John Breaux

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.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. Mr. President, I would like to start off by saying how much we all appreciate the work that Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and other members of the committee have done in bringing this legislation to the floor. It was interesting that one of our colleagues earlier said this is a new subsidy program. Well, it certainly is not a new subsidy program. We have had a maritime bill since 1936 which has done essentially what this bill does, and that is to support the American maritime industry. There is nothing new about this program. It certainly is not a new subsidy program. It is new only in the sense that it is a major reform plan. It is a major reform plan in a number of significant ways because we on the committee, and I think most Members of Congress, know that while the old program has been a great help to our American maritime industry, there were some ways it could be improved. I am not going to take a long time to hear myself talk on this proposition because I am not sure that there are right now any amendments even pending to the bill. I would like to think we ought to go ahead and pass it and move on to something else rather than spend time talking to each other about why we think it is a good bill. I have only heard one of our colleagues talk in opposition to the bill. I think we ought to go along and get it passed. If anybody has any amendments, bring them up, let us debate them and move on with them. I would like to point out that this is a major improvement. This is a major reform bill. No. 1, it greatly reduces the amount of money available to the American maritime industry to keep these private vessels available for the Department of Defense. It used to be running about $225 million a year. We have cut it by more than half. The assistance that is in this bill is less than half of what the assistance to the ships in the American fleet used to be. When there is a greater demand for more, we in this bill have come up with substantially less. So to those who say, well, we may have been spending more than we should have, this bill addresses it. Instead of $225 million a year being available to keep these ships afloat, this bill has $100 million a year. The second major improvement is that it is not an entitlement program. Throughout the history of the bill it has been an entitlement program. Whatever money was required was automatically available to the ship owners. This bill provides, for the first time--and this is a major, major change--that any of the assistance programs available to any of these ships has to be appropriated funds, appropriated by the Congress of the United States. It is no longer an entitlement program. That, obviously, is a major, major, and a very substantial improvement over the existing program. It is subject to annual appropriations. That simply means--we all understand this--that every Member of Congress will get to look at this piece of legislation and this program, see how it is working, see whether we can justify the money each year and, if so, appropriate those amounts of money. On the other hand, if they think it is not working, then we have the same ability to lessen those appropriations. I think this is an absolute minimum that cannot go down any further than this. As the distinguished Senator from Texas--and I was listening to her remarks--was talking about, this bill is important to the national security, the national defense of the United States. Simply put, we are spending a lot less money to have ships available in times of a national emergency than if we did not have this program, because if we did not have this program we would be spending up to $300 million per ship to have them just sit there and wait to be used in a time of national emergency. It is far better to say that we are going to help the operation of some American commercial vessels that are operating every day out there, that are crewed with U.S. men and women who have been trained and who are able-bodied seamen, who understand how to run these ships, do it every day, that we can call on those ships and say, yes, this is an emergency in a particular part of the world, and we need this ship right away to transport ammunition and equipment to some far part of the world to take care of a national emergency. If we had to spend defense dollars to have these ships sitting there when there is not an emergency, we would be spending a lot more money than a paltry $100 million. It would pale in comparison, if we had to build five or six $300 million vessels just to sit there in case someday we might need them and they will be there. Not only that, if we had the ships there, there is no guarantee the crew would be there. If the ships are just sitting somewhere in dry dock, what is the crew doing? The crew is not doing anything--it probably does not have a crew. So then you have to go out and find the crew members in the time of a national emergency. Guess what? They are not going to be there. So this legislation takes a very careful approach by helping to assist commercial vessels to operate with U.S.-trained crews, to have them available in times of a national emergency. They are ready to go from day one. And every private company that gets an assistance program under this legislation has to agree in advance that that ship will be available in times of a national emergency. That is what this program is all about. It has been there since 1936. I suggest that when everybody says, well, we should not have subsidy programs, let us start off by saying, well, let us eliminate subsidies all over the world. It would be a great world. But that is not the real world. We have agricultural programs which have subsidies. I have supported them. I think they are necessary. But we also ought to have programs that make sense from a national security standpoint, from a national defense standpoint. I suggest that this is that bill. This is not a new bill. This is not a new subsidy bill. It is a major reform bill subject to annual appropriations every year, and we have reduced the amount available by over 50 percent, from $225 to $100 million a year. That is a substantial and major, major change. The other good news is, it has always been bipartisan. This has never been a Democrat-versus-Republican piece of legislation. It has the support that we have today. The majority leader, Trent Lott, from Mississippi, strongly supports it. Senator Inouye from Hawaii strongly supports it. Senator Stevens strongly supports it. Senator Hutchison, from Texas, myself, from Louisiana, we all recognize that this is important for the national security of this country. It has always been bipartisan. The first proposal which, in fact, really moved toward reforming this program was by President Bush, who really, for the first time in a long time, got involved in this and really had a Secretary of Transportation, Andy Card, who really said, ``Yes, I'm going to put this deal together.'' And we worked on it in a bipartisan fashion. And, lo and behold, we now have this bill that President Clinton supports, that Secretary Pena has worked on for so long and so hard. It has been bipartisan. It was very similar before under President Bush and is very similar now under President Clinton and the Secretary of Transportation. So this is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. It has national defense implications. It is not a runaway program. We have drastically curtailed it. We have made it subject to annual appropriations. I suggest, let us get on with the voting. I mean, if we have amendments, let us offer them and let us debate them. Let us finish this. We are wasting time by just, I think, looking at it and talking about it and talking about it and talking about it and talking about it. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will just take a moment, but I say, that if the work on this legislation is any measure of the voters of Alaska and voters of Massachusetts, both of our colleagues will in fact be back in the next Congress to work on this legislation and many other areas. I just say to the Senator from Massachusetts, who has just spoken, that his fisheries area was on the brink of disaster, but because of his outstanding work on this legislation, I suggest that the New England fisheries are going to be much better off. Maybe not just this afternoon, but in the next year and the years after that and for the next several decades, that very vital fisheries area of the United States, the New England fisheries, is going to be better off because this bill will provide better science, better management tools for local fishery management organizations to manage the fisheries in that area. I think he deserves a great deal of credit, as does the Senator from Alaska, for putting together a bill that really has been nonpartisan. To be able to get the Gulf of Mexico and the New England fisheries to agree with the fishermen in the Northwest and in Alaska is quite a political achievement. I want to say to both of these leaders what an outstanding job they have done in bringing forward this piece of legislation. Millions and millions will be much better off because of their work today in this legislation. I want to also thank two members of my staff, Mr. Mike Parks, who has worked on this legislation for so long, and also my legislative director, Ms. Darla Romfo, for stepping in at the last minute. This is not her area, not her expertise, but she became a very quick expert in the area of fisheries. We thank them both for their effort. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill that reauthorizes the operations of the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]. The NTSB is an extremely important Federal agency, as evidenced by their professionalism in the investigation of the recent Valujet and TWA airplane disasters. Safety should be one of the paramount transportations issues confronting the Federal Government, and the Federal Government's paramount transportation safety agency is the NTSB. The NTSB deserves our support. I am particularly pleased to see that the NTSB reauthorization has been amended to include a new Title II, which would add the provisions of S. 1957, the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act Amendments Act. The Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Amendments Act is a bill which would address some of the problems which were created with the 1992 enactment of the original Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act. The purpose for enacting the original Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act was to ensure that intermodal shipping containers were not exceeding certain weight limitations. Overweight shipping containers constitute a significant threat to the safety of our Nations infrastructure. The principals of the original enactment were sound. Unfortunately, the implementation of that original Intermodal Safe Container Act has the potential to unnecessarily create a number of problems that could impede the transfer of intermodal containers and affect our international and domestic intermodal trade. A coalition of ocean shipping companies, trucking companies, railroad companies, ports and shippings have worked hard to develop a legislative proposal to address the problems that could be caused through the implementation of the original law. Senate Commerce Committee staff has worked to further refine the industry proposal. I believe that the provisions embodies in S. 1957, balance the interests of all segments of the transportation community, while at the same time preserving the original bill's intent to protect our infrastructure from overweight containers. This bill in no way impedes the application of current laws governing the safe transportation of hazardous materials As a Senator from the State of Louisiana, who represents the Port of the New Orleans, I understand the special importance of continuing to facilitate international and domestic trade in as safe a manner as possible. I urge my colleagues to support the NTSB reauthorization bill, and to help facilitate the implementation of the Intermodal Safe Contained Transportation Act. Amendment No. 5390 (Purpose: To amend chapter 59 of title 49, United States Code, relating to intermodal safe container transportation)

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Just to inquire of the Chair, under the existing agreement of the managers, is there time to discuss the amendment before the vote would occur tomorrow?

Mr. BREAUX. I will suggest at least a couple minutes on each side, for the author of the amendment and those who oppose the amendment, to make comments before we vote tomorrow. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX. I think we have more than one amendment at the desk in its current form.

Mr. BREAUX. Two minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to make comments about a bill that I have been fooling around with for almost as many years as I have served in the Congress. I remember quite well when I was in the other body and served as chairman of the Fisheries Committee back in 1972, I hate to say how long it has been that we started working on the concept, over 20 years ago, to say that the fishing areas around the United States belong to the people of the United States. At that time, we were being literally inundated by foreign fishing fleets from Japan and other nations which saw the areas around the coastal waters of the entire United States off of our 30 coastal States as very valuable areas. They were coming in and really displacing our own American fishing men and women, and doing it at a rate that would have soon, I think, destroyed the areas of the United States as far as fisheries is concerned. We came up with the Fisheries Management Conservation Act. It was a very long and drawn-out process that we entered into to come up with this legislation that said that these waters are going to be reserved for the U.S. industry first, and that you could only fish if you are a foreigner if you had a fishing agreement with our country that gave you an allocation of how much you could fish for. It was an interesting effort to try and get the foreign fishermen out. We came up with an acronym, one that I was proud of coming up with. The whole premise of the bill was to ``phase out foreign fishermen.'' We called it POFF. Puff--they were gone. Today, the foreign fishermen have been essentially removed from our U.S. waters. It is mainly now being fished by American fishing men and women, and the industry is really an American industry. So now the great challenge is not to keep the foreigners out, but rather to manage the stocks in a way that preserves them for the U.S. industry. This is what this legislation is about. All of the councils that we have around the country are composed of experts in the fishing area, men and women who represent recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, scientists, who serve on the fishing council, and their job is to come up with management programs for the various species. It took a long time to reach the point where we are today. Today, the challenge is sound management. You can only have good management if you have good science. You cannot come up with a fishery plan that makes sense if you do not know how many fish you have in the waters off of our coasts. Therefore, the science is incredibly important, to have the best available scientific information about the conditions of the stock. This legislation moves in that direction to allow for even better science to be obtained, to make these decisions. I applaud the Members who have been involved in insisting this be what our standard is. In addition, the question of bycatch, something that every fisherman is affected by: If you are fishing for shrimp and catching a lot of other fish that you are not targeting, you have a bycatch, an extra catch that you are not trying to do. We need a lot more studies on bycatch, on how to prevent bycatch without destroying the fishermen who are going after a targeted species. In this legislation, there is more work in that area as well. By and large, we have to resist the temptation for us to try and manage fisheries from here in Washington. I don't think we have a fish biologist as a Member of the Senate. We are not biologists. I don't think anybody has that background. We should make sure that the councils do the management plans, working with the National Marine Fishery Service. We have to be very careful if we try and say that the councils cannot do this or that because we in Washington know better. The councils have the first obligation of coming up with management plans based on science. Now and then, we get inundated by one particular group of fishermen, maybe recreational fishermen, that say, ``You have to ban all catches of red snapper,'' and then the commercial boys say, ``No, you need to catch more red snapper because there are a lot more out there.'' We are tempted to enact amendments to legislation here in Washington that would do fishery management from the floor of the Senate or from the Commerce Committee. I suggest that that is the wrong way to do it. We ought to strengthen the councils and not weaken them, and let them come up with the proper management plans. This is an issue that never has been Democratic or Republican; it's where you are from, the different areas of the northeast, the southeast, the gulf coast, and the Northwest. We have intermural battles here between Alaska and Oregon and Washington, between Texas and Louisiana and the gulf and Florida. But we have come together with this piece of legislation. I commend John Kerry and Ted Stevens for their ability to bring this product to the floor. Is it perfect? Of course not. Nothing here ever will be. But it is a good bill and one that makes sense. I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for their work. I support this legislation. We will monitor how it is implemented very carefully to see if further improvements can be made in the future. It has been a long time since 1976 and all those years since we tried to put this together. It is working. We can take a lot of credit and be proud of the work we have done. There is a lot more that needs to be done, and this legislation moves us in that direction. I support the legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to address the full Senate and the distinguished chairman of our Finance Committee, Senator Roth. On June 5, I suggested to the Finance Committee that it adopt a provision that would permit subchapter S corporations to sponsor ESOP's, or employee stock ownership plans. When the precise language of my proposal was published as section 1316 of H.R. 3448, I was disappointed to read that some of the special tax benefits that currently are available with respect to ESOP's would not be available in the case of an ESOP that acquires and holds subchapter S corporation stock. I would like to note that the provision in the bill before us related to employer securities and sub S ERISA plans is not to take effect until January 1, 1998. Between now and then, I will review how we can make it possible for subchapter S corporations to avail themselves of the special ESOP tax benefits, which will encourage greater use of this provision. After this review, I hope to be able to offer reasonable alterations to H.R. 3448 that will expand our policy of promoting employee ownership through ESOPs.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make technical changes to the Medicare hospice benefit which will ensure that high quality hospice services will be available to all terminally ill Medicare beneficiaries. Senators Mack, Graham, and Cohen join me in sponsoring this legislation, which is identical to H.R. 3714 introduced last month. This legislation is endorsed by both the National Hospice Organization and the National Association for Home Care, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Hospices help care for and comfort terminally ill patients at home or in home-like settings. There are more than 2,450 operational or planned hospice programs in all 50 States. In 1994, approximately 1 out of every 10 people in America who died were tended to by a hospice program, and 1 out of every 3 people who died from cancer or AIDS were cared for by hospice. Services provided under the Medicare hospice benefit include physician services, nursing care, drugs for symptom management and pain relief, short term inpatient and respite care, and counseling both for the terminally ill and their families. Terminally ill patients who elect hospice opt-out of most other Medicare services related to their terminal illness. Hospice services permit terminally ill people to die with dignity, usually in the comforting surroundings of their own homes with their loved ones nearby. Hospice is also a cost-effective form of care. At a time when Medicare is pushing to enroll more beneficiaries in managed care plans, hospice is already managed care. Hospices provide patients with whatever palliative services are needed to manage their terminal illness, and they are reimbursed a standard per diem rate, based on the intensity of care needed and whether the patient is an inpatient or at home. With 28 percent of all Medicare costs now going toward the care of people in their last year of life, and almost 50 percent of those costs spent during the last 2 months of life, cost-effective alternatives are needed. Studies show hospices do reduce Medicare spending. A study released last year by Lewin-VHI showed that for every dollar Medicare spent on hospice, it saved $1.52 in Medicare part A and part B expenditures. Similarly, a 1989 study commissioned by the Health Care Financing Administration showed savings of $1.26 for every Medicare dollar spent on hospice. I would ask unanimous consent that a summary of these studies be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Since 1982, when the hospice benefit was added to the Medicare statute, more and more Americans have chosen to spend their final months of life in this humane and cost-effective setting. Yet in recent years it has become clear that certain technical changes are needed in the Medicare hospice benefit both to protect beneficiaries and to ensure that a full range of cost-effective hospice services continues to be available. The bill I am introducing today makes six necessary technical changes. First, the Medicare Hospice Benefits Amendments of 1996 restructures the hospice benefit periods. The basic eligibility criteria do not change. Under this bill, as in current law, a person is eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit only if two physicians have certified that he is terminally ill with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Patients who elect to receive hospice benefits give up most other Medicare benefits unless and until they withdraw from the hospice program. While this bill does not change hospice eligibility criteria, it does change how the benefit periods are structured. Currently, the Medicare benefit consists of four benefit periods. At the end of each of the first three periods, the patient must be recertified as being terminally ill. The fourth benefit period is of unlimited duration. However, a patient who withdraws from hospice during the fourth hospice period forfeits his ability to elect hospice services in the future. Thus, a patient who goes into remission, and is thus no longer eligible for hospice because his life expectancy exceeds 6 months, is not be able to return to hospice when his condition worsens. This bill restructures the hospice benefit periods to eliminate the existing open-ended fourth benefit period and to provide that after the first two 90 day periods, patients are reevaluated every 60 days to ensure that they still qualify for hospice services. This restructuring ensures that those receiving Medicare benefits are able to receive hospice services at the time they need them and can be discharged from hospice care with no penalty if their prognosis changes. Second, the bill clarifies that ambulance services, diagnostic tests, radiation, and chemotherapy are covered under the hospice benefit when they are included in the patient s plan of care. No separate payment will be made for these services, but hospices will have to provide them when they are found to be necessary as a palliative measure. This change conforms the statute to current Medicare regulatory policy. Third, the bill also permits hospices to have independent contractor relationships with physicians. Under current law, hospices must directly employ their medical directors and other staff physicians. This creates a legal problem in some States which prohibit the corporate practice of medicine, and the requirement has made it increasingly difficult to recruit part-time hospice physicians. Fourth, the bill creates a mechanism to allow waiver of certain staffing requirements for rural hospices, which often have difficulty becoming Medicare-certified because of shortages of certain health professionals. Currently, about 80 percent of hospices are Medicare- certified or pending certification. Fifth, the bill reinstates an expired provision regarding liability for certain denials. As made clear by an article published on July 18 of last month in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, most patients are referred to hospice very late in the course of their terminal illnesses, but some live longer than 6 months. Predicting when an individual will die will never be an exact science, and we should not expect it to be. Therefore, the bill reinstates the expired statutory presumption that hospices with very low error rates on their Medicare claims did not know that denied benefits were not covered, and it expands the bases for waiver of liability to include cases where a prognosis of 6 months life expectancy is found to have been in error. Finally, this bill provides some administrative flexibility regarding certification of terminal illness. Currently, the statute requires that paperwork documenting physician certification of a patient s terminal illness be completed within a certain number of days of the patient s admission to hospice. This bill will eliminate the strict statutory requirements and give the Health Care Financing Administration the discretion, as it currently has with home health certifications, to require hospice certifications to be on file before a Medicare claim is submitted. The Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1996 are noncontroversial and should not affect Medicare spending, but they will make important and necessary changes to the Medicare hospice benefit, to enable hospices to provide high quality, cost effective care to the terminally ill, and to protect beneficiaries who depend on these services. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make technical changes to the Medicare hospice benefit which will ensure that high quality hospice services will be available to all terminally ill Medicare beneficiaries. Senators Mack, Graham, and Cohen join me in sponsoring this legislation, which is identical to H.R. 3714 introduced last month. This legislation is endorsed by both the National Hospice Organization and the National Association for Home Care, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Hospices help care for and comfort terminally ill patients at home or in home-like settings. There are more than 2,450 operational or planned hospice programs in all 50 States. In 1994, approximately 1 out of every 10 people in America who died were tended to by a hospice program, and 1 out of every 3 people who died from cancer or AIDS were cared for by hospice. Services provided under the Medicare hospice benefit include physician services, nursing care, drugs for symptom management and pain relief, short term inpatient and respite care, and counseling both for the terminally ill and their families. Terminally ill patients who elect hospice opt-out of most other Medicare services related to their terminal illness. Hospice services permit terminally ill people to die with dignity, usually in the comforting surroundings of their own homes with their loved ones nearby. Hospice is also a cost-effective form of care. At a time when Medicare is pushing to enroll more beneficiaries in managed care plans, hospice is already managed care. Hospices provide patients with whatever palliative services are needed to manage their terminal illness, and they are reimbursed a standard per diem rate, based on the intensity of care needed and whether the patient is an inpatient or at home. With 28 percent of all Medicare costs now going toward the care of people in their last year of life, and almost 50 percent of those costs spent during the last 2 months of life, cost-effective alternatives are needed. Studies show hospices do reduce Medicare spending. A study released last year by Lewin-VHI showed that for every dollar Medicare spent on hospice, it saved $1.52 in Medicare part A and part B expenditures. Similarly, a 1989 study commissioned by the Health Care Financing Administration showed savings of $1.26 for every Medicare dollar spent on hospice. I would ask unanimous consent that a summary of these studies be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Since 1982, when the hospice benefit was added to the Medicare statute, more and more Americans have chosen to spend their final months of life in this humane and cost-effective setting. Yet in recent years it has become clear that certain technical changes are needed in the Medicare hospice benefit both to protect beneficiaries and to ensure that a full range of cost-effective hospice services continues to be available. The bill I am introducing today makes six necessary technical changes. First, the Medicare Hospice Benefits Amendments of 1996 restructures the hospice benefit periods. The basic eligibility criteria do not change. Under this bill, as in current law, a person is eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit only if two physicians have certified that he is terminally ill with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Patients who elect to receive hospice benefits give up most other Medicare benefits unless and until they withdraw from the hospice program. While this bill does not change hospice eligibility criteria, it does change how the benefit periods are structured. Currently, the Medicare benefit consists of four benefit periods. At the end of each of the first three periods, the patient must be recertified as being terminally ill. The fourth benefit period is of unlimited duration. However, a patient who withdraws from hospice during the fourth hospice period forfeits his ability to elect hospice services in the future. Thus, a patient who goes into remission, and is thus no longer eligible for hospice because his life expectancy exceeds 6 months, is not be able to return to hospice when his condition worsens. This bill restructures the hospice benefit periods to eliminate the existing open-ended fourth benefit period and to provide that after the first two 90 day periods, patients are reevaluated every 60 days to ensure that they still qualify for hospice services. This restructuring ensures that those receiving Medicare benefits are able to receive hospice services at the time they need them and can be discharged from hospice care with no penalty if their prognosis changes. Second, the bill clarifies that ambulance services, diagnostic tests, radiation, and chemotherapy are covered under the hospice benefit when they are included in the patient s plan of care. No separate payment will be made for these services, but hospices will have to provide them when they are found to be necessary as a palliative measure. This change conforms the statute to current Medicare regulatory policy. Third, the bill also permits hospices to have independent contractor relationships with physicians. Under current law, hospices must directly employ their medical directors and other staff physicians. This creates a legal problem in some States which prohibit the corporate practice of medicine, and the requirement has made it increasingly difficult to recruit part-time hospice physicians. Fourth, the bill creates a mechanism to allow waiver of certain staffing requirements for rural hospices, which often have difficulty becoming Medicare-certified because of shortages of certain health professionals. Currently, about 80 percent of hospices are Medicare- certified or pending certification. Fifth, the bill reinstates an expired provision regarding liability for certain denials. As made clear by an article published on July 18 of last month in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, most patients are referred to hospice very late in the course of their terminal illnesses, but some live longer than 6 months. Predicting when an individual will die will never be an exact science, and we should not expect it to be. Therefore, the bill reinstates the expired statutory presumption that hospices with very low error rates on their Medicare claims did not know that denied benefits were not covered, and it expands the bases for waiver of liability to include cases where a prognosis of 6 months life expectancy is found to have been in error. Finally, this bill provides some administrative flexibility regarding certification of terminal illness. Currently, the statute requires that paperwork documenting physician certification of a patient s terminal illness be completed within a certain number of days of the patient s admission to hospice. This bill will eliminate the strict statutory requirements and give the Health Care Financing Administration the discretion, as it currently has with home health certifications, to require hospice certifications to be on file before a Medicare claim is submitted. The Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1996 are noncontroversial and should not affect Medicare spending, but they will make important and necessary changes to the Medicare hospice benefit, to enable hospices to provide high quality, cost effective care to the terminally ill, and to protect beneficiaries who depend on these services. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Let me start by acknowledging that following my good friend from Nebraska, who is indeed a close friend, I have a great deal of respect for his opinions, even though we disagree on the merits of the welfare legislation that will pass the Senate today as it passed the House yesterday. There is a great deal of second-guessing about the President's decision yesterday to sign the welfare bill. We have had statements by various Members as to whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. I think his decision was the correct decision, and it also, at the same time, is a very courageous decision. I know it was tough, but I think, ultimately, in signing the bill, the President will be doing the right thing. I think one thing that is clear, certainly when you get outside of Washington, is that the American people know that the current welfare system does not serve very well the people who are on it, who it was intended to help, nor does it serve very well the people who are paying for it: the American taxpayer. It simply is not working when you see generation after generation of families who have been on welfare assistance continue to be on welfare assistance. The goal of any welfare reform is to end welfare, not to continue it, not to perpetuate it. Since 1935, we have seen families really who have been locked in a prison of welfare dependency and have been shackled by the concepts that have continued generation after generation and decade after decade. The question is not should we change the system but how we change it. I think the President was absolutely correct in setting out the priorities. Welfare reform should be tough on work but good for kids. While that is a simple and catchy phrase, it also is the basis for the legislation that we are going to adopt. This bill is tough on work, but it says welfare is not going to be permanent, that it should be temporary, that it is a maximum of 5 years in a person's lifetime, and States can come up with a shorter period if they want. The goal of making work part of welfare reform is that we should be turning welfare offices, that for too long have only been an office giving out a check, into an office that helps people find a job. It was interesting this morning, a local TV station was interviewing a number of people who were actually on welfare, mothers with small children, who said they agreed with this legislation. They did not want to be on welfare for the rest of their lives. They wanted the welfare office to be a workfare office. They wanted the welfare office to be a job placement office. They wanted the welfare office to help them get off welfare. I think this legislation will do exactly that. The bill, I think, is very important in some of the things it does do, such as child care. This legislation provides about $14 billion for child care, particularly for mothers with small children, so that child care will be available so they can go to work. That is about $5 billion more than under the current law and $4 billion more than in the bill that the President was forced to veto because it was not good for children. This bill, in fact, is good for children. I was interested in some who have said, ``Well, after 5 years, we're just going to abandon families.'' There is nothing further from the truth. We were looking over the various programs that would still be available after the 5-year period is reached. There are some 49 Federal programs that are available for families and would continue to be available for families after they have reached their time limit of 5 years. This country, as strong as we are, is not going to be deserting families, is not going to be deserting children of families who have exceeded the time limit. There will still be a large number of programs that will provide direct assistance to these families after they have reached their time limit. This bill, I think, goes a long ways to correcting problems that the President addressed when he first vetoed the welfare bill. For instance, we maintain health care coverage through Medicaid for all those families who are eligible today, even though a State may change their welfare program. We clearly say that families that are on AFDC today will continue to be eligible for health care, and this, indeed, is very important. In addition to the child care, the President had very strong concerns about just arbitrarily block granting the Food Stamp Program, which is a Federal program, to the States. This bill guarantees that additional benefits will be available when need increases, such as during a recession. The program would still essentially be a Federal program. It would not be block granted to the States. I think, on balance, the President of the United States was absolutely correct and being courageous in saying, ``Yes, we are going to change the system; yes, we are going to try something different. And, yes, we are going to be tough on work for people who can work and, yet, at the same time, do good for children of those families.'' I think that is incredibly important.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, under that agreement, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what is the order of business?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to improve marine safety in the transportation of oil and petroleum products and to enhance the safety of our waterway navigational systems. It has been over 7 years since the Senate approved legislation addressing a comprehensive program regulating the transportation of oil and petroleum products, and mandating a system of responding to oilspills. Since the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, there has been a marked improvement in the safety of maritime transportation of oil. According to a recent study, after 1990, the volume of oil pollution from maritime sources in U.S. waters dropped precipitously, and has been reduced by over 75 percent. In addition, there has been a decreasing number of large volume oilspills. For instance, in the 5- year period between 1986 and the end of 1990, there were an average of 25 major and medium oilspills per year, however, since 1990, the average number of large and medium spills decreased 33 percent to approximately 16 per year. Despite these increases in safety there are other steps that can be taken to improve safety, and the bill I am introducing today will continue the improvement of the safe transportation of oil and other petroleum products. During consideration of the Oil Pollution Act, the Senate Commerce Committee held four hearings on the six different bills that were referred to the Commerce Committee. The end Senate legislative product incorporated the Commerce Committee's provisions on: The operations of oil tankers, enhanced Coast Guard authority to regulate the conduct of oil tankers and merchant marine personnel, requirements on Vessel Traffic Services [VTS] systems, marine oil transportation-related research, and oilspill contingency response plans as they pertain to vessels and offshore facilities. The Senate bill also included the Committee on Environment and Public Works provisions creating the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, increasing liability limits, and oilspill contingency response planning as it pertains to onshore facililities. I am introducing this legislation today to build on the Commerce Committee marine safety improvements that were incorporated into the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Title I of the bill would require the Coast Guard to finalize regulations on operational measures required for single-hull tankers, add certain new safety requirements for the tug- barge industry, and mandate a minimum underkeel clearance level for tank vessels. The bill also would create incentives to induce vessel operators to switch from single hulled vessels to double-hulled vessels in advance of their mandated phase out. The bill simplifies the procedures for resolution of oilspill claims, and allows vessel operators to consolidate all claims in one Federal proceeding. Title II of the bill will provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] with the authority to allow emergency regulations for fishing grounds closures to respond to health emergencies and oilspills. The bill would also require NOAA to provide scientific support on oilspill information. Also included in title II are provisions which would authorize a grant program to establish a nonregulatory program for reducing the risk of oilspills, and authorize NOAA to use the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for nautical charting. We are facing a critical juncture in the modernization of nautical charts, the United States has a responsibility to provide marine nautical chart users with accurate charts, and this provision would help NOAA to provide the shipping public with the most up-to-date navigational information. This provision also includes the authority to utilize private contractors to accomplish nautical charting objectives, and transfers the aeronautical charting responsibilities to the Federal Aviation Administration. Title III of the bill modernizes the regulations governing deepwater ports. When the Deepwater Port Act was enacted in 1974, it was projected that there would be numerous deepwater port facilities. In fact, there is only one deepwater port in existence today. The provisions of this title will help modernize the regulations, and conform the existing regulations to the realities of deepwater port operation. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing the effort to upgrade the safety of marine operations in the navigable waterways of the United States, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me take a couple of minutes to comment on something else, and that is the economic news that was announced today, which I personally am very proud of, as I think every Member of this Congress can be, and this administration can be proud of the news. I know when I look at my own State of Louisiana, Louisiana's unemployment in 1992 was 8.2 percent; 8.2 percent of the people in my State did not have a job. Today, the unemployment rate is 6.9 percent, a substantial drop. In 1992, the growth rate in this country was 2.7 percent, and the deficit stood at $290 billion. Today's growth rate figures of 4.2 percent is incredible progress, and we should be proud of it. Hopefully, we are moving in the right direction with regard to the Federal deficit. In 1992, we looked at a Federal deficit that had staggered up to $290 billion. Today's figures we are estimating are somewhere between $115 billion and $130 billion--still too high, but real progress. I was interested in just this week--and these are not just figures that apply in Washington. A lot of people back home say, ``Well, some Department in Washington issued figures I don't really understand.'' The hometown paper in New Orleans has a special report just this week on the economy in my State of Louisiana. It shows what we are talking about on the floor today, about this good economic news in Washington is good economic news throughout the United States of America. This is a special in the Times-Picayune in New Orleans. It says in comparison: A decade ago, the economic world as New Orleans knew it seemed over. The oil boom that had turned into the oil slowdown was now the oil bust. Almost before anyone knew what had happened, tens of thousands of jobs had disappeared from the local economy. . . Fast forward to 1996. Traffic is bustling-- On all of our roads and highways: Houses in prime neighborhoods seemingly sell in seconds. Banks are cheerfully advertising their services or rates. The oil and gas business looks pretty good. Residential building contracts in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and statewide are up through June from a year ago 11 percent for this area, 29 percent for the State. Get the picture? ``Fundamentally, the State's economy is in great shape,'' said Hibernia Corp. President Stephen Hansell. What I am trying to point out is that this is good news in my State and, I daresay, in the other 49 States as well. I was interested in how the article concluded: The Federal Government didn't manufacture it. And they talk about other things that didn't have anything to do with it. I want to make the point that I think the actions here in Washington did, in fact, have something to do with it. I think the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act had something to do with this. Many of my colleagues said this is going to destroy the economy of America; this Deficit Reduction Act is a terrible thing. The news today is that the results are in and the news is good news. The tough things that we had to do in 1993 to get this country back on a course of economic recovery have worked, and there should be celebration in the Congress for recognizing that something that was very difficult to do, in fact, was done. The deficit went from $290 billion to $115 billion to $130 billion. I say to the writers of this editorial that that had something to do with that economic boom. That meant that there was more money for private citizens, more money for the private economy to be able to borrow, to invest, to expand their businesses and to create jobs. That had a direct effect on the news today in my State and other States that things are on the right track, the economy is strong, that more jobs are being created. And it just cannot happen by accident. Some of the tough things we had to face when we voted for the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act in fact was very much a part of the economic recovery that we are seeing in Louisiana and the other 49 States. So I think we can all be proud to say that Government does sometimes do the right thing, even though at the time we do it there may be a great deal of questioning whether it is the right thing. Today the results are in and it was the right thing to do. And we will continue to do that. I think that we, as Democrats, can be proud of our activity in that area. I feel very strongly that we, as Democrats, can still promote economic growth by tax cuts that are paid for, the bipartisan group Chafee-Breaux, so-called, promoted a capital gains tax cut that was paid for. I think that is very important. We should continue to consider tax cuts for the economic growth. But we ought to make sure they are paid for, that they do not increase the deficit. A tax cut that merely increases the deficit may be easy to pass but it is bad economic policy. So I think that we should move forward with tax cuts of which I do support. The President has supported tax cuts. The $10,000 tuition tax deduction is one. The penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for educational expenses is another good economic policy that will be paid for. There is the HOPE scholarship tax cut, $1,500, again, which is a move in the right direction. So I think that we as Democrats can be proud of the results that are in today, and continue to look at new ideas in terms of tax cuts that are paid for to promote economic growth and development in this country. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to do what is necessary to promote the economic growth that we now see in the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to improve marine safety in the transportation of oil and petroleum products and to enhance the safety of our waterway navigational systems. It has been over 7 years since the Senate approved legislation addressing a comprehensive program regulating the transportation of oil and petroleum products, and mandating a system of responding to oilspills. Since the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, there has been a marked improvement in the safety of maritime transportation of oil. According to a recent study, after 1990, the volume of oil pollution from maritime sources in U.S. waters dropped precipitously, and has been reduced by over 75 percent. In addition, there has been a decreasing number of large volume oilspills. For instance, in the 5- year period between 1986 and the end of 1990, there were an average of 25 major and medium oilspills per year, however, since 1990, the average number of large and medium spills decreased 33 percent to approximately 16 per year. Despite these increases in safety there are other steps that can be taken to improve safety, and the bill I am introducing today will continue the improvement of the safe transportation of oil and other petroleum products. During consideration of the Oil Pollution Act, the Senate Commerce Committee held four hearings on the six different bills that were referred to the Commerce Committee. The end Senate legislative product incorporated the Commerce Committee's provisions on: The operations of oil tankers, enhanced Coast Guard authority to regulate the conduct of oil tankers and merchant marine personnel, requirements on Vessel Traffic Services [VTS] systems, marine oil transportation-related research, and oilspill contingency response plans as they pertain to vessels and offshore facilities. The Senate bill also included the Committee on Environment and Public Works provisions creating the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, increasing liability limits, and oilspill contingency response planning as it pertains to onshore facililities. I am introducing this legislation today to build on the Commerce Committee marine safety improvements that were incorporated into the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Title I of the bill would require the Coast Guard to finalize regulations on operational measures required for single-hull tankers, add certain new safety requirements for the tug- barge industry, and mandate a minimum underkeel clearance level for tank vessels. The bill also would create incentives to induce vessel operators to switch from single hulled vessels to double-hulled vessels in advance of their mandated phase out. The bill simplifies the procedures for resolution of oilspill claims, and allows vessel operators to consolidate all claims in one Federal proceeding. Title II of the bill will provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] with the authority to allow emergency regulations for fishing grounds closures to respond to health emergencies and oilspills. The bill would also require NOAA to provide scientific support on oilspill information. Also included in title II are provisions which would authorize a grant program to establish a nonregulatory program for reducing the risk of oilspills, and authorize NOAA to use the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for nautical charting. We are facing a critical juncture in the modernization of nautical charts, the United States has a responsibility to provide marine nautical chart users with accurate charts, and this provision would help NOAA to provide the shipping public with the most up-to-date navigational information. This provision also includes the authority to utilize private contractors to accomplish nautical charting objectives, and transfers the aeronautical charting responsibilities to the Federal Aviation Administration. Title III of the bill modernizes the regulations governing deepwater ports. When the Deepwater Port Act was enacted in 1974, it was projected that there would be numerous deepwater port facilities. In fact, there is only one deepwater port in existence today. The provisions of this title will help modernize the regulations, and conform the existing regulations to the realities of deepwater port operation. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing the effort to upgrade the safety of marine operations in the navigable waterways of the United States, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleagues regarding the VTS 2000 system. The study which was recently published by the Marine Board of the National Research Council concluded that ``there is a compelling national interest in protecting the environment and in providing safe and efficient ports and waterways.'' and that ``VTS can be a significant factor in enhancing the safety and efficiency of ports and waterways . . .''. Establishing VTS systems at our Nation's important ports and waterways is absolutely vital. Also, I agree with my colleague that the estimated cost to produce and field the systems has been dramatically reduced. In addition, I would like to highlight the fact that the estimated annual costs to operate the system once it has been deployed have also been greatly reduced. Whereas some have estimated the annual operating costs of a VTS system to be $65 million, the Coast Guard now believes that those costs will be only $42 million per year for installation at all proposed posts, which includes the $20 million currently being spent annually on five operational ports. I would also note that there are a variety of creative ways to meet those annual operating obligations which should be fully reviewed once a final VTS system is proposed.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I just say to our colleagues that if you want to continue mothers and children further to be eligible for Medicaid, you have to support this amendment. By opposing this amendment, you are saying to mothers and children in the future that you are going to be taken off, or could be taken off, Medicaid and health benefits without any further insurance. I think that is wrong.

Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 4931, As Amended

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will say, in response to the Senator from Texas, that there is bipartisan agreement, and the bipartisan agreement is that this is a bad idea: The National Governors' Association, the NGA, headed by Gov. Tommy Thompson, who I think is a leading Republican, opposes this measure. The NGA, in their letter to all Members of the Congress, say very clearly: The NGA supports a family cap as an option rather than as a mandate to prohibit benefits to additional children born or conceived while the parent is on welfare. What this amendment does is to require that the States affirmatively pass legislation to get out from under this mandate that people in Washington are sending down to the States. That is why the bipartisan NGA strongly opposes the provisions in the bill as it is written. They would like the option to do that if they want to, but they certainly do not want Washington to mandate that they cannot have assistance to children of a family who are born while they are on welfare, simply because they do not want to penalize the children. Be as tough as we want to be on the mothers and the parents, but not on the children. In addition to that, the Catholic Bishops' Conference, which has been very active, along with a number of other groups, feels very strongly this legislation should not have the mandate the bill currently has. They say very clearly that this provision would result in more poverty, hunger and illness for poor children. This is something that gets me. They say, ``We urge the Senate to reject this measure which would encourage abortions and hurt children.'' I am not sure everybody comes down on these, but I think when you have the Catholic Bishops' Conference saying, if a mother is faced with that choice, abortion becomes a real option, they think they should not be encouraged and, therefore, they do not support Washington mandating that States have to take a certain action. Let them have the option. If we strike this provision, the State has the option to deny additional benefits to additional children if they want to, but we should not be dictating to the States on a block grant welfare program how they have to handle this situation. I strongly urge that we not move to waive the Byrd rule.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding. Is this bill perfect? Of course not. Nothing that we as humans do is ever perfect. But is it a bill that desires and needs and deserves our support at this time in order to send it to conference? The answer, I think, is clearly yes. President Clinton said that the goal of welfare reform should be to be tough on work, but good for kids. This bill is tough on work. It sets time limits for how long someone can be on welfare. It sets out work requirements. It tells teen parents, for the first time, that they have to live with an adult or with their parents. It is a tough bill on work, but it is also a bill that is good for kids. This bill has the same language on vouchers as a bill that passed this body 87 to 12. I would have liked the Ford amendment to pass. But the language is exactly what we passed already 87 to 12 when it comes to taking care of families after this time limit on welfare is determined. There are about 49 programs that will be available to families after the 5-year limit is reached; 49 separate programs that we in America say we are going to make available to families. We have corrected the Food Stamp Program with the Conrad amendment. It is still an entitlement program. We have preserved the Medicaid health protections for families and for children, and for pregnant mothers. It is still an entitlement program. We have added $5 billion to what passed this Senate in terms of child care. We have current law on child welfare protections for foster care because of our amendments. We have SSI cash payments for disabled children, social service programs for children under title XX, housing assistance, child nutrition assistance for children, the school lunch program, the school breakfast program, and the summer food program. This bill is not perfect. But it is a major step in the right direction. It deserves our support and our vote to send it to conference and see if it can somehow be improved. It is not a perfect bill. But I would suggest it is a major improvement over the current system.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Motion To Waive The Budget Act--Amendment No. 4910