John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I just want to make sure we are not trying to hide the program so well nobody will ever find out anything about it.

Mr. BREAUX. Could they mail it to the disabled?

Mr. BREAUX. Is the Senator saying the Social Security Administration could not use funds to print a brochure to describe the benefits?

Mr. BREAUX. The Senator is aiming at door-to-door solicitation and running ads advertising the program, but other than that, communicating by any other means would be legitimate communication?

Mr. BREAUX. Would the Senator's amendment prohibit the Social Security Administration from getting a list of people who are disabled from the county health authority and then sending them a brochure describing what the benefits are?

Mr. BREAUX. Let me ask the Senator this question. Would his amendment prohibit the Social Security Administration from getting a list from the county health authority on people who are disabled and then sending them a brochure telling them about the benefits?

Mr. BREAUX. I am wondering how they would find out about the program. How?

Mr. BREAUX. My concern is we are taking about a disabled person who may be homebound and who cannot get out. They are disabled. We are talking about disabled people. That person is disabled. How are they going to find out about the program if you cannot tell them about it?

Mr. BREAUX. The concern I have is that it is sort of like we will have a Federal program, but we are going to hide it; that we are not going to let anybody know about it. I do not think that a Federal agency should go out and recruit people to benefit from a program. If a program is a legal program, I am concerned about getting to the point of trying to say we are going to have this program but we do not want to tell anybody about it. If you are lucky enough to find out about it on your own, maybe you could come and apply for the benefits. We are talking about people who are disabled. A lot of them are disabled. They cannot get anywhere. How do they find out about it?

Mr. BREAUX. Would his amendment prohibit publishing a brochure describing what the program does?

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for yielding because the Senator is making an incorrect statement. Under the amendment that I am going to offer, which I happen to have written, it is very clear that the vouchers do not go to the parent or to the children. They go to a third party. They go to the people who provide the services. They cannot be given to the parent by law. They do not go to the parent. They do not go to the child. They go to the person who provides the benefit, the clothing, or the food, or perhaps a 2-year-old child whose parent has been cut off of welfare. I ask the question of the Senator. What would he say to a small child whose parent has been cut off of any assistance and that kid could not have the food? What does he say to that kid?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the second degree amendment I am offering with Senator Johnston that would give $500,000 to the Department of the Army for environmental protection activities at Fort Polk, LA. Earlier this month my distinguished colleague and I were able to include a provision in the Department of Defense authorization bill that would transfer acreage in the Kisatchie National Forest to the Army at Fort Polk. That amendment will allow Fort Polk to expand its training exercises while continuing its unique mission of providing our troops the best training possible at the Joint Readiness Training Center [JRTC]. I am pleased we were able to work with the managers of the authorization bill to have the transfer provision included in the bill. On this pending amendment, I would like to thank Senators McCain, Stevens, and Inouye who have been very cooperative in working with Senator Johnston and me to appropriate $500,000 for environmental protection at Fort Polk. This funding will ensure that the high standards of land and environmental management are maintained at the newly expanded JRTC. The Army can use this funding to continue surveying and marking trees that are inhabited by the red-cockaded woodpecker. In its current operations, the Army establishes a 62-meter buffer zone around these trees to alert military personnel and the public to stay clear of the area. The Army also posts signs to clearly mark archeological sites, such as cemeteries and Indian burial grounds, and other sensitive areas. This $500,000 will enable the Army to continue providing this and other important environmental programs at the JRTC. I appreciate the help Senator McCain and the managers of this bill have given Senator Johnston and me on this amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Stevens in a colloquy regarding the privacy rights of individual citizens who engage in legal gambling activities. The Gambling Impact Study Commission Act (S. 704), which I cosponsored and support, is intended to conduct a thorough study of issues related to legalized gambling. Private citizens who engage in legal gambling activities, dine in a casino restaurant or stay in a casino hotel, should also have their right to privacy protected. The sponsors of this bill and other Members of the Senate have been careful to state that the intent of this bill is to conduct a thorough study of the gaming industry while protecting the privacy rights of individual gamblers. I understand that this legislation addresses the privacy issue by prohibiting the release of individual information unless it is in aggregate or summary form and that there are sufficient criminal and civil penalties to prevent public release of such information. In addition, this legislation is intended to be consistent with any other law which offers privacy protection to American citizens, including the Privacy Act of 1974. Would you agree that the intent of this legislation is to provide the Commission with the necessary tools to gather the information it needs while protecting the privacy rights of Americans? It is my understanding that it is estimated that between 4 and 6 percent of gamblers are compulsive gamblers. Is it correct to assume that, although the Commission can subpoena the information, it would not have a need for the personal records of private citizens, including the vast majority of individual gamblers who are not considered compulsive gamblers?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Stevens in a colloquy regarding the enforcement of a subpoena issued by the Gambling Impact Study Commission. The vast majority of Federal commissions created by Congress in recent years have not possessed subpoena power. Of the few commissions in the past that have been granted subpoena power, and in this case I support it, the authority to enforce a subpoena was typically placed with the U.S. Attorney General. For example, legislation which established the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Commission on Government Procurement, and the President's Commission on Organized Crime expressly specified the Attorney General's involvement in any action to enforce a subpoena. The language of S. 704, the Gambling Impact Study Commission Act, provides that ``* * * the Commission may apply to a U.S. district court for an order requiring that person to comply with such subpoena.'' It is my understanding that the Attorney General, which has expertise in this type of matter, could be asked by the commission to seek enforcement of a commission subpoena, and it is often the case that the Attorney General is asked to do so.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, last week on Tuesday, July 9, the Senate passed H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. I rise today to speak about the provision in that bill relating to Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Possessions Tax Credit. The Senate passed version of this legislation creates a long-term wage credit for the 150,000 employees currently working in Puerto Rico through section 936 of the code. Without question, this provision represents a major step forward for those working Americans in our poorest jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the House passed bill contains no such long-term incentives for the economy of Puerto Rico. I want to urge the Conferees, under the leadership of the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Moynihan, to preserve the Senate position on section 936. Also, at the earliest opportunity we should address the important issues of economic growth, new jobs, and new investments in Puerto Rico including the proposals offered by the Governor of Puerto Rico, Pedro Rossello, to replace the possessions tax credit.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will start by congratulating the Senator from North Dakota for his comments in outlining what I think is a realistic and doable agenda; that is, the families-first agenda. I think that we as Democratic Members can be very proud of putting forth an agenda that is realistic, it is doable, it is not slogans, it is not pie in the sky, it is not sound bites, it is not ideas that have been proposed by public relations firms after doing polling when they look forward to concentrating on the next election, as opposed to trying to look at the real needs of real Americans in the real world. I think the families-first agenda is, in fact, an agenda that talks about real problems and coming up with real solutions that are achievable, because while we can talk about slogans and goals, our business in this body is to legislate in a way that has a real effect on people. I think that some of the early statements we have had in this Congress about things that should be done have been received by many people with a great deal of concern as to whether they are really ever going to happen. As we move to the end of this Congress, I think a lot of Americans have said, ``Well, you know, I heard about contracts and I heard about proposals to amend the Constitution and to do all types of things, and it never happened.'' The reason it never happened is because they were unrealistic goals in the first place. What we have to deal with is what is doable, what is accomplishable and how to take those step-by-step efforts to reach the goals that people expect us to achieve. That is why I think the agenda that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has outlined is one that is realistic. It is one that the average family, when they sit around the dinner table at night talking about their concerns and what they would like to see happen, are items they talk about: security, a reasonable paycheck, reasonable health insurance, a reasonable opportunity to send their children to college. They are not talking about philosophical ideas. They are not talking about major amendments to the Constitution, which has served us very well for over 200 years. They are talking about real-life problems that they face every day, and they just wish that Congress could work together in getting some of these things done. I think progress is being made. The minimum wage legislation that was passed, I think, was very positive. We continue to work on the so- called Kennedy-Kassebaum health care program, which would be a major accomplishment and one that I think is very doable. I am pleased to say that I think we can get something done on that legislation in this Congress. We are very, very close and optimistic about it. It is going to take some compromise on both sides, but I think the end result will be much better in having something done than it will be in not accomplishing it and just blaming the other side for failure, which we do far too often around here. I would like to concentrate on one of the items that is part of the families-first agenda, and that is real welfare reform. One of the problems, I think, that has prevented us from accomplishing it so far is the insistence by many on the Republican side of trying to put together a piece of legislation that we basically are close to agreeing on, welfare reform, and tying it to something we do not agree on, and that is Medicaid. By doing so, we guarantee that nothing will happen on either one of the two bills, as far as getting something adopted. I was encouraged to see this morning in Commerce Daily the fact that there has been what is reported as a general consensus by House Republicans to push ahead on welfare reform by itself. I think that is something that our colleagues in the Senate should also consider. If we are very close to reaching an agreement on one major reform of an entitlement program, why not go ahead and accomplish it, why not go ahead and do it, why not give the American people a real welfare reform package that we all can say we joined hands and came up with an agreement that makes sense? There are some, I think a diminishing minority, who say, ``No, we're going to have to tie welfare reform to Medicaid reform.'' Why? I do not know. Perhaps some want to do that just so they will have the President veto it and then have a political issue. But I do not think there is a great deal more to be gained by blaming each other for our failures. I think most people in this country outside of Washington would like to see both sides work together and do what we can agree on, set aside what we cannot agree on for later debates and later work, even into the next Congress, if necessary. So I think that the suggestion by House Republicans in growing numbers and apparently being discussed by a number of Republican Senators on this side to do what we can do, that being welfare reform, and doing it separately makes a great deal of sense. I am absolutely convinced that if we are able to come to the Senate floor on a welfare reform package, that we can reach an agreement. I think we are very, very close, and I think that is something that clearly should be done. We all know that Government cannot provide all the solutions to all of our problems all of the time. That is why I think that the consensus that is developed on welfare reform makes so much sense. We all agree that welfare reform requires work. The goal of welfare reform should be getting people off welfare. The goal of welfare reform should be ending welfare and putting people into jobs in the private sector and, when necessary, with some Government help and assistance. First of all, we can all agree that real welfare reform is about work. We also, I think, all agree that welfare cannot be forever, that there has to be a time limit, there has to be a termination. I think we all understand that, if people think there is no end to what they may be receiving, in fact there will not be the incentives to move into the private sector in the work programs. So, first, I think welfare has to have time limits. It has to be about work. But it also has to be, Mr. President, about protecting innocent children. I do not think there is anyone in this body who would say that we want to be so tough on work that we adversely affect innocent children who did not ask to be brought into this world. They are here in many cases as innocent victims. We ought to make sure that any reform also protects children while it is very tough on work requirements and very tough on the parents. So I think we have a consensus that is right here. It is right at our fingertips. And there is no reason why we should not go ahead and do what is doable and what we can accomplish and then we can all take credit for it politically. This is an election year. I think that when we go back home and say that together Republicans and Democrats have worked out a plan to end welfare as we know it, the American people will say, ``Thank goodness. They have gotten something accomplished.'' I think there is a great deal of agreement on how to go about doing it. It is not total agreement. There are still major items that need to be worked out. But I think that it is very clear that we can accomplish this. I think every indication is that the President wants to sign a welfare reform bill but knows that the current Medicaid plan is not yet ready. We have Republican Governors who just, apparently, yesterday, in talking with their Republican Senate colleagues, talked about the fact that they are very displeased with the Medicaid plan that has come out of the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve. So if you have Democratic Governors saying, ``Look, I don't think this is ready yet. We don't like it,'' and you have Republican Governors who have to run the program saying, ``No, we don't think this product is what we want,'' that sends us a message. Let us set that aside, continue to work on it, but go forward with that which we can agree on. And that means the welfare plan. I think, if we were able to separate it, we could get that accomplished. If we tie them together, we are dooming welfare reform to defeat. Maybe some people think that is a good idea politically because then we can blame the other side. They will blame us and everybody will blame each other. The American public outside Washington will say, ``What are they talking about? They should be talking about getting something done, not blaming the other side for failure.'' Failure is not politically acceptable in the area that I come from. I think we do much better when we get something accomplished. The Work First Act that we have, as Democrats, offered as part of this package, I think, is a major step in the right direction. Can it be further improved? Probably. I am willing to work in that regard. But I think it makes some principal points that I think are the essence of real reform. Assistance is conditional. It is not really an entitlement. People have to be able to move into the work force or perform community service. That is real reform. It is limited. There is an actual time limit on how long a person or their family can be on welfare. The general consensus is that 5 years is an acceptable amount over a lifetime. We know it cannot be forever, and our bill says that. It requires teen parents--which is a major problem--to live at home or live in an adult setting. Children who are having children cannot be left on their own without adult supervision. Our legislation requires a teen parent to live at home and to attend school as a condition to receiving welfare benefits. But we also say that to the innocent child, and many of them are babies out there, that we are going to guarantee that there be child care and health care for those children. I want to be as tough as I possibly can on the parent because they are the ones who brought the child into the world. They have a responsibility. They have to live up to it. But there are the innocent children that we, as a society, have to say we are going to reach out to and make sure they are given child care so the parent can go to work and they are going to have health care so they can remain healthy and growing children. We also want to make sure that at times when there is a recession they are not left high and dry, that funding will be available for child care and for health care. We want to give the States all the flexibility they need. What works in my State of Louisiana may not be acceptable in California or New York or Florida or any of the other States. What they do in their States may not fit my State. So we want to give the Governors in the States a tremendous amount of flexibility. I think the bottom line in all of this is that we have a program that can change the welfare system in our country to bring about real reform and at the same time save a great deal of money. Our plan is projected to save nearly $50 billion. That is real reform. At the same time, it protects the needs of innocent children. So we have a good program. So I urge today that as part of the family-first agenda that we have put out on the table--one ingredient is the welfare reform package--but my plea to our colleagues is to not let other issues doom welfare reform to defeat, do not tie welfare to things that we do not have an agreement on. I think that would be a very, very serious mistake. I think our Finance Committee has done some good work, quite frankly, in a bipartisan fashion. The chairman of the committee, Senator Roth, was able to work with those of us on the Democratic side to add some amendments to the package that make it a better package, one that is more acceptable to the administration and one that can actually become law with a few additional minor changes. But the only way we can fail in this effort is to desire failure. I think, unfortunately, there are some in the Congress who would like to see that happen. I suggest that that is not the way to go. So let us get on with what we can accomplish, do what we can do, and then I think the American public will be able to say that Congress had the opportunity to do what was right, met that challenge, and did exactly that in welfare reform, a good place to start. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I assure the two distinguished leaders that I have no intention of objecting--I will just say that I congratulate both leaders for being able to reach this point where I think there is, indeed, light at the end of the tunnel. I think that the courtesies that they have shown to me and to other Members of this body on both sides of the aisle really is a very positive indication of the cooperation that will allow us to get through the list of judges that have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. I also would echo the comments by the two distinguished Senators from Nevada about how far they have been able to go, and I thank them for being willing to cooperate on the Defense authorization bill which I know is very, very important. I congratulate both leaders for the work that they have done. I think this is a spirit of cooperation that we need more of. I congratulate both of them for their work.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment I offered with Senator Johnston transferring acreage in the Kisatchie National Forest to the Army at Fort Polk, LA. Fort Polk has a requirement for additional maneuver training lands to support its mission of conducting joint readiness training for Army rotational units as well as maintaining the combat readiness of units permanently home stationed at Fort Polk. Fort Polk, home of the Joint Readiness Training Center [JRTC], is very important to the Nation's overall military readiness and national security. It is the only place in the world where light infantry brigades are trained as a unit, complete with Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps units. Between 50,000 and 64,000 troops are trained at Fort Polk every year. This amendment will enable Fort Polk to expand its training exercises while continuing its unique mission of providing our troops the best training possible. At the JRTC, our troops participate in training scenarios that help prepare them for all type of missions, including combat, and the terrain in the Kisatchie Forest provides our troops ideal training area for this purpose. We need to ensure that Fort Polk's unique role in training our soldiers continues. Our goal is to train our troops effectively and in an environmentally sensitive way. This is an important point. Some concerns have been about the environmental impact this transfer would have but if you look at the Army's record over the past 5 years, this criticism is unfounded. Fort Polk is a good neighbor and steward of the natural resources they manage. Fort Polk has received a nonjeopardy opinion for both their recovery plan and their training plan regarding the red-cockaded woodpecker on the JRTC. In less than 3 years the woodpecker population has almost doubled. Fort Polk has also won several awards for its conservation and preservation efforts around the JRTC. Additionally, if this transfer occurs, the Army would comply with all applicable Federal laws including National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. This amendment would give the Forest Service and the Army 6 months to sit down and try to negotiate a transfer. Ideally, we would like this issue to be solved administratively and have both sides sit down and try to figure out a way to work this out. But if that can't happen, this amendment would automatically transfer the land. The JRTC can't wait a decade for this important transfer to happen. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense will seek to identify an equal number of acres, not required for military use, for conveyance to the Forest Service in exchange for this land. We also provide that if the Army no longer needs the land, it would be transferred back to the Forest Service. All existing land uses for fish and wildlife, hunting, and forestry operations would remain. I have also heard from private landowners who are concerned about the impact the transfer would have on them. Our amendment tries to address this concern by prohibiting the Army from expropriating any private property in the forest. The Army would still be able to enter into negotiations with willing sellers but could not condemn any private land. To address the concerns of these groups and others, this amendment also provides for a period of public comment when the Army develops a management plan to ensure that the concerns of the local citizens are taken into account. While there is some opposition to this transfer, there is also widespread support for it from the local communities. The transfer has been endorsed by the city councils in Leesville, DeRidder, Pineville, Many, Alexandria and Natchitoches, Beauregard Parish, the Vernon Parish Chamber of Commerce, and the Vernon Parish School Board. They understand that if the Army doesn't get this additional land, the future of Fort Polk and the surrounding communities could be affected. The fort has an annual economic impact in Louisiana of approximately $720 million. Mr. President, the bottom line is that our Army needs to train its infantry brigades in the most realistic manner possible. The time for our soldiers to prepare for combat and other situations is during training at the JRTC, not while in harms way. The additional land we are seeking will give the JRTC the resources it needs to properly train our Armed Forces and make them ready to meet military challenges when they arise. As importantly, we authorize this transfer with conditions attached which are sensitive to environmental and private property owners' needs. I thank Senator Johnston for his leadership and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I think our Democratic leader is on his way. I will certainly yield to him at the time he comes for any remarks he would like to make. But I would like to just take some time in his absence to comment on one of the comments made by the majority leader, Senator Dole, regarding welfare and welfare reform. I think there is a growing consensus on behalf of both sides of the aisle that a welfare reform bill is achievable. It is achievable in this Congress this year. I think we are getting very, very close. The President of the United States has said some favorable things about the welfare plan that has been proposed by the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Senator Thompson. I think the President made it very clear on the previous bill, the so-called Dole-Gingrich welfare reform bill that the President vetoed, that he vetoed it for a very specific reason. He vetoed it because it did not provide for adequate health care for children and he vetoed it because it did not provide for additional child care funding for children of welfare parents. The President's stated position on welfare reform is that it should be tough on work but also should be good for children. I think that is the right approach. I do not think there is anyone in America who wants to be tough on welfare who wants to be tough and unfair to innocent children who did not ask to be born into this world. Yes; be tough on the parents. Yes; put time limits on welfare. Yes; cut able-bodied parents off of welfare if they refuse to work. But let us make sure that this Nation, as great as it is, takes care of innocent children who did not ask to be born. So I think the President made it very clear he would support his understanding of what was in the Wisconsin plan if it, in fact, took care of children by providing Medicaid or health care for those children and also additional child care funding. That is why he vetoed the previous welfare bill that had been sent to him, because it simply did not provide for those two major ingredients. If the Wisconsin plan meets those standards, I think it is one that can be signed. I think the comments of the President yesterday while he was in Wisconsin really said exactly that, that he would support a welfare reform even if it's a Republican plan, or a Democratic plan; it doesn't make any difference who has authored it. But he also said, ``So, what I say, if this is Senator Dole's plan''--meaning a plan that provided for health care for children and for child care funding for children, that, if that is in the plan, ``I think what he ought to do is pass his plan through this Congress before he leaves the Senate and I will sign it.'' That was a statement that I agree with, that, if a plan is presented that provides medical care for innocent children and if it is a plan that provides for child care funding so the parents can go to work, then it is a plan that, indeed, the President would want to sign. So I think we are close. I commend the latest plan that I saw coming from our Republican colleagues for the closeness that it allows the two bodies to get together on an agreement. What I point out is that my review of what they are trying to do with their plan is, I think, very positive, in the sense that it does some things in the direction of providing more for child care, a very positive thing; it has tough new work rules in the Republican proposal, and that is good; it has a larger contingency fund for States in an economic downturn, and that is good. So there are a number of really good things in the new Republican plan that moves it closer to what we as Democrats have been trying to get accomplished. But there are, I think, some deficiencies. I think these deficiencies are not such that they cannot be corrected, but the deficiencies, I think, are significant. For instance, they provide no vouchers for children after the parents have been cut off of welfare assistance. What do you do, I would say to our colleagues, when you tell a parent you are not going to get any more assistance after 2 or 3 years--what are you going to say to a 2-year-old child, a baby, an infant, or a child that has no way to support itself and gets sick? Are we not going to have any help for innocent children? I think that is wrong. Be as tough as we possibly can on parents and make them go to work and say, ``If you don't go to work, you are going to lose your benefits,'' and say, ``There is a certain time limit that you have to get to work if you are capable of doing it.'' But, unfortunately, there are going to be some who do not meet those standards and unfortunately they are going to be some children who are going to be innocent victims unless we find a way to take care of them. I suggest if we do not take care of them in the short term we are going to be spending a great deal more money in the long-term taking care of medical problems. So I suggest that we ought to bring up the welfare bill as soon as we can. Do not tie it down with other things that are still in dispute, like Medicare or Medicaid or other controversial issues. Let us face it. If we can get an agreement on welfare, let us do it and let us quit arguing about who will get the credit. There is enough credit for everybody. Everybody will win if we come to an agreement that makes sense. But everybody loses if we continue to fight it from a political standpoint and not address it from a humanitarian standpoint. Let us be tough on reform, but help children. I am encouraged we are getting closer on welfare reform. I will again say the new proposal from the Republican side is a very positive step. This allows us to sit and negotiate over just a couple of items and be able to say, ``Yes, we can produce a bipartisan welfare plan which will be good for the country.'' I hope we can do it very quickly. I think it can be a product this President will sign very quickly. So what if you have a signing ceremony and Senator Bob Dole comes down and President Bill Clinton comes down and signs the same piece of legislation. Is that not good for this country? Is that not why we are supposed to be here? I think the answer is yes. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, since no one is apparently waiting to speak.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, Herb Stein, the economist and sometimes humorist, once said, ``If your horse dies, we suggest you dismount.'' Mr. President, both parties today are trying to ride a dead horse. We have both been there and done that before. It did not work then. It is not going to work now. If only Democrats vote for the Democratic budget, it will not pass. If only Republicans vote for the Republican plan, it will pass, but it is not going to become law. There is another way. Our centrist coalition of over 20 Senators, half Democrat and half Republicans, have, in fact, offered a better way. The American people are watching us today and hoping that just once we can come together, meet in the middle, and get it done. Let me be very honest and acknowledge that our one-half of 1 percent adjustment to the Consumer Price Index is politically difficult for everyone. But let us all be honest with ourselves and to the American people and acknowledge that it is the right thing to do. If we do nothing, by the year 2012, projected outlays for entitlements will consume 100 percent of all the tax revenues we collect leaving nothing for any of the other functions of Government. It is, therefore, very clear which path we must take. The only question is, will we have the political courage to do the right thing? I think that together we can do it. Mr. President, on Monday evening, the senior Senator from Illinois asked about the effect of the Chafee-Breaux amendment on student loans. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record prior to the vote on the amendment a letter from June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office which addresses that subject, as well as a table comparing the saving levels in the Chafee-Breaux resolution to the other plans.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. We will give 3 minutes to Senator Conrad.

Mr. BREAUX. Senator Lieberman requested some time.

Mr. BREAUX. I inquire, Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?