John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Let me inquire of the Chair of the time situation. I know time is allotted to both sides. How much is remaining on this side?

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this time to comment on legislation that has been reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee reauthorizing the Amtrak rail system in this country and also instituting not just a reauthorization but as well an effort to try to bring about major reforms to the Amtrak passenger rail system in this country. Let me say that the committee worked long and hard. The distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee that worked on that legislation. It is apparent that I have expressed some public concerns about bringing this piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate under a unanimous consent arrangement to be handled in the Senate without the possibility of any amendments--indeed, without any discussion, just bring it up under a unanimous-consent procedure and then pass it and send it on to the other body, over to the House side. I have objected to that procedure because I think this, indeed, is a subject that needs to be discussed and debated in this Chamber. Let me start by first saying that I very strongly support the concept of and the need for Amtrak reauthorization. The passenger rail system provides incredible economic assistance and transportation to industries and individuals in this country. Indeed, our entire rail system in this country is second to no other country. We can be proud of what Amtrak has brought in terms of passenger service to this country, as well as the freight and private carriers, and the good economic possibilities that they make happen every day by having this national transportation system of railroads in our country. All our industries and our businesses and our individual lives are touched every day by having such a fine rail system. I think by and large the various private companies do an outstanding job in maintaining their level of providing these services as well as doing their best to provide quality services in a safe manner so that everybody who uses the rail system can be assured of their safety. The concern that I have--a concern we need to have this Senate body debate and discuss--is making sure that we do not do anything in this legislation to lessen the requirements of these private companies and, indeed, our public Amtrak system in the standards of safety that they must provide to the American public. We all have witnessed this month a set of accidents around this country that I think are very disturbing, to say the least. Look at the headlines that have appeared in newspapers just in the month of February. February 2, 1996: ``Two Killed, 20 Hurt in California Train Derailment.'' On February 10, this year: ``Three Die in New Jersey Transit Commuter Train Wreck.'' February 16, again, this month, the third such incident: ``Brake Failure Causes Yet Another Train Wreck--9 Workers Injured, FBI Called In To Probe.'' And, of course, one that we are very familiar with in this area, on February 17: ``MARC-Amtrak Trains Collide Killing 12.'' And then the fifth such accident, on February 22: ``Colorado Train Derails, 2 Killed, Acid Spills.'' Mr. President, I say to all of our colleague who may be listening and to the American public that these five major train accidents that occurred in a 1-month period are disturbing to me, disturbing to my colleagues and, I think, indeed disturbing to the American public. They want to know that the trains they ride on, the trains that carry the goods and services of this Nation are safe, they can be counted on and that they are dependable. Again, I will point out that I have a great deal of respect for all of these private companies. They are attempting to do a good job. The concern I have right now and the reason I objected to bringing the Amtrak reauthorization legislation to this body without the ability of any discussion, under a unanimous consent agreement that prevents any ability to offer amendments to that legislation, is because I think there is a real possibility that some would like to further restrict individuals' rights to be compensated when rail accidents occur. When you have five in 1 month, Mr. President, I think we need to look at how these railroads are operating, how we can help them do a better job, and, yes, at the same time make sure that people who are injured by accidents where negligence was the cause of that accident are adequately compensated, and, yes, even to the point of providing punitive damages when gross negligence occurs and is the proven cause of that particular accident. Now, the reason I bring up these concerns to the Senate today is because of the provisions that are in the bill that has already passed the House of Representatives and what they attempt to do to the American public in the area of safety and the ability to be compensated. Two things leap out that I am very concerned about, and some of these features are in the Senate bill. First, there is a cap on punitive damages in the House-passed bill. In other words, if a railroad is found to be grossly negligent, almost to the point of saying: ``We don't care what happens. If you get hit, we will pay the damages; we don't care.'' And I am not saying anybody fits in that category. It is very rare that punitive damages are awarded. But when they are awarded, it is to say to the defendant who has been grossly negligent, ``We are going to penalize you so you don't do it again. Do not think it is easier to pay the damages than to fix the problem.'' The House bill puts a cap on the punitive damages that can be awarded instead of letting a jury or a judge determine, after seeing the facts, what it should be. The Senate bill has a similar provision that puts a cap on punitive damages as well; in other words, restricting how much someone can be penalized by a judge and a jury for causing an accident where gross negligence has been proven beyond a doubt. That I think is simply wrong. We should not be moving in that direction. We should allow punitive damages to be assessed on those rare occasions when they need to be, as a form of saying to a corporation or an individual, ``Do not do that again. If you do, you are going to be severely penalized.'' That is an incentive to do a better job. That is an incentive to make things safer. That is an incentive to do more inspections and to make sure things work the way the American public has come to depend on their working. The second thing I am concerned about is that there is a cap in the House-passed bill on the Amtrak reauthorization on limiting how much a person can recover for pain and suffering in an injury from a rail accident. How do we in Congress, sitting in Washington, DC, where we have not been out to interview a family or not heard testimony of those who have lost a member of their family or been disfigured or lost the ability to have any income in the future because of the injuries, how do we in Washington pick a number and say this is the maximum amount they can receive for pain and suffering as a result of the negligence of someone that has injured them? How can we in Washington, who have never seen the injured people, never heard their testimony in a trial, never viewed that testimony firsthand, pick a number and say this is a fair number in every case that ever happens in America? How many of us in this body or the other body have interviewed any of the people injured in five train wrecks all over the country just this month? How can we say that x amount of money is a cap that can never be exceeded? That is not a function of the U.S. Senate. Those numbers and those amounts for pain and suffering, when someone is severely injured, can best be decided, I think, by juries and by courts and by judges who, in a public forum, have listened to the witnesses, seen their injuries, heard expert testimony about how bad they are injured. Maybe for the rest of their lives they are going to suffer those same injuries. Let them decide what is an adequate amount for compensation. The third concern that I have, which is probably the biggest concern, is something that I just do not understand and, quite frankly, I think was a terrible mistake on the part of the other body when they passed this legislation. It is called indemnification. I will just read it and then I will attempt to try to explain it, because we write laws sometimes that nobody can ever understand unless they put it in English. Sometimes I think we write in foreign languages. The House bill says: Indemnification Obligations-- This is in title IV of the House-passed bill. It says: Obligations of any party, however arising, including obligations arising under leases or contracts or pursuant to orders of an administrative agency, to indemnify against damages or liability for personal injury, death, or damage to property described in subsection (a), incurred after the date of the enactment of Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act of 1995, shall be enforceable, notwithstanding any other statutory or common law or public policy, or the nature of the conduct giving rise to the damages or liability. If you read that the first time, your eyes glaze over. Certainly mine do. And I say, ``What did he say?'' It sounds convoluted and like it was written by a lawyer. Yes, it probably was. What that section that is in the House-passed bill simply says--and one of my biggest fears is that the Senate may agree to it in a conference--it says as simply as I can put it, if a private railroad that owns the track and owns the signals and has not kept them up, has completely ignored conditions or put in the wrong signals or has their own train that is running on their own tracks, when the engineer is grossly negligent, who is maybe intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, is running their train, that if all those things occur, and it runs into an Amtrak train and, heaven forbid, kills passengers on that Amtrak train, that this section specifically says that the private railroads can have an indemnification agreement that absolves them of any responsibility, absolves them of any liability no matter how negligent they were, and they can shift that liability to Amtrak and say that the American taxpayer, who happens to fund Amtrak, is going to have to pay for the damages, pay for pain and suffering, pay for the damages to the community, the damages that are caused by that wreck, even though it was completely and totally the fault of the private railroad. I suggest to my colleagues that it is not good public policy to allow a private industry to shift the responsibility and the liability for their negligence, no matter how bad it is, their gross negligence, to shift that responsibility to somebody else--in this case the American taxpayer--that it is not right. It is not good public policy. In fact, it is very bad public policy. Under that section of the House-passed bill, when we go to conference, if it were somehow to be incorporated into the final package and passed into law, every private railroad would say, ``Look, I have much less of an incentive to do the right thing because if we have an accident that involves an Amtrak train,'' which many of these that I just cited have, ``I'm not going to be responsible.'' I just think it makes no sense whatsoever from the standpoint of any standard of public policy to say that we should allow indemnification agreements to allow someone to shift their responsibility, even when they are grossly negligent, to some other party and say, ``You take it. You take my responsibility. You take my responsibility for the pain, for the damages that my negligence caused,'' and particularly in this case when it is the Federal taxpayer, because we in this authorization are funding Amtrak. When we fund Amtrak, the taxpayers are paying for Amtrak. So why should the taxpayer be paying for the gross negligence of some private industry when it is their fault that the accident occurred? I think we have to look at this very carefully. We have to reject it if it comes back. It is not part of the Senate bill, but it is part of the House- passed bill, along with the caps on punitive damages, along with the caps on pain and suffering. If there ever was a time when we should be more careful about protecting the rights of injured people and more careful about ensuring mechanisms in our laws that provide incentives and inducements for both public bodies and public railroads and private railroads to do a better job, now is the time. I cannot imagine someone standing up on the floor at this critical time and suggesting that what we ought to do is make it harder and more difficult for people who are injured in rail accidents to be justly compensated. I cannot imagine anybody at this critical time coming to the floor of the House or the Senate and suggesting that private railroads should be able to shirk their legal responsibility for gross negligence, if and when it occurs, onto the backs of the American taxpayer instead of standing up and saying, ``Yes, we were responsible. Yes, we have to pay. Yes, we are going to correct this problem.'' That is the issue, as simply as I can possibly state it, that we are going to be facing when this legislation comes to the floor. That is the reason that I have said time and again, do not bring this to the floor under a unanimous-consent agreement. Do not tie the hands of Members of Congress in our ability to talk about this. Do not prevent us from being able to offer amendments to correct these problems so that we do not make a very serious mistake with this legislation when it comes to the floor. We should have the opportunity to improve it, to correct it, to amend it. And if we can work out that type of structure, I am looking forward to the debate with my colleagues in the Senate and, ultimately, hopefully, in a conference with the House. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. My colleagues, I would say the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire knocks out all the reforms in the sugar program, which are substantial. He wants to make, I think, the program as bad as it possibly can be. Voting against that amendment preserves the reforms that are in the legislation.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator. I will make a couple points. There will be some people in the country who will never be satisfied until they can just about get free sugar to make all the products they make and thereby destroy the domestic industry. We have over 700 small family farms that produce sugar in Louisiana that are dependent on this program. This program that we bring to the floor today has a number of significant reforms. There is major change in the program. But this side, some of them want to kill the entire program. Under this bill, there are now going to be no limits on how much domestic production of sugar can occur in the United States. If you want to plant more, go ahead. That is what this new program says. There is going to be no guaranteed minimum price under the reforms that are being presented here today. We also have a program that is guaranteed to operate at no cost to the American taxpayer. What other program in this country can operate at no cost to the taxpayer? There is none, whether it is in health care or whether it is in other farm programs. This is the only one. You have heard these arguments about how much sugar costs and how expensive it is. I do not think any of us has ever had a housewife say anything about sugar costs in her budget. It is still the only product that they want to give away.

Mr. BREAUX. I will just be brief in my comments. I guess time is running, so if no other Democrat is here, I will make comments. Mr. President and Members and, really, indeed, everyone who is concerned about the farm situation in this country must be wondering whether the Congress will have the ability to get the job done. Here we are in February, and people in the Deep South, and Louisiana in particular, my farmers, are wondering what is going to happen this year. They have their implements being prepared, the combines, the tractors, the irrigation systems they are concerned about putting into place, and they are wondering while they are working on the equipment what in the world is the program they will operate under for 1996. I think it is extremely important that the Congress move expeditiously on this legislation. We should have done it last year. I have been in Congress for 20 some-odd years, almost 24 now, and we have always had farm bills done the year before. Generally, farmers had to be in the field deciding what to do. I think we are late. Farmers cannot be late in their planning. Congress should not be late in tending to our business, the business of passing a farm bill of substance. I hope we can conclude action today. There will be a number of amendments and I think some may improve the legislation; some, I think, may do damage to the legislation. It is so critically important that we get a bill in place so that the farmers in this country could know what to do, when to do it, and under what economic terms and conditions they are going to have to operate. I think it would be insane for Members of the Senate to leave Washington, DC, to take a vacation back in our respective States or anywhere else while this pending business is not completed. I think it would be a very serious mistake. We should stay here, get the job done, before we think about moving any further down the line. My final comment, Mr. President, this morning I think there is going to be an amendment dealing with the sugar program. We fought this fight for years and years and years. It is the only program that operates at no net cost to the taxpayers of America, but ensures a stable and dependable supply of sugar to the consumers of this country. There are some large industrial users that would probably like to get their sugar for free. I can understand that, but it does not certainly serve the needs of the overall farm policy in this country. Our plan that is in this legislation is a dependable, stable program. Again, it operates at no net cost. It guarantees when additional sugar from foreign sources is needed that it can come into this country to meet the needs of our domestic producers, suppliers and refiners in this country. It has worked well. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' has been said so many times before in different context. It certainly fits very well in this current situation. We have a program that works. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it works, it is solid, it is stable. I have never, I think, ever, received any letter from consumers or housewives complaining about the price of sugar. People know that it has been a dependable price. It has always been there. We have had some foreign sugar come in when it is necessary. Yet the suppliers and domestic producers in this country have been able to survive under difficult circumstances. We have a situation, I understand, in Florida that has brought about some concern. This bill addresses it in a way that I think the Members of the Senate from Florida who are very attentive to the needs of their States have supported, and strongly support. I conclude by urging that any amendments dealing with sugar in this area to eliminate the program be eliminated as an amendment because we have something that works. We should keep it that way. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Is it appropriate to make comments, I ask the distinguished chairman?

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, when the Senate debated S. 652, Senator Leahy from Vermont and I proposed an important provision concerning the obligation of the Bell Operating Companies to provide dialing parity for intraLATA toll calls. That provision, which was accepted by the Senate, balanced the needs of competitors to have access to 1+dialing capabilities for intraLATA toll calls and the Bell Companies' need to have the opportunity to compete fairly for all long distance traffic. As Senator Leahy has already indicated, the conferees adopted that requirement. The Bell Operating Companies' obligations for providing dialing parity for intraLATA toll calls are contained in section 271(e)(2). It is important to recognize that the provisions in section 251(c)(3) do not impose any additional obligation to provide intraLATA toll dialing parity on the Bell Operating Companies. Section 251(c)(3) applies to BOCs only after they have been authorized to provide interLATA authority in a State.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, anyone who has followed the debate over telecommunications legislation in recent years knows that much of it has been over when and under what conditions the Bell companies will be allowed to compete in the long distance market S. 652 resolves this issue. Congress has determined that removing all court ordered barriers to competition--including the MFJ interLATA restriction--will benefit consumers by lowering prices and accelerating innovation. The legislation contemplates that the FCC should act favorably and expeditiously on Bell company petitions to compete in the long distance business. There are various conditions for interLATA relief. These include the establishment of Sate-by-State interconnection agreements that satisfy the 14 point check list outlined in Sec. 271 of the bill. Bell companies also have to show they face competition from a facilities based carrier. They can also show that they have not received a legitimate request for interconnection from a competing service provider within three months of enactment. In short, interLATA relief should be granted as soon as competing communications service providers reach an interconnection agreement. In some States these agreements have already been put in place with the approval of state public service commissions. In those instances, we see no reason why the FCC should not act immediately and favorably on a Bell company's petition to compete, once the test for facilities based competition is satisfied. Congress fully expects the FCC to recognize and further its intent to open all communications markets to competition at the earliest possible date. The debate over removing legal and regulatory barriers to competition has been resolved with this legislation. Unnecessary delays will do nothing more than invite vested interests to ``game'' the regulatory process to prevent or delay competition. The time has come to let consumers--not bureaucrats--choose.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Southern University of Baton Rouge, LA, for winning this year's historically black college national football championship. With their victory in the Heritage Bowl on December 29, 1995, the Jaguars of Southern University won their sixth national football title and their first since 1960. The Jaguars, who finished the season with an 11-0 record, captured the national title in a 30 to 25 victory over Florida A&M in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. I would like to especially congratulate Coach Pete Richardson, his staff, and an outstanding group of players for all the hard work and effort they put into making this a championship season. Your undefeated record and national title are bright examples of the rewards of teamwork and determination. Thank you for bringing another national championship to Baton Rouge and for making Louisiana proud.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Some of the quotes are absolutely amazing, from some of our Republican colleagues: ``Balancing the budget has nothing to do with our pay.'' A further comment was, ``As a Member of Congress this Member was a constitutional officer, not a Federal employee.'' Three times the Senate has passed unanimously language that would, during a full or partial shutdown of our Government, say that no paychecks would go out to the 435 Members of the House and the 100 Members of the Senate. Five times they tried to enact that same legislation in the House. Each time they were prevented from bringing it up. When this particular Member was asked about whether they would support this congressional pay provision, they said ``No, I will not. I am not a Federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is in the Constitution of the United States. I am not a Government employee. I am in the Constitution.'' Mr. President, I think people back home have had enough. They have had enough of people who grandstand, of people who play the blame game, and people in the Congress who say they are better than anyone else. We are getting full salary and let the rest of the people suffer because we want to make a point. I think it is time to come to insist on rather drastic action. I support the efforts of Senator Boxer. I think she was right on target. She was early and ahead in the game in offering something that I guarantee will make a difference. If we had our pay cut today, can you imagine how many Members would be back in Washington, no matter where they might be in the world or in their respective States. No matter how many times flights would change and schedules would change, Members would be rushing back to Washington to say, do you know something, we are not getting paid, we better get back and fix the problem. There is not going to be any pressure that anybody can put on anybody in the Congress like saying we are not going to get paid when we cannot make the Government work. To some of us that is our only income. It will make one heck of a big difference. I thought it was pretty much high rhetoric when initially offered. I cannot think of anything else to do. We got together with a bipartisan group. We offered a bipartisan suggestion. This is a blueprint or an outline. It has not worked. It still has not made the progress that I think is essential. I suggest, Mr. President, that when, as I understand it, we have to have another continuing resolution that is going to be offered, I think maybe tomorrow sometime, because there is a continuing resolution to ensure that foster care payments and AFDC payments and veteran payments and Medicare payments would have to be made, that at that time if we have not reached some kind of a framework of an agreement, I will attempt to offer once again a suggestion, and part of that legislation, an amendment to that continuing resolution which will say Members of Congress shall be treated in the same manner as the basic pay of the most adversely affected Federal employees who are not going to be compensated during the shutdown period. Mr. President, we cannot be treated better than the people that we are responsible for their jobs. I guarantee that if that amendment passes there will be a rush back to Washington by Members of both parties who will come to Washington, roll up our sleeves, and stay here and not leave until we get the job done. That may be the only way I think that we are going to push ourselves into making a proper compromise that is absolutely essential and necessary.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this is a most unusual time that we are in. There are people in Washington who are now arguing about who are essential employees and who are nonessential employees. I think the people of my State of Louisiana have already made a conclusion. After seeing the Congress over the last 24 days not able to keep the Government in working order, they have decided that the Congress is nonessential; that we are incapable of governing, that we are incapable of keeping the Government working. I have been in Congress over 23 years now, and I have never been in a situation like we are in today, and it is most unfortunate. When people look to find who is to blame for this, I think there is, quite frankly, enough blame to go around for everybody. That is not going to get us out of this predicament. Deciding that it is the fault of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is not going to solve the problem. My colleague on the Republican side, Senator Chafee, and I offered a proposal about 2 weeks ago now which was a compromise. It was significant in that it was not just two U.S. Senators but that it was 14 who signed up in a bipartisan fashion to make a recommendation that would have brought this stalemate of trying to reach a balanced budget to a conclusion. That proposal said that there would be tax cuts, but the tax cuts would be less than many Republicans would like to see. That proposal said, ``Yes, there were going to be reductions in Medicaid and Medicare,'' and more than many Democrats would like to see. But the bottom line is, that was the essence of an agreement, it was an outline, a blueprint of how balancing the budget in 7 years could be achieved. It used CBO numbers and made recommendations that were tough on both sides. But it was an agreement. It was actual, real numbers on the size of a tax cut. It was actual, real numbers on the size of reductions in various programs that are going to have to see less money being made available than in the past if we are going to balance the budget in 7 years. That was really the first bipartisan agreement that I have seen that has been offered by Members of both parties as a way out of this mess. It is very clear that a way out is not just to blame the other side. We are past that. The people in my State of Louisiana and people in many States have come to the conclusion that something is basically wrong when people who are elected to govern can no longer govern, can no longer keep the Government operating the way it should. While we have done some things, I imagine when people read some of the things we have done compared to what we have not been able to do, they are going to scratch their heads in further amazement at the inability of the system to work as it was designed to work. One of the things we did do, which I think is sort of ironic, is that the Federal Government and the Senate did manage to pass one piece of business, as this article of yesterday, January 1, points out. They gave final approval to a bill ensuring that the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington would stay open. Without the legislation, the PLO office would have closed. If we can keep the PLO office open, how come we cannot keep nine Departments of our own Government open? If we can keep the Palestine Liberation Organization open and operating, why can we not keep the Department of Commerce working? If we can keep the PLO office open, how come we cannot keep the Education Department working? If we can keep the PLO office open, how come we cannot keep open the Health and Human Services Department? Or if we can keep open the PLO office in Washington, how come we cannot find enough intelligent men and women to come together to find a way to keep the Departments of Housing and Justice and Labor and State working? So it really is a question of priorities, and I think that so many of us on both sides of the aisle have tried to offer suggestions and ideas about what to do. As I mentioned, and I see the distinguished junior Senator from Virginia on the floor, and he joined with me and Senator Chafee and 14 other Senators to offer a package of suggestions that would have brought this stalemate to an end, would have opened up the nine departments, along with the PLO office that we were able to open, keep it open and functioning. I was talking to people over the recess here in Washington that are actually prohibited from going into the Department of Education. The guards at the desk have a list of who is essential, and if you are not on the list you cannot even come to the building and work if you wanted to. You cannot volunteer to keep your job going to serve the people of this country because Congress has not been able to come together. We have come together to keep the PLO office open. People are really wondering in amazement what has gone wrong in Washington. They are telling me ``Enough is enough. We have heard the arguments, we have heard the blame game. Can't you folks get together and make it work? That is what we elected you for.'' There are some, particularly in the other body, who make the argument we will keep the pressure on the President by shutting down the Government and by shutting down the Government and making these people not be able to work and not get paid while we keep the PLO office open--somehow that will put pressure on the President to make compromises he might otherwise not make. That has proved fruitless--24, 25 days now the Government has been partially closed. I hope this evening in the negotiations with our team of negotiators and the Republican team and the President, who are supposed to meet at 6 p.m, hopefully we can move toward an agreement. I hope somebody in that meeting would pick up the Chafee-Breaux proposal along with the Senator from Virginia, Senator Robb, and say, is this not a pretty good starting point, and throw that down on the table see if there is a way to split some of the differences and get an agreement. I want to point out just for a minute or two the illogic of trying to say that by shutting the Government down and hurting the Federal employees and telling the people that we cannot govern that somehow that will pressure the negotiators to come to an agreement. Mr. President, we are getting full salary. We are getting paid like it is a normal day. We get $133,600 a year; the leadership gets a little bit more than that, and they richly deserve it. As long as the Congress is continuing to get paid like nothing is happening, we are not going to have any real pressure. Senator Barbara Boxer from California offered a resolution to cut the pay of Members of Congress several weeks ago. I said that is, maybe, just a little too extreme. That type of rhetoric is not really essential and really necessary. But as each day has passed I have come to the conclusion that she is right, that as long as we are getting paid for performing our duties--which I suggest we are not performing as we should--there is not a lot of pressure for us to make the real compromises that are essential to get the job done. I was amazed by an article which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from the Washington Post of Tuesday, January 2, 1996, entitled, ``Don't Touch Our Pay, House Republicans Say.'' ``Hill Checks Protected During Budget Fight.''

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me first commend the Senator from Maryland for his comments. I think they are right on target. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Presiding Officer for being here and keeping the Senate in session.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding. In 1 minute I will try to say eloquent things about why this bill should not be adopted. Mr. President, put me down as being conservative when it comes to welfare reform. The current system, in my opinion, has not worked very well for the people who are on it, nor has it worked well for the people who are paying for it. It has to be changed. But the goal of welfare reform has to be to put able-bodied people to work and at the same time protect innocent children. This bill does not do that. It fails in a couple of fundamental manners. No. 1, the bill cuts benefits for disabled children on SSI by 25 percent. That is not reform. It is a step backwards. Second, the bill, in changing the rules for abused and neglected children, is contrary to every bipartisan recommendation that this Congress received from the Governors and from the State legislative bodies. This is a step in the wrong direction. Finally, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. It should be in the context of the budget negotiations. There is more money going to be available in that context. We know what we are doing with the EITC, the tax cuts, and other changes that are being made to fundamental policy. This welfare bill today should be turned down and come back, and we should do it in the context of the budget negotiations.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, at a time when most Americans believe that many Members of Congress ruined this Christmas season, and are probably on the verge of killing each other because we have not been able to agree on the principles and even how to keep the Government open, I want to say what a great privilege and pleasure it is to be able to work with the senior Senator from the State of Rhode Island. His wisdom, his experience, his knowledge, his compassion for people, and yet his dedication to making Government work really is a pleasure to me, as a Democratic Member on this side of the aisle, to be able to work with a person of great common sense and great compassion and just common sense that understands that in order to make Government work there is such a thing as the art of compromise. That makes sense. I think we have gotten to a point in this Congress where the word compromise is almost a dirty word that you should never utter for fear of moving away from the party principles. All of us who have been here longer than 12 months have to understand the way to get things done is to put forth the best ideas from both sides of the aisle and recognize that on difficult issues that those principles that we stand for need not be compromised, but how to get to those goals in fact does necessitate compromise if we are ever going to make Government work. Unfortunately, there are some who do not want to make Government work who have been elected to the Congress who are more concerned with shutting it down in order to make a point than in being willing to negotiate and talk with the other side and compromise with the other side in an effort to reach a legitimate compromise. I think there is enough blame to go around. This is not a partisan statement at all. In fact, it is the opposite. I think both sides have had various Members at various times stake out lines in the sand and say we will not go any further than this, but there is a consequence to those type of speeches. The consequence is that the American people are shouting. They are not whispering any longer. They are shouting, ``Enough is enough. We have sent all of you here, Democrats and Republicans, to make Government work, not to shut it down, not to close the doors on the services that people need, not to make political points.'' That is what elections are about. After you are here, it is about service, and after you are here it is about making Government work for the people that elected us. We are at a point now where we are, both sides, losing the faith of the American people to do exactly what we are supposed to be doing. That is why the press conference that we had this morning, Senator Chafee and myself, accompanied by about 19 Members, 18, 19, 20--half and half; half Democrats and half Republicans--who stood up and said, we have heard the pleas of the American people to get the job done. We have heard the pleas of our constituents who have said ``Stop the madness. Make Government work again. Trust us to accept your judgment when you reach a compromise,'' and we presented that plan. It is a blueprint. It is an outline. It has specific numbers on how to reach a balanced budget in 7 years, scored by the CBO in a way that is not everything that both sides would want, but I think reflects a fair middle ground. We have called for a continuing resolution. This is a bipartisan group that says we should continue the Government so we can have the negotiators work without the pressure of having the Government shut down. This is Republicans and Democrats saying, at the same time, and in the same forum, we need a simple continuing resolution, uncluttered, give us until January 15th so the negotiators can work in peace and do the job that they are supposed to do. A very important point, the first time that a bipartisan group has said that. Second, this group has called for tax cuts. These tax cuts are smaller than many Republicans would like but at the same time these tax cuts are larger than many Democrats would like. But it is a tax cut, a significant tax cut, which is designed to increase growth and productivity and savings in this country. The second thing we do is we say there will have to be more cuts in entitlement programs--propose less cuts than Republicans would like and certainly more cuts than Democrats would like. But we are recommending that there be entitlement cuts to these programs to restore their solvency, to assure they will be around for the next generation, recognizing that to do that we have to have some significant reforms. Mr. President, what we have offered is a blueprint. Part of that blueprint is something that some people think is so horribly controversial that we cannot even utter the word except in closeted surroundings, and that is an adjustment in the Consumer Price Index. Every economic expert, the people that read numbers every day and wear the green eyeshades and look at how much it costs to buy a typical basket of groceries, have told the Congress that we overestimate the Consumer Price Index, and taxes are indexed to that. Entitlement increases are indexed to that. But the index needs to be adjusted. You would think that that is not too difficult a thing to do. But our side does not want to go first because people will say it is a tax increase or a cut in entitlement programs. Republicans do not want to go first because of the same reason. So as a result, nothing gets done. Our side stood up today in a public forum and said yes, we think it ought to be fixed. It is broken. The suggestion is that there be a .5 percent adjustment in the Consumer Price Index, which will generate about $110 billion over the next 7 years that we can use for programs that need greater funding, that will meet the needs of the people of this country. I will conclude by saying this: Mr. Chafee has offered some real leadership here, and the other Republicans who have joined him have said, yes, it is time to recognize that compromise is all the way out. So we call for a truce today. We called for a ``stop the shouting and stop the blame game'' today. It was a significant statement. The product that we have put on the table, I think, is one that makes sense. It may not be the final answer, but it certainly offers a blueprint for us to get out of the mess that we are in. We would hope that our colleagues will take a look at the product. I hope the negotiators will consider it as we present it to them this afternoon. I think the negotiations are going well. And hopefully, with a continuing resolution, they will have adequate time to get the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as the President constructs a 7- year balanced budget plan to present to the Congress, I would like to reiterate my view that Puerto Rico's needs should not be ignored. The program developed by Governor Rosello to apply wage credit incentives to economically developed areas should be considered by the President as he fashions his plan. This would provide an excellent replacement to the termination of section 936. If no new economic development incentive can be agreed upon this year, Congress can still communicate its intentions to the people of Puerto Rico by pledging to consider a new job creation program at the earliest possible time. As a step toward this commitment, Congress should establish a new section of the code for economic development, and include as an interim measure the 10-year wage credit phase-out passed by the Congress. This technical change, which costs the Federal Treasury nothing, would demonstrate to the American citizens of Puerto Rico that Congress remains committed to its economic development and job creation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is intended to protect State and local governments from the financial crises caused when a casino declares bankruptcy and shuts down. I believe that gaming corporations should not be allowed to use Federal bankruptcy laws as leverage to gain more concessions from the city and State in which they are operating. On November 22, 1995, Harrah's casino in New Orleans declared bankruptcy and shut its doors--laying off 2,500 workers and leaving city and State officials facing multimillion-dollar budget shortfalls. As a result, the city may have to lay off as many as 1,000 city workers and substantially curtail city services. It is also estimated that the Louisiana Legislature faces a deficit of between $88.5 and $97.5 million this fiscal year if Harrah's remains closed. The Gaming Contracts Compliance Act would protect the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and other cities and State governments in the future, by prohibiting gambling establishments from getting out of their original contracts with city, county (parish), and State governments by declaring bankruptcy. These corporations would be obligated to fulfill the original contracts even as they undergo the reorganization afforded them by bankruptcy protection. Casinos in bankruptcy would be allowed to renegotiate their contracts only if government officials agree. This legislation would prevent casinos like Harrah's from closing down to force a better deal from State and local governments--all at the expense of local taxpayers and casino workers. State and local officials cannot be left holding an open bag of broken promises given by international gaming operations simply because gambling revenue estimates are off the mark. The welfare of our cities and its citizens must come first.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is intended to protect State and local governments from the financial crises caused when a casino declares bankruptcy and shuts down. I believe that gaming corporations should not be allowed to use Federal bankruptcy laws as leverage to gain more concessions from the city and State in which they are operating. On November 22, 1995, Harrah's casino in New Orleans declared bankruptcy and shut its doors--laying off 2,500 workers and leaving city and State officials facing multimillion-dollar budget shortfalls. As a result, the city may have to lay off as many as 1,000 city workers and substantially curtail city services. It is also estimated that the Louisiana Legislature faces a deficit of between $88.5 and $97.5 million this fiscal year if Harrah's remains closed. The Gaming Contracts Compliance Act would protect the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and other cities and State governments in the future, by prohibiting gambling establishments from getting out of their original contracts with city, county (parish), and State governments by declaring bankruptcy. These corporations would be obligated to fulfill the original contracts even as they undergo the reorganization afforded them by bankruptcy protection. Casinos in bankruptcy would be allowed to renegotiate their contracts only if government officials agree. This legislation would prevent casinos like Harrah's from closing down to force a better deal from State and local governments--all at the expense of local taxpayers and casino workers. State and local officials cannot be left holding an open bag of broken promises given by international gaming operations simply because gambling revenue estimates are off the mark. The welfare of our cities and its citizens must come first.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that the clerk read S. 1438 by title.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, concerning the second bill, I ask that the clerk read the second bill by title.