John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute and that I be able to yield that minute to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Kohl.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I think we have an agreement of the allocation of 1 hour, perhaps half and half. Under that, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California. We are going to do this again, I say to my colleagues, hopefully on Tuesday morning, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to start by recognizing my good friend and colleague, Senator Chafee. He was very kind and generous in his remarks about my role. I would say exactly the same thing for Senator Chafee. He and I have worked together because I think we were able to put aside partisanship, and we were able to say there are a number of Senators, a large number of Senators, who really do want to work in a bipartisan fashion for what is good for this country. I think, really, the majority of all Senators feel that way. I particularly want to say to Senator Chafee, it is because of his leadership on the Republican side of the aisle that our organization was possible. Without his help, it would not have been possible. It is just that simple. He has taken some very courageous stands. I think all Members of this body should applaud him for that. They said it could not be done. They said it was impossible, particularly in an election year, when a third of this body was up for election and when both parties have candidates who are now running for the Presidency of the United States. It was said it was absolutely impossible that Members of the Congress, Members of the Senate, could come together in a bipartisan fashion and put together a product that actually balanced the budget in a 7-year period, a budget that would be scored by the Congressional Budget Office in a way that everybody can agree with the figures. It was said that it could not be done because this is a political year and people fight over these things. They sometimes say the best way to win the political battle is to blame the other side for not doing enough. We have a centrist coalition of 22 Senators, bipartisan in nature, who said that is not the way we want this body to govern. We do want to work toward a balanced budget, and we know it cannot come just from the left nor can it come just from the right; that any kind of agreement on the big problems of the day has to come from working from the center out, by forming centrist coalitions in the middle that gradually build up enough support to become a majority. That is exactly what we have been able to do. How many times have we gone back to our respective States and have had people come up to us on the streets and in coffee shops and before civic clubs and say, ``Why can't you guys in Washington get together? Why can't you sit down and do the job we elected you to do and expected you to do when you took your oaths of office as Senators and Members of the Congress? Why can't you reach out to each other and say, `Yes, I can't have it all my way all the time'?'' That we do have to make compromises and that compromise is not a dirty word, that it is the art of being able to govern in a society that is, indeed, a democracy. That, I think, is what we have done. Today we are announcing one of the worst-kept secrets in this city, that there has been a centrist coalition that has been working together since our first meeting in October 1995, when we sat down and made a dedicated effort to try to come up with a compromise budget that got the job done. We were dedicated less to which party got the credit and less to which party got the blame and more to trying to get the bottom line achieved in a consensus recommendation. We have done that. I am optimistic, despite all the things we have not been able to do-- and there have been a lot. There have been two partial shutdowns of the entire Government because we have not been able to come together. We had 13 temporary spending bills that have had to pass because we were not able to get the job done. But, despite that, I am optimistic. Today, this Congress will pass a budget for fiscal year 1996. That is encouraging. It is 7 months late, but it is encouraging that, at least, I think today we will have gotten it done. So progress is being made. I am also encouraged by statements in the press. I see the President yesterday suggested that it would be a good idea to reach a balanced budget agreement for 7 years if a centrist coalition of moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats in favor of deficit reductions could get together and work together to come up with a balanced budget agreement. Guess what? We have done that. We have put together a group of good men and women who, in a bipartisan fashion, have dedicated ourselves, and particularly our staffs, to days and hours and months of working together to try to produce a document which, in fact, meets that very goal that the President has suggested. I think everybody wins when we get the job done, and everybody loses when we do not. It is just that simple. Our recommendation today addresses some very tough, hard problems that have been out there for a long time. For instance, on Medicare, we have made a Medicare proposal that is real Medicare reform. It reduces the cost of Medicare by almost $154 billion. We have made some real, major recommendations in Medicaid. We have addressed welfare. We have a program that I think is tough on work and yet is good for children. We have a tax cut in our package that is larger than some would like and is smaller than others would like, but it represents a true compromise. Yes, we have even taken on the very difficult job of saying to the American people that the increases you get in entitlement programs will be realistic; they will more accurately reflect what the increase should be. All the economists tell us that the increases have been larger than they should have been. Our budget proposal, I think, takes the correct and, I think, politically courageous step of saying there is going to be an adjustment in the Consumer Price Index. Mr. President, for all in this city who have said it could not be done, today we stand and say it can be done. In fact, it has been done, with our recommendation. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the centrist coalition balanced budget plan be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BREAUX. How much time on our side remains?

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Presiding Officer. Let me start by saying what I would imagine has already been said a number of times; that is, to compliment the junior Senator from the State of Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and the senior Senator from the State of Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for bringing together a unique, I think in these times, coalition of Members to support a major, major legislative effort in one of the most important areas that this Congress could be dealing with, and that is the health care of the citizens of this country. This body is going to miss the Senator from Kansas for her wisdom and her balance and her willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to accommodate the various interests of the Members of this body. It has been a real pleasure to work with her in the so-called Chafee-Breaux Group where we have been trying to come together to come up with a balanced budget. I commend her for her efforts in that regard, but particularly in bringing this Kassebaum-Kennedy bill to the floor; and, of course, for the years of tireless service by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, because he has really been dedicated over the years in trying to come up with health care legislation that really serves the needs of the people of this country. Let me start by saying that this indeed is a large coalition. It is a large coalition--65 Members of Congress in the Senate alone have endorsed and have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. So that in itself is very rare in today's atmosphere of high partisanship that we see more and more, unfortunately. So anytime you can get a coalition of 65 cosponsors of a major piece of legislation indeed that is very, very good news. Let me also say that while the coalition is large, the coalition is very fragile. It is very fragile because it does not do as much as what many Members would like to see it do. And there are still things that this legislation does not do that it should address. It probably does more than some people would like to see done with requirements from a Federal level that certain things be required when you sell health insurance in this country. But the real accomplishment of the two Senators in bringing this legislation today to the floor of the Senate is the fact that it is a large coalition, it is a bipartisan coalition. It does, I think, accomplish some very important things that need to be done in the area of health insurance for the people of America. In my own State of Louisiana there are nearly a million people who are uninsured, a million people who do not have enough money to buy a private insurance policy or who earn more than they are allowed to earn and qualify for Medicaid, the Federal-State health insurance program. So a million people walk around my State every day--go to work in most cases every day--but do not know how they are going to treat their children, their spouses, if they should get seriously ill other than through the charity of others or the charity of the hospital systems in my State of Louisiana. Many people do not have insurance for reasons that are corrected by this legislation. For instance, there are many people who had insurance but when they got sick and needed it the most, it was canceled. How many of us as Members know a family or perhaps a member of our own families that have had health insurance, but then when they need it the most, when they get sick, after the illness is over, they get a little note in the mail from an insurance company that says, ``Well, we're going to cancel your insurance''? And the only reason they really give is because you got sick. That was what they bought insurance for in the first place. If you get sick you have insurance. It takes care of the hospital and the doctor bills. But today, unfortunately, in this society we have people who get sick and then have their insurance canceled just when they need it the most. So they do not have it today. This legislation, for the first time, says that you are not going to be able to cancel someone's health insurance because they got sick--sort of a logical thing I think we should have done a long time ago. But this legislation does accomplish that. The second point is, people, in my State and other States, that have tried to buy health insurance, and, sometimes, because they have had a preexisting condition, they are prohibited from buying a health insurance policy. I do not think that is basically fair. Health insurance shares the risks. There are a lot of sick people that are in the insurance pool. There are a lot of well people in the insurance pool. On balance, the insurance companies make money and people get health insurance. That is how the system is supposed to work. So this legislation addresses the problem of people who have had preexisting conditions and brings them in a fair fashion into the system in a way that I think makes a great deal of sense. The other problem of all those people who do not have health insurance in my State and, again, in the other 49 States is because they have had to change a job. And we all know in this mobile society as people change jobs because of downsizing, or because of changes in technology, they are able to get a better job through education and training, they could move on to another field, the problem is that many people will not change jobs, will not get a better job even if it means better economic conditions for themselves and their families. Guess why? Because they will lose their health insurance. So we have a situation referred to as ``job lock'' where our people would like to move on to better jobs--or maybe even forced to change to a new job because of downsizing--and cannot do so because they lose their health insurance, which is one of the most important things that the job market can provide. But if you cannot be guaranteed that coverage you have today will be with you tomorrow when you are in a different job, well then, people say, ``I'm just going to stay right here.'' Or if they get laid off and they have to move to another job, they do so perhaps without any insurance because they are uninsurable when they move into the new position. So what we have today through the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation is a major, major health reform package which I enthusiastically am a cosponsor of and congratulate the people who have brought this monumental piece of legislation to us. It will, when it passes, and President Clinton signs it, be, I think, a shining example of what Congress can do when we are willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish something as monumental as this legislation does. I know the majority leader has a package of amendments that he is going to present at a later time. I as an individual Senator and a member of the Finance Committee looked over a lot of the suggestions in the proposed amendments that he has submitted. You know, a lot of them are good ideas. They have not yet worked their way through the committee. That gives me a little concern about how these new ideas are going to be paid for. Our staffs are now, as we speak, looking at the legislation and the series of amendments. I think, by and large, most of them are pretty good--80 percent tax deductibility for self-employed people who buy insurance. All the people around the country that are self-employed, now, can only deduct about 30 percent of their premiums. With this amendment, you would be able to deduct 80 percent of your health insurance premiums. I think that is pretty darn good, just like a company that contributes to a policy can deduct 100 percent of their contributions. So we should do something for the self-employed people in this country. That amendment does that. Penalty-free IRA, individual retirement accounts, withdrawals for large medical expenses and for the unemployed to pay their health insurance premiums. That is a good idea. We have talked about that. I think this should be bipartisan in that amendment. I think that is good. My point, as I reach to a conclusion here, is that we have a large coalition, but it is a fragile coalition. I suggest that if people come up with amendments that are very controversial, that there is not a consensus on, or that we have not had hearings on, or amendments that have not been reported out, like this bill has, by a full committee of the Senate, that we will run into problems, and we will miss what I think is a golden opportunity to, in fact, create legislation which makes a lot of sense for all Americans. One of the amendments I will just mention is a so-called medical savings account. This is a classic example of ``if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' I think that when you look at this concept--and I found after looking at it--that it, in fact, is too good to be true and causes problems that greatly outweigh the benefits. It is not to say that medical savings accounts do not have some benefits; they do. But I do not think that we are certain enough about those benefits as opposed to the negative problems that will occur to automatically accept this provision without a great deal of discussion. I hope when that amendment is offered we will be able to strike out that section of the proposed Dole amendment and proceed to pass this legislation, hopefully with the other amendments that the majority leader is prepared to offer. Let me tell you why I think medical savings accounts are a bad idea. I say, first of all, at one time I thought they were a great idea. At one time I introduced legislation to create medical savings accounts. Boy--they sound terrific. I asked my staff--``What is the problem?'' At the time, we--like many others--did not have the full picture to understand the problems. Few had analyzed the effects of medical savings accounts. The problem was that while it is really terrific for healthy people, it is not so terrific, in fact, potentially very bad, for people who are not healthy. If you take, for example, young people--I have four children who are relatively young and very healthy, thank goodness--a medical savings account is very attractive for them. Their employer can contribute money to an account, and they would use that account to pay for their initial medical bills during the course of the year. If they did not have to use it at all, they get to keep the money. What a great deal if you are 20, 25 years old and very healthy. So, in the past, we had only looked at how it affected one group of people--healthy, basically young people. A terrific idea for them. What we failed to look at is how it affected other people who buy insurance because they may get sick--generally, more elderly people, and people who do get sick during the course of their life. If they have a very high deductible policy, as high as $3,000 for a family, they have a problem, because they will incur medical expenses during the year. If they have to pay for it out of their pocket, it is a really serious problem for them. Again, it is not a problem for people who are young and never have to go to the doctor during the course of the year. Incentives for the medical savings account have a tendency to suck out all the healthy people from the insurance pool, put them into a medical savings account where they will not be using a lot of medical health care, but leaving behind people who do get sick, who do have to go to the doctor and do have to go to a hospital during the course of a year. If the only people remaining in an insurance pool are people who have to use doctors and hospitals, the risk becomes so great because of the loss of healthy people, that their premiums would rise so high that insurance would soon be unaffordable for them as well. My fear is that while a medical savings account takes care of one group of people, it causes far greater problems than are justified for everybody else, which is the vast majority of the remaining people in this country. I think at the appropriate time we should set aside the medical savings account, with an amendment if we have to, look at the other amendments that Senator Dole has offered, and I think most of them, from my personal observation, are good. I think we should accept them. But certainly not the medical savings account at this time. Let me conclude, once again, saying to Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum, my congratulations to you for bringing to the Senate a real opportunity to do real health care reform in 1996. We hope that the Senate and the House would ultimately pass this legislation, and the President should sign it.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, tonight the Senate voted on two amendments to S. 1028. The first offered by Senator Jeffords and Simon, would increase the maximum lifetime benefit caps in health insurance plans to $10 million. The second, offered by Senators Domenici and Wellstone, would require health plans to provide mental health benefits comparable to their other medical benefits. I believe both of these amendments are good policy--providing meaningful and equitable coverage for those who purchase health insurance. Following the no amendment strategy of the bill's managers--Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy--I regretfully voted to table these amendments. It is the unfortunate outcome the no-amendments strategy to have to table good policy such as these. However, the purpose is intended to maintain an important yet fragile bipartisan coalition to pass necessary insurance reform. I would otherwise support these policies.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues: Mr. Graham and Mr. Mack of Florida, Mr. Simon and Mrs. Moseley-Braun of Illinois, and Mr. Johnston of Louisiana, to pay tribute to CF Industries, Inc., which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. CF is an interregional farm supply cooperative owned by 11 regional cooperatives in the United States and Canada. CF's nitrogen, phosphate, and potash products reach over 1 million farmer- owners who depend on the CF system to manufacture and distribute agricultural fertilizers to them. We would like to congratulate CF and its employees on the high-quality products and services they have provided to the Nation's farmers over the past 50 years and their commitment to sound environmental, health, and safety practices. Established in 1946 as Central Farmers Fertilizer Co., CF began as a broker for sales of fertilizer products to farmer-members with the goal of becoming the Nation's major fertilizer supplier for the agricultural cooperative community. Through 1960, CF evolved from a broker to a manufacturer and distributor of fertilizer products. Today, CF has become more than the founding members have ever envisioned. CF manufacturing plants include nitrogen fertilizer complexes in Donaldsonville, LA, and Medicine Hat, AB, Canada, as well as extensive phosphate mining and manufacturing facilities in Florida. CF plants have the capacity to produce more than 8 million tons of fertilizer products annually. In 1995, CF sales totaled over $1.3 billion. Products are distributed to farmer-members in 46 States and two Canadian provinces through an extensive system. CF has ownership and lease positions in 63 regional terminals and warehouses. Total storage capacity of CF distribution terminals and warehouses is in excess of 2.4 million tons of product. In closing, Mr. President, we want to express our good wishes to CF Industries, Inc., and its employees as they continue to respond to the needs of the cooperative community and look to providing high-quality products and services into the 21st century.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank very much the senior ranking member of the committee for yielding, and for the work he has put in over the years on this issue. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the legislation for a number of reasons but principally because it is bad policy. It is bad public policy. And, second, it is not necessary. It is not needed. There are some who have argued that there is a rash of product liability suits and everybody who makes a product in America is just about on the verge of not making products anymore because they fear they may get sued if they make bad products that injure people, whether they do it with gross negligence, or it is just the egregious nature of what they are doing; but they may get sued and put people out of business. The facts are just the opposite, and that is one of the issues I wish to focus on, plus the punitive damages question. First of all, is there so much litigation out there that companies are not producing products? No. The legislation is trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Product liability cases account for only 4 percent of all of the injury cases that are filed in this country--4 percent. Only 4 percent of the cases dealt with defective products. There is not an explosion of product liability cases. Then if you look at the statistics, out of 762,000 civil cases resolved in the Nation's 75 most populous counties in the whole country in 1991 and 1992, only 360 cases out of 762,000 cases dealt with defective products. Is there an explosion of litigation from products? I think the facts are just the opposite. Something else. In all of those 360 product cases, do you know how many had punitive damages awarded? Three. Three. And yet the principal focus of this legislation that is before the Senate is that we have to pass this legislation because the country is in chaos because of product liability suits, when the truth is that only 4 percent of all of the civil cases filed are product liability cases. The second point I wish to focus on is this part of the bill that says Washington knows best. Our Republican colleagues want to block grant just about everything in Washington to the States and let them decide--Medicaid, welfare, you name it. ``Give it to the States; Washington does not know what it is talking about'' is the statement that I hear from my colleagues on this side of the aisle except when it comes to this legislation, it is just the opposite. Their position on this legislation is that the States do not know anything, that the States are messing it up so bad that we are going to have Washington decide what is the appropriate remedy for people in the various States who are injured by defective products back in their States. Welfare, we are going to do it in the States; Medicaid, we are going to do it in the States, but when it comes to product liability we are going to do it here in Washington. This legislation says that no matter how egregious the actions of a person or a company that makes a product, the cap on damages, punitive damages is $250,000. My friend from Connecticut said that is really a lot. Let me give you an example of the problem. The $250,000 figure is out of the air. It is something that they just picked up. It has no basis in fact. This legislation says that if a person is going to be entitled to punitive damages against a company for the most egregious type of behavior that we have ever heard of, the cap is going to be $250,000 or two times the economic damages. The courts have said that unlike damages which are awarded to compensate an individual for his injuries, punitive damages are unique because they are based on an entirely different public policy consideration, that of punishing the wrongdoer to change that wrongdoer's behavior, and, second, to set an example to others that you should not do that type of behavior. Punitive damages are generally awarded for egregious, morally repugnant conduct, conduct that is so offensive to the average American that we say that person who has done this should not do it again. We have to make an example of this type of morally repugnant behavior so that others who may think about doing it will not do it again. That is what punitive damages is all about. And that is on what this bill arbitrarily sets a cap of $250,000. Let me tell you what is wrong with that, why it is not based on anything. Say you have a person, I call him Joe Six-Pack in this case, and Joe Six-Pack is just as mean and ornery a fellow as you ever want to meet. And one day Joe Six-Pack is walking down the street in his hometown and a guy is coming in the opposite direction, and when he gets next to Joe, Joe just hauls off and knocks the ever-living everything out of the guy because he did not like the way he looked. He smashes his fist into the guy's face, and he breaks his cranial bones, permanently disfigures him and sends him to the hospital. They have to do surgery to reconstruct this individual's face. The individual, after he finally recovers, says, ``I am going to sue Joe. I want him to pay for my suffering, my hospital bills.'' And the court says he is right; that was repugnant, morally offensive behavior. We are also going to assess punitive damages because we do not want this to happen again. So how much is the right amount? OK, they take a look at what Joe Six-Pack is worth. Say Joe Six-Pack is worth $10,000. That is the savings, the money he has. If the court says we are going to fine him maybe half a percent of his assets, that is a $50 fine. Does anybody think a $50 fine is going to change Joe Six-Pack's behavior? Is that enough to tell Joe that he should not do that again? Probably not. The court could say, ``Well, let's fine Joe 1 percent of his assets.'' Is that enough to change Joe's behavior and set an example for others they should not do it? That is a $100 fine. I doubt whether that really will affect Joe's behavior. He may do it again just because he is an ornery fellow or he does not care. The court may say, ``Well, maybe punitive damages are 5 percent. Let's fine him $500.'' Is that enough to change Joe's behavior? Probably getting close. Probably he will think a second time before he walks up to the next person and smashes him in the face if he knows the court said, ``Joe, that's morally repugnant behavior. You are fined $500.'' Joe is going to say, ``I don't think I am going to do that again.'' So let us take another example. How about a Corp. Let us call it XYZ Corp. It is a small Corp., with only $50 million of assets. And I say small because of the Fortune 500, the number 500 company on the Fortune 500 list has assets of $4 billion. So XYZ Corp. with $50 million of assets is pretty small. Let us assume XYZ Corp. starts making a product. Let us say they make pajamas for children, and when they make those pajamas for children their engineers say, ``Mr. CEO, we just found out that these pajamas that you make for children are flammable; these pajamas catch on fire very easily, and we are making them for children. We could fix that by adding this retardant chemical to it so it will not catch on fire.'' The president and the board says, ``Forget it; we have this whole warehouse full of them. We are going to sell them. We don't care; we'll take our chances.'' XYZ Corp. starts selling their pajamas all over the United States, and, lo and behold, the inevitable happens; a child catches on fire walking in front of the fireplace, is horribly burned and disfigured for life. The engineers come back to the chairman and the board and say, ``Look, we told you that was going to happen. This is our study. We saw it. It's flammable. Let's change it.'' The president and the board say, ``No way. We still have half a warehouse full of pajamas. We are going to sell the rest of them. We don't care. We don't think it's going to happen again. We don't care what your studies say. Forget them. File them away.'' Sure enough, a second child who is wearing the same pajamas catches on fire in front of a fireplace, is horribly disfigured and burned, with economic damages, pain and suffering, disfigured for the rest of that person's life, and they file suit against XYZ Corp. The court says, ``Your behavior is morally repugnant to this country. Your behavior is indefensible. Your behavior needs to be punished. How much should we punish XYZ Corp.?'' Well, if we said half a percent was not enough to affect Joe Six-Pack because it would only be $50 of his assets, a half a percent of XYZ Corp. would be $250,000. That is the cap in this bill. That is the cap in this bill. And if we said that that was not enough to affect Joe Six-Pack's behavior, a $50 fine, why should the same percentage be enough to change XYZ Corp.'s position in manufacturing defective products that they know are defective? We said that a 1-percent fine of $100 was not enough to affect old Joe. Joe was still going to do whatever Joe was wanting to do, smashing people in the face. It was not enough to change his behavior. How about a 1-percent fine for the XYZ Corp.? That is $500,000. We said it would not have an effect, but it is also twice the cap in this bill. We cannot even do that under this legislation. So we say 5 percent was probably getting pretty close to affect Joe's behavior. That is what, $500. That probably changes his mind about his social behavior and society. How about XYZ Corp.? A 5-percent fine is $2.5 million. But forget it when this legislation is passed, because somebody in Washington has decided that $250,000 is the magical number. Let me show you something. The No. 500 corporation on the Fortune 500 list in this country has assets of $4 billion. If this cap is in place and they make a defective product and they are fined the maximum of $250,000, do you know what percentage of their assets that turns out to be? That is .00625 percent. Does anybody think that a maximum fine that is .00625 percent of that corporation's assets is going to have any effect on their social behavior? I bet they do not even consider it. It is a dot on their asset sheet. So, if we get back to the point that punitive damages is to tell a reckless defendant, who has had a jury say that this is morally repugnant behavior, if we tell them that from here on out, Congress in Washington, in our wisdom, has decided that the maximum fine is $250,000 and it has no relationship to the ability of a defendant to pay, we are making a serious public policy mistake. We should, I think, be ashamed of this legislation with this type of cap. I am. The States, I think, are doing a good job. It is not a problem. In addition to not being a problem, this arbitrary proposal makes no sense. You wonder why a lot of the very big businesses think it is a great idea? It is because a cap of that small amount is such a small percentage of their assets, they can continue to make those pajamas. They can continue to say, ``We are not going to listen to our engineers who have told us it is flammable. We are not going to listen to our engineers who told us that children can catch on fire wearing this product and the only thing we have to do to fix it is to add a fire retardant ingredient. Do you know what? We are not going to do it because we still have that warehouse full of pajamas and we are going to keep selling them.'' How many young kids would be in danger? That is just one example. There are literally hundreds of them. Mr. President, I will conclude simply by saying this legislation is not necessary, it is not needed, there is not a problem. In addition to that, it is a bad public policy statement. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, what is the pending business and what are the time restraints on it?

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was thinking about the Whitewater proceedings and the stalemate we have on the floor of the U.S. Senate with how to proceed. I think the American public really has an interest in this, not just the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans. When I talk to people back in Louisiana and we talk about this Whitewater investigation, most of my constituents are not really certain or sure what all of this is about. They know there are some accusations that have been presented and that there have been some denials of those. But most people today are very confused about the entire subject that has become known as Whitewater. I think the American people have an interest in this that is a superior interest, even more superior than the interests of the Democratic Party members on my side and the Republican Party members on that side of the aisle. There is an American interest in this which goes far beyond politics, and I really think that is the solution we should be seeking as we try to resolve this issue on how to handle the so-called Whitewater affair. What do we need to do that puts the American people's interests in the front seat and the political parties' interests in the back seat for a change? Let me suggest what I think the people in my State and the people in America really would like to see. They would like to see this thing resolved. They would like to see it resolved outside the political arena. They would like to see it resolved. The people's interests are finding out what really happened, how to resolve it, and, if anything bad happened, that it will not happen again, and it is not who gets the credit or the blame. What we are doing in this debate is arguing about which party is going to get the proper advantage and the manner in which the Whitewater affair is brought to conclusion. That should not be what determines how we act and what we do. Let me make a suggestion of some of the things that I have heard from the people in my State. They have told me, ``Senator, when politicians investigate politicians, it produces political results, especially in an election year.'' That is pretty simple and pretty accurate and pretty easy for people to understand. When politicians investigate politicians, it produces political results, especially in a political election year. That is why we had such a difficult time trying to bring this to a resolution that makes sense to the average American, who is less concerned about the politics of all of this, but is far more concerned about just getting it behind us. If wrong was done, it should be punished. If it was not done, we should go on with the other problems facing the Congress and not spend the time we have been spending debating this issue endlessly while other problems continue to fester. Let me suggest that the Congress has already spoken about how to get this done outside of the political arena. Does anybody remember what the Congress did and why we did it when we created an independent counsel? I remember the arguments, and I thought they made a lot of sense. The argument for doing that in investigating Whitewater was simple. Let us take the politics out of it and make sure we do not have politicians investigating politicians, producing political results. Therefore, this Senate created the independent counsel, and the independent counsel has been adequately funded. There is no term limit. They could go on forever and always until they bring a conclusion to this whole case. As we stand here on the floor of the Senate, there is a trial going on, for gosh sakes, in the State of Arkansas on Whitewater. People have been indicted. There is a Federal prosecutor who is presenting the evidence in a court of law, in a Federal court. They are moving to a conclusion of this, and it is being done outside of the political arena. We have a former Reagan Justice Department official, Kenneth Starr, who was established as the independent counsel. We said we are going to take it out of Congress and out of politics and give it to an independent counsel who does not have any political baggage. He is not a Democratic person, a Democratic chairman, or a Democratic ranking member, or a Republican chairman, or Republican ranking member; he is an independent counsel. What did we do? We have given that person unlimited funding. Does any agency in the Government get that? Not the defense or anything else. He has unlimited funding. He has a professional staff of over 130 people that have been working since they began in January 1994. Guess how much money they have spent? They have spent $25.6 million investigating this one issue. Yet, we are spending time on the floor of the Senate saying, no, we like the politics so much that we just cannot let it go. We like the investigation so much, so let us extend it, and we need a little bit more money to continue doing that. We spent $400,000 in the Banking Committee in 1994 investigating, and $950,000 in 1995 with the special Whitewater Committee investigating it. The Senate spent $1.3 million-plus investigating this as a political interest for everybody in this body. Let me suggest that what the American people want--not what Congress wants--which is what Congress should want, is to bring this to a conclusion, bring it to a conclusion in a fair manner, prosecute and convict those who did wrong, exonerate those who have been falsely accused, if there are any; and if there has been no wrongdoing, finish it. The way to finish it is not by a continuation of politics as usual. I am not impugning anybody who has served hours over here, but it is time for the Congress to recognize what the American people want, and what they would like to see is a nonpolitical conclusion. A nonpolitical conclusion says that politics be damned; if somebody did something wrong, they will be prosecuted. If they did not, they will not. I think the American people recognize that, in a political election year with a November Presidential election, it is not going to be possible for a political investigation to produce anything but political results. The only way to ensure that that does not happen is to continue to allow the independent counsel, which we all created just for this purpose, to do his job. He has spent $25 million doing it already. Let them complete it. No one has suggested that they are not doing their job. Then, when that investigation is over, completed, at least the American public will be able to say, you know, they checked it out and they did it in the right fashion, and the politicians did not do it, the professionals did it. I urge rejection of the motion. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX. With that understanding, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to the pending motion.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce today, together with my senior colleague from Louisiana, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a bill to authorize the Corps of Engineers to conduct maintenance dredging for the Chalmette Slip. The project is needed to assist the St. Bernard Port, Terminal and Harbor District conduct its current daily business more effectively and to facilitate future development. Located in St. Bernard Parish near mile 90.5 of the Mississippi River, the project's authorization would be carried out as part of the currently authorized and ongoing operations and maintenance project for the Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico. The slip's depth is now approximately 30 feet. The authorization would allow it to be deepened to 33 feet, over a distance of approximately 1,500 feet. With the additional depth needed to help the port operate more effectively and to improve its operations, the project certainly is a justified one. Senator Johnston and I are hopeful that the proposed Chalmette Slip authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act legislation when it is taken up by the Senate. We urge its consideration and passage.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce today, together with my senior colleague from Louisiana, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a bill to authorize the Corps of Engineers to conduct maintenance dredging for the Chalmette Slip. The project is needed to assist the St. Bernard Port, Terminal and Harbor District conduct its current daily business more effectively and to facilitate future development. Located in St. Bernard Parish near mile 90.5 of the Mississippi River, the project's authorization would be carried out as part of the currently authorized and ongoing operations and maintenance project for the Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico. The slip's depth is now approximately 30 feet. The authorization would allow it to be deepened to 33 feet, over a distance of approximately 1,500 feet. With the additional depth needed to help the port operate more effectively and to improve its operations, the project certainly is a justified one. Senator Johnston and I are hopeful that the proposed Chalmette Slip authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act legislation when it is taken up by the Senate. We urge its consideration and passage.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this telecommunications legislation is a deregulatory bill, and I am particularly pleased in this regard with the provisions covering commercial mobile services that lift the restrictions now disadvantaging the BOC affiliated CMRS carriers. As soon as this bill is signed into law, the BOC affiliated commercial mobile service carriers can begin to offer the full range of end-to-end interLATA services to their mobile customers just as their competitors are able to do now. They need no Government action or approval. I am pleased to have had the chairman confirm that my understanding is correct. Upon enactment, the MFJ interLATA restriction on commercial mobile service affiliates of the Bell operating companies is eliminated.