solve everyone's problems from cradle to grave--to create programs to protect citizens from everything, even themselves, because, as they say, ``Government knows best.'' Others argue that Government has no role at all in helping people, other than getting out of the way and offer only a survival of the fittest solution. My colleagues let me suggest that the better role for Government to play is one that equips the American people with the means to solve their own problems. Some want to abandon the public schools, not make them better--as if removing the most motivated students and parents will somehow increase the drive to improve schools for everyone else. Others say education reform is a question of more resources and better management. Still others say an education system for the 21st century should be defined by its results and schools exist only if they attract students and satisfy parents; they serve everyone; and they operate on the premise that all students can succeed. Whatever your point of view, the task of making education work falls to all of us. If we have learned anything over the past decades, it is there is no quick fix. This proposal will not transform our schools overnight. However, over time, it will be a meaningful step toward improving the lives and futures of families in Louisiana and throughout this Nation. I believe we should explore, and I am exploring, other ideas and options to help State and local governments address their infrastructure needs. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will favorably consider this legislation. As we move through the 105th Congress and consider all of the various proposals to produce a balanced federal budget, we must be mindful that our intent is to provide, not deny, American families the means and the opportunity to take part in our global economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. I just was going to ask a question of the Senator.

Mr. BREAUX. Isn't the current situation that Federal Express in its total package is considered under the Railway Labor Act right now? Is that not the current situation? Is it the current situation that Federal Express is considered to come under the Railway Labor Act now?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, a priority for me in the National Invasive Species Act has been to establish a ballast technology demonstration program to usher in the development of safer and more reliable alternatives to ballast exchange. I note that in H.R. 4283, the Secretary of Interior and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implement this important program in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation Administration. I believe the Secretary of Transportation should involve its Office of Shipbuilding and Technology which already has years of experience in ballast technology in this program.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent to that I be recognized for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take the floor to first commend one of our previous speakers this afternoon, the Senator from Rhode Island, the distinguished John Chafee, who worked as one of our leaders in a truly bipartisan fashion in the last Congress in our mainstream coalition, the so-called Chafee-Breaux coalition. We had an equal number of Democrats and Republicans who really worked very hard together to try to address some of the problems facing this country with the inability of the Congress to really come together in any kind of a bipartisan fashion. I have been in this business a relatively long number of years, and I think it becomes increasingly evident to me, and I think to many others, what the American people want us to do is to resolve our differences in a manner that makes sense, that is fair to the average American, and that gets the job done. More and more, people back home in my State of Louisiana want Congress to just make Government work. They elect us to do that. Yet they see so many times we seem to be engaged more in partisan battles that end up in stalemates and Government shutdowns, and people back home wonder whether what we do up here makes any sense at all. One of the bright spots in this Congress was the opportunity that I had to work with many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle as well as on the Republican side of the aisle in that mainstream coalition, the so-called Chafee-Breaux organization. I think we really made some progress. We came very close to actually adopting a budget. We got 46 votes in the Senate on a package that was a real effort in Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, and it had a tax cut in it. It had an adjustment to the Consumer Price Index, which most economists agree is incorrect and does not properly state the amount of inflation for the entitlement program adjustment. So we really, I think, went a long way toward getting a job done. We brought that package to the floor. It had welfare reform in it. It was debated. We had a surprisingly large number of votes from both sides of the aisle that said, yes, it is about time we move in this direction. I was very proud of that effort, and I commend the Senator from Rhode Island and everybody who worked in that effort. Unfortunately, many of the Members who worked with us are not going to be back in the next Congress because they have decided to voluntarily retire from Senate service, and they are going to be missed. Each and every one of them was a major contributor to this effort. While their physical presence may be missed, I think the work they have helped us begin will still be with us in the next Congress. Their advice and assistance and recommendations, I hope, will still be forthcoming because they were very valuable members of our group this year and can be of very valuable assistance in a positive fashion in the next Congress. So, having said that, I wish to also point out that there will be another day to bring this effort to the floor in the next Congress. We certainly intend to continue our organization, to continue our group, to see if we cannot bridge that gap between the two different aisles to form coalitions from the center out. I am absolutely convinced that the only way we solve difficult problems in any kind of a parliamentary body is by working from the center out in order to form a majority coalition. I am absolutely convinced that you can never start from the far left and hope to get a majority, nor can you start from the far right and ever hope to put together a majority on just about anything. But if you start from the middle and work out and gradually pick up more and more people, one day you find you have a majority, which is what a democracy demands from all of us. The people demand we make Government work. Hopefully, in the next Congress, we will be able to continue that effort and be even more successful than we were in this endeavor in this Congress. My colleague from Rhode Island talked a little bit about Medicare. That is one of the real challenges we are going to face in the next Congress. Medicare is so easy to politicize, and both sides have contributed to that effort. We have scared people about the collapse of the Medicare system. We have scared people about not adequately funding it. People must be very confused. I remember the story quite well when we were doing the debate on health care reform and we had the Clinton plan and there was a lot of discussion about it being too large, too much too soon, and all of those things. I remember coming back home to New Orleans and having a lady come up to me in the airport and say, ``You are all working on that health care reform back in Washington?'' I said, ``Yes, ma'am, we are.'' She said, ``Whatever you do, don't let the Federal Government take over my Medicare.'' I said, ``OK. We won't let that happen.'' Medicare is a Federal program. It was passed under the administration of 1965. It is run by the people in Washington. It is totally a Federal program. She loved it, but she sure did not want the Federal Government having anything to do with it, although the Federal Government had everything to do with it. So people are very concerned about this issue, and I think that we have to be careful and try to not politicize it as we are all guilty of doing too often. The facts are very scary. These are the facts. They are not Democratic facts or Republican facts. These are just facts about what is going to happen to Medicare from which so many seniors and their children benefit directly because mom and dad and grandfather and grandmother are taken care of. We have a heck of a problem facing us. The hospital insurance fund, the so-called part A of Medicare that pays for the hospital insurance, which is financed by a 2.9-percent payroll tax, which is awfully high, equally divided between workers and their employers--part B, of course, covers doctor bills--the latest figures we have show that under part A, hospital insurance, how much we spend is exceeding how much we take in to such an extent that the trust fund, which now has a surplus of $121 billion, will be almost completely depleted by the year 2000. That is not that far from now--completely depleted. The trust fund of $121 billion is gone in the year 2000, and it will run a deficit, which means we will not have enough money to pay the bills of up to $53 billion the next year, the year 2001, unless we make some changes. CBO has projected the net Medicare outlays under the current law will increase at an average rate of 9.3 percent between this year and the year 2002. So we are going to be spending more money, and yet we are rapidly depleting the fund from which that money comes. Our bill last year was one of three main proposals. The President's proposal called for savings of $116 billion; the Breaux-Chafee, Chafee- Breaux proposal had a savings of $154 billion over 7 years, and the Republican budget plan called for savings of $270 billion. There is one thing that is certain and nobody should disagree: We are going to have to do something, and it is not going to be easy. It is going to be painful. We can make it less political and less painful if we try to bring together organizations and come from the center aisle out to come up with something that works. Let us face it. It is a very inefficient system. The lady in New Orleans loved it, but she was not talking about how inefficient it is. It is inefficient because it is an old-style program. It is called fee- for-service. You send the bill; we pay the bill. No matter what the bill is, we pay it basically. Every other type of medical delivery system in this country is using innovative new programs--HMO's, preferred provider organizations, POS's, other types of innovative ways of delivering health care that has brought together a great deal of competition. No. 1, we have to expand the options for Medicare beneficiaries, give them more choices, let the choices be more competitive and all aimed at providing quality service while at the same time doing it at a better price. So, we have to encourage the growth of managed care and have more alternatives for individuals than we have had in the past. Those are some of the things that we need to be looking at. There are a whole bunch of options we put forth in our proposal, the Chafee-Breaux bill. We are going to be revisiting that in the next Congress. Today, obviously, is not the day or time to outline a comprehensive list on what we need to do with Medicare. Suffice it to say that both sides together, Democrats and Republicans, have to realize that this has to be one of our priorities in the early part of the next Congress. I would, frankly, like to see the new President-elect--I hope that it is the President of my party, the incumbent President, but should the former Majority Leader Dole be elected, so be it--but whoever it is, I suggest very strongly that immediately following the election they immediately consider appointing a commission to take a look at this and have a recommendation ready for us when we get back in January. Why waste November, December, and January just talking about this issue? I suggest whoever wins on November 5, one of the first things they do is call for a bipartisan commission to begin work to present them with a recommendation when the new Congress begins so we can start from day one trying to forge a compromise that gets the job done in a number of entitlement areas, particularly in Medicare. We certainly have our work cut out for us. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. It is truly unfortunate that the bill will not pass this year, but the issue will not just disappear. We will do what we can to convince the signatory nations of the Panama Declaration not to abandon the Declaration, and we intend to pursue the enactment of these changes early in the next Congress.

Mr. BREAUX. I agree with the Senator from Alaska. By stopping our bill, opponents of S. 1420 and H.R. 2823 have sent a dangerous message to the other nations fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. That message could have dire consequences on dolphin conservation. If we were from those nations, we might feel the same way. They have satisfied the conservation goals set by the United States in the last 10 years, and now the United States has turned its back on them.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was very privileged to be in the Chamber as the senior Senator from West Virginia was making his remarks. I commend him for acknowledging one of our friends and leaders of the Senate who is going to be such a loss as we lose so many of our retiring Members who have contributed so much. I think Senator Byrd's comments about our good friend serve him very well. I wish I could have said them as eloquently, but I join with him in commending Senator Alan Simpson.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take the floor to make some comments on the current situation in this Senate with regard to relations with some of the other countries that we enter into negotiations with on a regular basis. I think today is a sad day for this country with regard to our relations with other countries with whom we negotiate treaties. In fact, this has been a sad week. This has been a sad Congress because despite the best efforts of many in this administration who have negotiated with friends and allies in other countries around the world for years, indeed decades, this Congress this session failed to follow through and ratify or approve these treaties that have been negotiated in good faith and signed by other countries including the United States. Just this session we failed to enact in this Congress a chemical weapons treaty. Yesterday, I took the floor to lament the fact that this Congress and this Senate has refused to ratify the OECD agreement on shipping, which was negotiated for years and years and years, which our country signed and every country that signed with us expected us to ratify. It will not even be brought up in the Senate. Indeed, it was a sad week, and today unfortunately once again I say how terribly disappointed I am that apparently the Tuna-Dolphin Treaty, which this and previous administrations have worked on, which this country has signed along with 10 other countries around the world, will not be enacted in this Congress. If I was a delegate from some other country, I would say, ``You know, I don't think I want to negotiate with the United States and spend a decade of trying to enter into an agreement which we all agree on and then have forces in the Congress stop it from even being considered.'' This Tuna-Dolphin Treaty, which we will apparently not bring up, was supported by the administration. I have letters from Vice President Al Gore, on two separate occasions, to the Republican leader, the Democratic leader, and to Members of Congress saying this is an important treaty, that it should be passed this session. Yet we have forces that say, ``No, it is not going to be considered. It is not going to be taken up.'' It is interesting that some will say it is not environmentally strong enough. The Vice President's letter to Senator Daschle and myself and to Senator Lott and everybody else points out the strong support that this treaty has from environmental groups, from fishing groups, from industry groups. It points out that this treaty is supported by major environmental groups including Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund--all have pledged their support. I commend them, because many times we have not been on the same side on some of these fisheries issues that I have been dealing with for over 20 years as a Member of Congress. But they recognize, as I do, that this agreement is by far the best agreement that countries could ever enter into, to allow an industry of multimillions of dollars to coexist with environmentalists who are legitimately concerned about protecting dolphin as fishermen are catching tuna in the same vicinity, the same areas. There have been strong editorials endorsing this agreement from the New York Times and from the Washington Post, saying that this, indeed, is a solid and sound environmental treaty and should be adopted by the Congress--and we are not going to even be able to bring it up. The countries around the world that do tuna fishing and have conflicts with dolphin, that have agreed to make major and significant changes to the way they catch tuna in order to implement this treaty, are now going to have the United States say: Well, we got you to negotiate it, we got you to sign it, we got you to make these concessions, we got you to put observers on your boats but, guess what, we are not going to ratify it now. Sorry, we were just joking. What kind of feeling do these countries that have spent these years negotiating with us have when they find out Congress is not going to follow through? Countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Belize, Honduras, France, and Japan, who fish in the eastern tropical Pacific, Spain, Colombia, Vanuatu, all of these countries have negotiated this agreement in good faith. Environmental groups have signed off. The Vice President of the United States has sent two strong letters saying this should be passed this year, yet we will not bring it up. I would say that those who think that they somehow are doing something to protect dolphin by killing this treaty are going to find that just the opposite will occur. When these countries that I have just read off find out the United States has turned its back on them at this late date, what incentive do they have to continue to follow the rules of this treaty? None. Mexico, for one, will probably--they should--file a GATT violation against our country because, right now, we are unilaterally banning the importation of tuna caught without following procedures that we have determined are the best procedures. That, in this Senator's opinion, is a clear violation of GATT because it sets into effect a unilateral embargo which is not based on science and not based on environmental concerns whatsoever. It is my opinion, if they proceed--and why should they not?--now to file a complaint against our country for a unilateral embargo of their product, then I suggest that, unfortunately, they will probably win that case against our country. But even more important than some case before a GATT commission, as serious as that is, I am very concerned that other environmental efforts that people negotiate and try to enter into agreements on with these countries will not be able to be reached. We have just worked very hard with Mexico in order to get them to agree--and the Presiding Officer now in the chair knows this--to get Mexico to agree to take certain actions to protect turtles in their area. We have to do it in our country, and our shrimpers are adversely affected, but we are doing it. We have tried to get other countries to follow the same rules and regulations that we are following in trying to protect turtles. Yet, when we tell them with this agreement, ``We do not care what you negotiate, we are not going to enact it,'' then they are not going to have an incentive to follow these new rules and regulations that they have agreed to. It is most unfortunate--most unfortunate--we are not able to enact this agreement, which has such far-reaching meaning as far as conservation is concerned. The current situation is, I think, not very good, frankly. We have all of our people who buy tuna in stores have it labeled ``dolphin safe,'' and that is supposed to mean it was caught without any dolphin being killed by the fishermen. But it only affects one type of fishing, and that is the encirclement method, where fishermen encircle their nets around an area where dolphin are in order to catch the tuna that are below the dolphin. But fishermen can currently use any other effort, from log fishing, from school fishing, from kill fishing for tuna with nets of a certain size, and kill dolphin in the process and still allow it to come into this country and label it ``dolphin safe.'' That is not dolphin safe, if you take it to mean that dolphin should not be killed. This agreement, for the first time, says we do not care how you fish, let us look at all the methods, and if the methods then produce tuna without any dolphin being killed, then you can label it dolphin safe. That is a huge improvement over the current situation, a huge improvement over the current practices by the industry out there because it looks at all methods of fishing, not just one method of fishing. So it is very unfortunate that we will not be able to enact this legislation. It really has been bipartisan. We have had professional scientists who are not Republican or Democrat negotiate this for years with these 11 other countries in addition to the United States. We have had strong bipartisan support from Senator Stevens, a cosponsor of this legislation with me; from Congressman Wayne Gilchrest from the House side, who has been a leader in this area; from Congressman Cunningham, who has been very helpful on this. There have been a large number of people and the environmental groups that have recognized this is by far the best opportunity because they see, as I do, these other countries in this area. I am so distressed that we are wasting this golden opportunity because I think, as other environmental groups think and feel, if we do not enact this treaty, we are going to lose the great progress that has already been made. These countries now that are trying to cooperate are going to lose any incentive to do so. I think, from the gill fishing industry and the sport fishing industry, when these countries see what we are doing to them, they are going to, all of a sudden, say why should we allow you to fish in our waters for marlin and for billfish? They can move in that direction, causing us great problems in those areas, not to mention they would lose their incentive to have observers on their boats, where they now have observers on every tuna boat that reports to the public exactly what happens. If we lose that, do some groups realize what we are losing? I suggest, in conclusion, we have missed a tremendous opportunity. This is the second time in 1 week I have come to the floor and had to say how unfortunate it is and how saddened I am by the fact we cannot approve agreements this country has entered into in good faith and that we have signed, because some people think they are not perfect. Nothing we do is perfect. But this agreement is a good, solid agreement. It should have been ratified. It should have been approved. Vice President Al Gore was strongly behind it. Responsible environmental groups were strongly behind it. Industry was strongly behind it. It almost makes you ask the question, how can this be? How unfortunate that is, the situation we are in, and I fear for the consequences in a number of areas, particularly environmental laws, rules, regulations and standards. I think they will come tumbling down as a result of this effort in killing this agreement today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take the floor to make a couple of comments about my extreme disappointment over the obvious fact that now this Congress will not be able to take up an agreement that has been worked on and negotiated for over 7 years that has now been completed but that will not be considered by our Congress through the ratification process. The agreement that I speak to is the so-called OECD agreement, which is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which has brought together the shipbuilding countries of the world, and after 7 years and two administrations negotiating this agreement and having the other nations of the world that build ships sign on the dotted line saying that this agreement is right for this time, unfortunately, this Congress, and this Senate in particular, will not be in a position to even bring it up for ratification. The bottom line is that this agreement, which has been negotiated for so long, has as its major purpose the ending of shipbuilding subsidies by the other countries of the world. In my time in the Congress, I have heard from people who work in shipyards, people who own shipyards, people who have shipyards in their districts and in their States, that if we could only end the other countries' subsidies to their yards, government subsidies, we in the United States could not only compete with these other foreign shipyards but we could do much better than they are doing. This agreement, I say to my colleagues and to all, does exactly that. After 7 years of negotiation under the leadership of the Clinton administration and Bush administration, both of which have said this is a priority, and this agreement has now been completed and signed, we at this last hour refuse to take it up because there are some in our country who have said it is not perfect so, if it is not perfect, we will not participate. The losers of this battle are the people who asked us to enter into these negotiations in the first place, the shipbuilding industry. It is unfortunate that now there is such a division among the industry that we in the Congress are not able to do something which helps everybody in a major way. I am committed to continue our efforts in the next Congress. I am fearful, however, that other countries will see the U.S. lack of ratification of this international agreement to mean that they will then be able to engage in their own subsidy wars once again, and that will be most unfortunate because, if there is anything which is clear, it is that this country cannot participate and cannot win an international subsidy battle with other countries willing to heavily subsidize their shipbuilding industries as a matter of national policy. We have no subsidies directly provided by our Government to our shipbuilding industry. That program, the construction subsidy differential program, was ended in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. He said we are not going to do that any more. Congress agreed, and there is no longer any shipbuilding subsidies in place for our yards in this country, but all the other countries that are major shipbuilders still have subsidy programs. This international agreement got them all to sit down at the table after 7 years and say, all right, if everybody agrees they are not going to do it, we are not going to do it either. That agreement is a win-win for the United States. Failure to ratify and approve that treaty is a lose-lose for the United States industry and the thousands and thousands of men and women who work in those industries, because if we do not enact this agreement and other countries continue to subsidize their yards, we will continue to lose business. We will continue to build only militarily useful vessels in this country and commercial shipbuilding will continue to go overseas to yards that are consistently subsidized by their governments, because in many of these countries shipbuilding is their biggest industry. It is not in our country, and therefore we do not subsidize it. This agreement would have put other countries on a level playing field with us. I am struck by the fact that at the last minute, when some of our industry people came in and said, well, we do not like this agreement because of this, that and the other, my staff, USTR people, many Members of the Senate and in the House sat down and said, all right, we will try to get what we can to fix it to address your concerns. Those who opposed the treaty said, well, they needed explicit clarification that the United States would not under any circumstances change our Jones Act, and we did that and clarified that in the treaty, that that would be exactly the way they asked for it. They said that they need explicit clarification that our national security interests would be protected by this treaty, and that the defense features and military reserve vessels would be outside of the agreement. And we put that into this treaty to be ratified. They said they needed 30 additional months of the current title 11 financing program for our shipbuilders to cover projects that were close to having their applications in. And we did that. They said they needed clarification that the limited restructuring subsidies for some countries, which were allowed under the agreement to four countries in order to reduce their shipbuilding capacity, would be actionable if they, in fact, increased their capacity instead of reduced their capacity. And we did that. It is unfortunate that, in the end, some would agree only on a perfect agreement. If anyone has been here longer than 2 weeks, he or she knows there are no such things as perfect bills, perfect legislation, or perfect treaties--or perfect anything. We are humans who try to do the best we can. Perfection is not something that we, oftentimes, are able to achieve. So, while this agreement may not have been perfect, we answered in each instance the opposition of those who continue to oppose this treaty. They, in my opinion, will be the ones who will ultimately suffer the most by their stopping this Congress from bringing forth this agreement for ratification. I know there are a lot of people who worked very hard. I commend Congressman Sam Gibbons, from the other body, who really tried to bring his people together on this issue. Senator Bill Roth, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, worked very hard with his staff to say, yes, let us meet to try to bring this together. Our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, tried to urge people to sit and negotiate. And also, particularly, Senator Trent Lott, the majority leader, who hosted meetings with the differing parties to try to bring people closer together, to say, yes, we should get this agreement in a posture to which everyone could agree. I will conclude, Mr. President. We have been ravaged, ravaged by the subsidy practices of other countries in the shipbuilding industries. This agreement that two different administrations hammered out and negotiated over a 7-year period was an effort to end those subsidy practices of those other countries so the United States, which does not have a direct subsidy program, would be able to compete with our competitors from around the world on a level playing field. Unfortunately, in the absence of this agreement being ratified by this body, we as a country have a signature on a piece of paper which is meaningless because we in the Senate could not bring the parties together to see the benefits of this agreement. It is a most unfortunate set of circumstances. It is unfortunate because there will be thousands of men and women who work in these yards every day who will be disadvantaged and who will be less competitive, not because they have less skills or are less productive, but because they are unable to compete with other governments. Our workers and our industry and our engineers and our technicians can compete with any other engineer or any other technician or any other worker anywhere in the world. But our workers cannot compete with other governments who are not concerned about making a profit. We cannot compete under those terms with another government that so highly subsidizes those industries in those nations. It is clear, at a time when we are talking about reducing Medicaid benefits, reducing welfare benefits, reducing benefits in Medicare, that we are certainly not going to start subsidizing our shipbuilding industries in the opposite direction. So I am extremely disappointed, but, as always, I try to always be optimistic. There will be those in the next Congress who will realize this was a tragic mistake. I say to the other countries around the world that they, too, should look upon this effort, not as a final failure on the part of the United States, but rather only a pause in the legislative process, and, in the next Congress, hopefully we will get back on track and get our industries together to allow this Congress, and particularly this body, to approve what I think is a good treaty. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, on July 9 the Senate passed H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Before this bill was reported out of conference, I spoke concerning the provision relating to section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, the possessions tax credit. The Senate passed version of this legislation had created a long-term wage credit for the 150,000 employees working in Puerto Rico. I supported this provision because it represented a major step forward for those working Americans in our poorest jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the House-passed bill contained no such long-term incentives for the economy of Puerto Rico and the conference agreement did not preserve the Senate position on section 936. Under the law as passed a wage credit for companies currently doing business in Puerto Rico was created. We need to carefully examine this wage credit to make sure it addresses the economic development needs of Puerto Rico. Mr. President, I am here today to express my interest in addressing the important issues of economic growth, new jobs, and new investments in Puerto Rico at the earliest opportunity. Growth in this region is very important and should be a concern to us all.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I commend Mrs. Sylvia Davidson Lott Buckley, Louisiana State poet laureate, for achieving the distinction of writing the only poem recognized by the State of Louisiana. Mrs. Buckley was inspired to write the poem, ``America, We the People,'' when she received a stick pin from her grandson, Hue Lott, inscribed with the words, ``We the people.'' Reflecting on the fact that justice is a most important word that all the rest of our government rests on, and that citizens are demanding freedom and justice for all, she wrote the poem within 25 minutes. The Louisiana Legislature passed, and the Governor subsequently signed, legislation that makes ``America, We the People,'' the Official State Judicial Poem. Mr. President, I would like to share Mrs. Buckley's poem with my colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record. I ask that this poem be printed in the Record. The poem follows: ``America, We the People'' The Official Louisiana Judicial Poem America We the people Justice, the word most sought by all, seek God to bless the courts with truth, for through His wisdom we rise or fall. America We the people Do honor this great lady fair, who with her mighty arms still holds, the scales of Justice for all to share. America We the people Do offer threads of hope to all, for Justice covers everyone; she does not measure, short or tall. America We the people Boldly make this pledge to thee that Justice will, in mind and heart, guide each destiny. America We . . . the . . . people.--Sylvia Davidson Lott Buckley, Louisiana State Poet Laureate.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, entitled the Boat Protection Act of 1996. The bill will attempt to stop an increasingly common problem facing America's marine manufacturers-- the unauthorized copying of boat hull designs. Such piracy threatens the integrity of the U.S. marine manufacturing industry and the safety of American boaters. A boat manufacturer invests significant resources in creating a safe, structurally sound, high performance boat hull design from which a line of vessels can be manufactured. Standard practice calls for manufacturing engineers to create a hull model, or plug, from which they cast a mold. This mold is then used for mass production of boat hulls. Unfortunately, those intent on pirating such a design can simply use a finished boat hull to develop their own mold. This copied mold can then be used to manufacture boat hulls identical in appearance to the original line, and at a cost well below that incurred by the original designer. This so-called hull splashing is a significant problem for consumers, manufacturers, and boat design firms. American consumers are defrauded in the sense that they do not benefit from the many aspects of the original hull design that contribute to its structural integrity and safety, and they are not aware that the boat they have purchased has been copied from an existing design. Moreover, if original manufacturers are undersold by these copies, they may no longer be willing to invest in new, innovative boat designs--boat designs that could provide safer, less expensive, quality watercraft for consumers. A number of States have enacted anti-boat-hull-copying, or plug mold, statutes to address this problem of hull splashing. These States include my State of Louisiana, as well as Alabama, California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. However, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bonito Boats versus Thundercraft Boats, Inc., invalidated these State statutes on the basis of Federal patent laws preemption. The legislation I am introducing today would address the concerns of hull splashing without attempting to amend the patent are copyright laws. Such nonintrusive initiatives are not new to Congress. In 1984, Congress acted to protect the unique nature of design work when it passed the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act. This act was designed to protect the mask works of semiconductor chips, which are essentially the molds form which the chips are made, against unauthorized duplication. I believe that the approach Congress took in that legislation would also be sufficient to protect boat hull designs. The Boat Protection Act of 1996 would work in concert with current Federal law to protect American marine manufacturers from harmful and unfair competition. I am introducing this bill today as a demonstration of my commitment to the immediate resolution of this problem, and since enactment of this legislation during the remaining days of the 104th Congress is unlikely, I intend to pursue this issue as priority in the 105th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the Boat Protection Act of 1996 and to join in this effort to protect the American public and the marine manufacturing community from the assault on American ingenuity caused by hull splashing.