John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I understand there are two bills due for their second reading that are at the desk.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as the Congress comes back from the weekend recess, a lot of people I know throughout the country, and in my State of Louisiana in particular, have been wondering whether Congress is going to be able to get together to solve the budget crisis. We do not have a lot of time before December 15, and there is the prospect of yet another shutdown of the Federal Government because Congress has not been able to resolve how to come together on a plan to balance the budget over a specified period of time. Mr. President, I will make a couple of comments about that impasse because I think indeed it is very serious. I remember looking at the New York Times on Saturday morning. It was a report on the progress that Congress has made on this effort to balance the budget. I will read perhaps a couple of sentences from that article on Saturday by Mr. David Rosenbaum: The budget negotiations this week between Congress and the White House were a complete bust. For 3 days in a row, lawmakers and administration officials met around a table in a conference room in the Capitol of the United States, closed the doors, accomplished absolutely nothing, and came out and accused each other of refusing to negotiate in good faith. Then, on Thursday afternoon, they adjourned until next week. No one savvy about Washington politics was surprised. Mr. President, at a time when President Clinton can bring all the heads of the territories in Bosnia to Dayton, OH, and ask them to sit in a room until they reach an agreement ending a war that has been going on for centuries, can we not bring together the parties in this body called Congress to agree on what we should do with the budget? I mentioned another article, which I think is right on target. It is by our distinguished leader, Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader. He [[Page S 17876]] pointed out in this article, which appeared in Roll Call: People of this country are sick and tired of a Government that does not understand their problems or their neighbors' problems, sick and tired of politicians fighting over things that the rest of the country cannot understand, and, most of all, they are sick and tired of the fact that it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington. Mr. President, I think that it is time, when we talk about the budget, for the moderates in both parties to come together and help resolve this problem. I am absolutely convinced that you cannot put people in a room who have visions of what the future of this country should be like that are as different as night and day. It is my opinion that the most difficult problems cannot be solved from the left working in, nor from the right working toward the center. I am absolutely convinced that you cannot take the fringes of any political party and try and use that methodology to solve difficult problems, such as a budget problem. I know that all the folks that are working on the budget are people of good faith and have strong beliefs about what a budget agreement should accomplish and what it should contain. Mr. President, I am suggesting today that there are moderates on the Democratic side-- moderates in the Democratic Party, both in the House and in the Senate, that really want to have a budget agreement. I think it is now time for the moderates on both sides of our political parties to try and band together to help resolve this problem. I am very concerned that as the days go by and hours keep ticking off the clock, that we are not making the progress needed and necessary in order to solve this problem before yet another deadline occurs. As it was said in the Saturday article I quoted, the talks so far between Congress and the White House were a complete bust. Mr. President, we owe to the American people much more than that. We owe the best talent, the best minds, and the best dedicated public servants to work together across party lines to bring this debate to a closure. Let me suggest a couple of things I think moderates can agree to. First, I think it is certainly possible that we can agree that there should be a balanced budget and it should be in 7 years. Point No. 1. Second, I think that all of this debate about which economic assumptions we are going to use to help solve this problem almost border on the point of being ridiculous. The Congressional Budget Office has suggested that growth is going to be about 2.3 percent next year. The Office of Management and Budget suggested that growth rate will be about 2.5 percent. Is there not a middle ground between those two numbers, a figure between 2.3 and 2.5 that people with good intentions cannot agree to? I suggest that we split the differences between those, and I think that is something that can be done. I think it can be done in a way that brings about the best economic assumptions that we need in order to fix this problem. Third, I think people should be able to agree on a Consumer Price Index adjustment. The people who have looked at this issue have recommended that, clearly, the Consumer Price Index on which we base so many of our economic programs is overstating the cost of products that consumers buy and that an adjustment of somewhere up to 1 percent perhaps is a reasonable and rational adjustment. I suggest that we could take a point, a percent adjustment, and by doing that really allow us a great deal more flexibility in solving this budget impasse. Fourth, I think we ought to be able to agree on a tax cut that is reasonable and fair. Some have suggested no tax cut at all, zero. Some have suggested we absolutely have to have $245 billion in tax cuts. Is there not, again, a middle ground that we could agree on that comes up with a reasonable tax cut and save somewhere in the range of $100 to $150 billion over the 7-year period? Is that not a fair compromise to those who say we should have none and those who say we should have the higher amount? I suggest it is. The fifth point I think we should be able to come together on is the fact that the savings we have from these procedures I just outlined should be utilized to put back money in Medicare and Medicaid and the earned income tax credit and the welfare program, environmental programs, and yes, equally if not more important, the education programs which determine the future of the people of this country and use those extra funds to increase some of those drastic, suggested cuts in those programs. Mr. President, I think reasonable people in both parties who could call ourselves moderate should be able to get together and do these things. I think it is more difficult when you have people who are on the left in their party, or on the right in their party trying to resolve these differences. Is it not better to have a group of people in the middle who are moderates who can agree, and once we get an agreement which I think is pretty easy to get to, work it out so that we then move toward the outside to solve the problem? The way to solve this problem is working from the center out, not from the left end or from the right end, but, rather, working out the principles. These five principles I outlined I think give us the strong basis for trying to reach a balanced budget in 7 years, one that, hopefully, this President would be able to see meets the needs that he has outlined, solves the problem, and everybody comes away a winner. I do not see how anybody wins if we have another stalemate. Everybody loses. Yet if we do reach an agreement, everybody should win. And winners or losers in the Congress is not really what it is all about; it is whether we will craft a program that the American people can win with and the future generations can say that Congress did the right thing when they were called upon to meet this challenge. I strongly suggest that now is the time for moderates in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party to start talking to each other. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what a democratic Government is all about--compromises, meeting together, solving the problems in the center, and then working it away, and these agreements are received by more people in order to reach a majority. I am just very concerned if we do not do that, if we try and solve this problem from the left working in or from the right working in, we will just have a stalemate. I do not think there is any political capital in bringing this Government to a closure again because we at that time will be admitting once again we cannot make Government work. That is not why we were sent to Congress. Just the opposite is the reason we are here. I call today upon moderates in both parties to start talking, to meeting, to see if we cannot agree on these five principles I have tried to outline and take it from there and see where it leads us. I suggest, in conclusion, we might be very surprised that it leads us to a balanced budget agreement that the Congress can pass with great enthusiasm, and this President will find that he will be able to support it as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I understand there is a 5-minute limitation. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Stevens and others, I am introducing legislation that will implement the Panama Declaration on the protection of dolphins in the tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The United States signed the Panama Declaration on October 4, 1995, along with the Governments of Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanutatu, and Venezuela. By agreeing to the Panama Declaration, these countries have demonstrated their commitment to the conservation of ecosystems and the sustainable use of living resources related to the tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific. By implementing the Panama Declaration, we will strengthen the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC] which has proven to be an extremely effective international resource management organization. In conjunction with strengthening the IATTC, we will ensure the reduction of dolphin mortalities associated with tuna fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In addition, we will enable American tuna fishermen to re-enter that tuna fishery on the same footing as foreign fishermen. Since 1949, the IATTC has served as the regional fishery management organization for the tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, managing that fishery in an exemplary manner. One of the fishery issues addressed under IATTC auspices is that of dolphin mortality associated with the yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In that fishery, tuna fishermen use dolphins to locate schools of mature yellowfin tuna which, for unknown reasons, associate with schools of dolphin. Once the tuna have been located, the fishermen use purse seine nets to encircle schools of dolphin with the objective of catching the tuna swimming below the dolphins and then safely releasing the encircled dolphins. In recent years, there has been some concern about these fishing practices which, in the past, have resulted in excessive incidental mortality to dolphins. In 1992, in an effort to address this problem, 10 nations with tuna vessels operating in the eastern tropical Pacific signed an agreement known as the La Jolla Agreement. The La Jolla Agreement established the International Dolphin Conservation Program, or IDCP, which is administered by the IATTC. The regional objective of the IDCP is to reduce dolphin mortalities to insignificant levels approaching zero, with a goal of eliminating them entirely. Pursuant to that program, the number of dolphins killed accidentally in the tuna fishery has been reduced to less than 4,000 annually from a previous average of over 300,000 killed annually. The current dolphin mortality represents approximately four one-hundredths of one percent of the 9.5 million dolphins of the eastern tropical Pacific. Thus, the IDCP has been remarkably successful in achieving its goal of reducing unintended dolphin mortalities to biologically insignificant levels approaching zero. This legislation will implement the Panama Declaration, formalizing the 1992 La Jolla Agreement and making it a legal agreement binding on the member countries of the IATTC as soon as it is formally adopted. The Panama Declaration strengthens the IDCP and [[Page S 17344]] furthers its goals by placing a cap of 5,000 per year on dolphin mortalities. Although U.S. fishermen developed the techniques now used in capturing tuna and safely releasing dolphins, they effectively have been foreclosed from fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific since the 1992 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prohibit the encirclement of dolphins. The legislation to implement the Panama Declaration will eliminate the inequitable treatment of United States tuna fishermen and enable them to re-enter this important fishery on an equal footing with foreign fishermen. The 1992 ban on encirclement of dolphins has required fishermen to turn to alternative fishing practices, the use of which causes excessive bycatch of endangered sea turtles, sharks, billfish, and great numbers of immature tuna and other fish species. This legislation will result in a reduction of this bycatch problem, as well, as it will permit fishermen to encircle dolphins as long as they comply with the stringent regulations imposed by the IATTC. The purpose of this bill is to improve and solidify efforts to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, as well as to eliminate the bycatch problems caused by alternative fishing methods. The Panama Declaration establishes a common environmental standard for all countries fishing in the region. By formalizing the La Jolla Agreement, U.S. and foreign fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific will be subject to the most stringent fishery regulations in the world. The Panama Declaration represents a tremendous environmental achievement, and it enjoys support from such diverse interests as environmental groups, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, the Clinton administration, and other countries whose fishermen operate in the eastern tropical Pacific. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation in order that we may implement this important international agreement.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Stevens and others, I am introducing legislation that will implement the Panama Declaration on the protection of dolphins in the tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The United States signed the Panama Declaration on October 4, 1995, along with the Governments of Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanutatu, and Venezuela. By agreeing to the Panama Declaration, these countries have demonstrated their commitment to the conservation of ecosystems and the sustainable use of living resources related to the tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific. By implementing the Panama Declaration, we will strengthen the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC] which has proven to be an extremely effective international resource management organization. In conjunction with strengthening the IATTC, we will ensure the reduction of dolphin mortalities associated with tuna fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In addition, we will enable American tuna fishermen to re-enter that tuna fishery on the same footing as foreign fishermen. Since 1949, the IATTC has served as the regional fishery management organization for the tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, managing that fishery in an exemplary manner. One of the fishery issues addressed under IATTC auspices is that of dolphin mortality associated with the yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In that fishery, tuna fishermen use dolphins to locate schools of mature yellowfin tuna which, for unknown reasons, associate with schools of dolphin. Once the tuna have been located, the fishermen use purse seine nets to encircle schools of dolphin with the objective of catching the tuna swimming below the dolphins and then safely releasing the encircled dolphins. In recent years, there has been some concern about these fishing practices which, in the past, have resulted in excessive incidental mortality to dolphins. In 1992, in an effort to address this problem, 10 nations with tuna vessels operating in the eastern tropical Pacific signed an agreement known as the La Jolla Agreement. The La Jolla Agreement established the International Dolphin Conservation Program, or IDCP, which is administered by the IATTC. The regional objective of the IDCP is to reduce dolphin mortalities to insignificant levels approaching zero, with a goal of eliminating them entirely. Pursuant to that program, the number of dolphins killed accidentally in the tuna fishery has been reduced to less than 4,000 annually from a previous average of over 300,000 killed annually. The current dolphin mortality represents approximately four one-hundredths of one percent of the 9.5 million dolphins of the eastern tropical Pacific. Thus, the IDCP has been remarkably successful in achieving its goal of reducing unintended dolphin mortalities to biologically insignificant levels approaching zero. This legislation will implement the Panama Declaration, formalizing the 1992 La Jolla Agreement and making it a legal agreement binding on the member countries of the IATTC as soon as it is formally adopted. The Panama Declaration strengthens the IDCP and [[Page S 17344]] furthers its goals by placing a cap of 5,000 per year on dolphin mortalities. Although U.S. fishermen developed the techniques now used in capturing tuna and safely releasing dolphins, they effectively have been foreclosed from fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific since the 1992 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prohibit the encirclement of dolphins. The legislation to implement the Panama Declaration will eliminate the inequitable treatment of United States tuna fishermen and enable them to re-enter this important fishery on an equal footing with foreign fishermen. The 1992 ban on encirclement of dolphins has required fishermen to turn to alternative fishing practices, the use of which causes excessive bycatch of endangered sea turtles, sharks, billfish, and great numbers of immature tuna and other fish species. This legislation will result in a reduction of this bycatch problem, as well, as it will permit fishermen to encircle dolphins as long as they comply with the stringent regulations imposed by the IATTC. The purpose of this bill is to improve and solidify efforts to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, as well as to eliminate the bycatch problems caused by alternative fishing methods. The Panama Declaration establishes a common environmental standard for all countries fishing in the region. By formalizing the La Jolla Agreement, U.S. and foreign fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific will be subject to the most stringent fishery regulations in the world. The Panama Declaration represents a tremendous environmental achievement, and it enjoys support from such diverse interests as environmental groups, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, the Clinton administration, and other countries whose fishermen operate in the eastern tropical Pacific. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation in order that we may implement this important international agreement.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking the distinguished managers of the bill, the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for all the work they have put into helping to craft this amendment. It retains many of the features of S. 33, which I introduced in January of this year. I believe that it is an amendment that all of our colleagues should support. This amendment addresses a serious concern--the shutting down of onshore and offshore oil and gas producers because they cannot meet onerous Federal financial responsibility standards mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This amendment gives the Secretary of the Interior the flexibility to adjust Federal financial responsibility requirements to reflect the risks actually posed. Unless, this flexibility is provided for offshore facilities, the Oil Pollution Act's financial requirements will freeze out small and independent companies that drill most of the wells offshore. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez oilspill. It was designed to prevent oilspills and if oilspills do occur to make sure sufficient financial resources are available to clean up those spills. The statute establishes liability limits and requirements of financial responsibility to meet those limits. However, recent interpretation of the statute by the Department of the Interior indicates that legislative changes are needed to meet congressional intent concerning financial responsibility for onshore facilities and to correct the overly burensome financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities that threaten the viability of many offshore producers. When the Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act, it clearly intended that onshore facilities would not have to show evidence of financial responsibility. However, a recent Interior Department solicitor's opinion indicates that due to the interrelationship of several definitions in the act, that they interpret the statute to require financial responsibility be shown by onshore facilities. Mr. President, clearly, Congress did not and does not want to require small marina operators or other onshore facilities to show $150 million of financial responsibility. This legislation clarifies the congressional intent on the law with respect to financial responsibility for onshore facilities. Also, this amendment gives the Minerals Management Service the authority to require evidence of financial responsibility between $35 and $150 million based on the environmental risk posed by the facility. Current law is inflexible on this point, all offshore facilities must provide evidence of $150 million regardless of how much oil they handle, their history of oilspills, or other factors that would determine the true risk of an oilspill. In addition, this amendment provides that any producer that handles less than 1,000 barrels of oil at any one time would be exempt from the financial responsibility requirement. Both the $35 million financial responsibility level and the 1,000 barrels were included in prior law--the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This approach preserves OPA's oilspill prevention, response and environmental safeguards and liability standards, while setting reasonable financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities. It also recognizes the low level of risk of oilspills associated with the offshore industry generally, and the fact that no spill on the Federal Gulf of Mexico offshore has exceeded the $35 million of financial responsibility in force before OPA. I look forward to working to further revise this legislation. This legislation is one step that can be accomplished now to help maintain a viable domestic energy industry. We know that oil imports continue to rise, while the domestic energy industry continues to decline. In 1973--at the time of the Arab oil embargo--domestic U.S. crude oil production was 9.2 million barrels per day [[Page S 17396]] (mbd). By 1977, that figure had fallen to 8.1 mdb, before increasing as Alaska production flowed through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. By 1985, domestic crude production had climbed to a post-embargo high of 9.0 mbd. Now, 10 years later, domestic crude oil output runs at 6.6 mbd. In 1973, the U.S. imported about 35 percent of its daily oil consumption. Now, we import almost half our total oil needs--8.1 mbd out of a daily consumption of about 18 mbd. This nation would never allow us to import more than 50 percent of our food supply--Is our energy supply any less important? Let us not forget the oil shocks of the seventies and let us not forget that just a few years ago we sent young Americans to the Persian Gulf to protect our strategic interest in the oil there. Thousands of oil industry workers have been laid off and it looks like many more may become unemployed in the future. More than 400,000 jobs have been lost in the oil and gas industry in the last 10 years. By some estimates, 40,000 to 50,000 may have been lost in 1992 alone. The jobs in the oil industry today are very different from those of yesterday. The reserves that are fast and easy to recover through simple hard labor are no more. Increasingly, extraction of oil and gas requires very sophisticated technology that requires a highly-skilled, highly educated work force. The energy industry of today creates the kinds of jobs we want for tomorrow--high technology, high paying jobs. Our national security depends on access to dependable domestic energy reserves. Unfortunately, our domestic oil and gas industry cannot turn on a dime. No magic spigot can be turned on when the need for secure domestic oil reserves become acute. The expertise needed to develop oil and gas is highly-specialized, particularly now that the remaining domestic reserves are increasingly difficult to recover. This is not just an oil and gas state interest--this is a national interest. Energy fuels our cars, heats our homes, runs our factories in every part of the country. Also, let us not forget the thousands of jobs created in non-energy related sectors to service the energy industry: computers, metals, transportation, financial and other service industries. When domestic oil and gas producing increases so do the jobs created in all these sectors. Unless we take steps to help preserve a viable domestic industry, the next energy crisis may be chronic and very damaging to our economy. Unless we act to preserve a core of talent and capital in the United States, the domestic industry may not be able to deploy the necessary capital investment and trained labor necessary to quickly add large increments to our overall domestic supply of oil and petroleum products. We can change politics as usual--the politics of crisis management-- and we can work now to avert an energy crisis in the future. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is a good starting point. It does not address some issues that I believe need to be addressed, but I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to make changes to the Oil Pollution Act that I believe are necessary to maintain our domestic energy security. Again, I thank Senator Stevens, Senator Hollings and Senator Chafee, for their involvement, their assistance and their encouragement in this effort. And, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. An amendment to s. 1004, the coast guard authorization act of 1995

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today, with respect and admiration for my colleague from Louisiana, the Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, in order to introduce legislation which will designate part of the Red River the ``J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.'' Senator Johnston's diligence in serving the people of Louisiana for close to 30 years more than justifies this legislation and should be a reminder to those of us who have had the honor to serve in the Senate with him and to all who will serve here in the future what the word ``service'' truly means. The work that Senator Johnston has done to rebuild and rejuvenate the Red River and the communities that depend on it exemplifies the strength of his leadership and his commitment to the economic development of Louisiana. For years, the many bends and excessive sedimentation in the Red River made it unnavigable to the barges and ships necessary for transporting local goods. The economy of the region that depended on the Red River became depressed. Senator Johnston has worked successfully for the last 22 years helping local communities and organizations obtain the funding necessary to create a modern waterway. As a result of this success, old and new businesses are moving back into the area, job opportunities are sprouting up again, and the hope that accompanied a new economic direction is taking root in the region. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $107 million in benefits will be generated annually and approximately 56,000 new jobs will be created in 40 years. Other benefits include cleaner water, improved and increased recreational use, the possibility of hydroelectric power in the future, and potential for greater agricultural utilization of the river. Local organizations and residents recognize the positive growth resulting from this project as well as the substantial role Senator Johnston played in making this growth a reality. In fact, it was local citizens who requested this naming legislation. The many people who have worked with Senator Johnston over the years know he was the key to this project's success and want to honor him for all that he has done to make the waterway a reality. Each time we navigate the river, each time we use it to recreate and each time we realize economic benefits from the river, we will forever be mindful of the man whose unyielding leadership and dedication made it all possible, my colleague, my friend, and my senior Senator, the Honorable J. Bennett Johnston.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today, with respect and admiration for my colleague from Louisiana, the Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, in order to introduce legislation which will designate part of the Red River the ``J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.'' Senator Johnston's diligence in serving the people of Louisiana for close to 30 years more than justifies this legislation and should be a reminder to those of us who have had the honor to serve in the Senate with him and to all who will serve here in the future what the word ``service'' truly means. The work that Senator Johnston has done to rebuild and rejuvenate the Red River and the communities that depend on it exemplifies the strength of his leadership and his commitment to the economic development of Louisiana. For years, the many bends and excessive sedimentation in the Red River made it unnavigable to the barges and ships necessary for transporting local goods. The economy of the region that depended on the Red River became depressed. Senator Johnston has worked successfully for the last 22 years helping local communities and organizations obtain the funding necessary to create a modern waterway. As a result of this success, old and new businesses are moving back into the area, job opportunities are sprouting up again, and the hope that accompanied a new economic direction is taking root in the region. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $107 million in benefits will be generated annually and approximately 56,000 new jobs will be created in 40 years. Other benefits include cleaner water, improved and increased recreational use, the possibility of hydroelectric power in the future, and potential for greater agricultural utilization of the river. Local organizations and residents recognize the positive growth resulting from this project as well as the substantial role Senator Johnston played in making this growth a reality. In fact, it was local citizens who requested this naming legislation. The many people who have worked with Senator Johnston over the years know he was the key to this project's success and want to honor him for all that he has done to make the waterway a reality. Each time we navigate the river, each time we use it to recreate and each time we realize economic benefits from the river, we will forever be mindful of the man whose unyielding leadership and dedication made it all possible, my colleague, my friend, and my senior Senator, the Honorable J. Bennett Johnston.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take this time to voice my concern about the current situation with regard to the continuing resolution that is before this Senate to try to keep the Government functioning. Throughout Washington and I think throughout the various States people who work for the Federal Government and people who have concerns about the services the Federal Government provides are wondering whether we in the Congress are going to be able to get together and make Government work or, rather, are we going to fight to the finish and nobody will be a winner, least of all the American people. Many Federal offices right now are debating the question of whether they are essential or not, which is sort of a novel thing to have to debate as a Federal employee in offices on the Hill and other agencies because they know if they are a nonessential employee, they do not go to work tomorrow unless we fix this problem. But if they are an essential employee, they have to come to work even though they might not get paid. So it is interesting to see whether you are determined to be a Federal employee who is essential or one who is not in order to determine whether you come to work tomorrow or stay home because we in the Congress and the administration have not been able to get [[Page S 16981]] together and even come to an agreement on how to continue the functions of the Government. Mr. President, I am concerned that many people in my home State of Louisiana are beginning to believe that the Congress is sort of a nonessential arm of the Federal Government, and they are saying that Republicans and Democrats in the Congress are really nonessential because they cannot get together to find a way to resolve this problem. I think there is a lot of blame that should be evenly divided among all of us who have not been able to solve this problem. My Republican colleagues, because they have not been able to pass all of the appropriations bills to fund Government, have necessitated a continuing resolution to continue the functions of Government as if they were being continued last year, because we have not finished the appropriations bills. The problem is they have added a couple of little items to the continuing resolution which make major policy changes, and that is where the problem is. But it is not an irresolvable problem, in my opinion. It should be that grown men and women can come together and say we are going to move toward a position that will allow the Government to continue, allow the functions of Government to work, and I happen to feel if we are able to do that, everybody wins. The American people win because Government works. The Congress wins because we have been able to resolve a problem. I think we all lose if we bring this Government to a standstill. We are admitting that we are unable to govern. We are admitting that we cannot make it work. We are admitting that we are so stubborn, in my opinion, that we cannot meet somewhere in the middle. I think there is a way to fix this problem. I know there are those who want to bring everything to a halt to make a political point, but I think the political point we all make is that we all lose. Let me suggest this. The whole question is about Medicare premiums. Under the current law, Medicare premiums are going to fall down to about 25 percent of the cost of insurance. That is going to occur January 1. That means that if the law is not changed January 1, Medicare premiums will go down to about $42.50 unless some changes are made. Republicans have said: Well, no, we are going to not let it go down. We are going to keep it at 31\1/2\ percent, which means that come January 1 Medicare recipients are going to have to pay about $53.50. That is their proposal. That is a major change. I do not think it ought to be on the CR. I think it is a back-door way to change public policy, and that is not the way we should be doing it. So there are those who say: No, it should go down to $42.50. Others say: No, it should rise to $53.50 because Medicare is in danger of going bankrupt so we need to pay more to protect it. Let me make a suggestion. Let me make a suggestion that grown men and women can agree to keep the premium just as it is, $46.10, until we work out this problem. It does not go up. It does not go down. Keep it where it is until we resolve the major differences in the budget. Let us not make Medicare recipients hostage while we battle over what Government should do. Keep the premium exactly where it is--no increase, no decrease. Now, the administration points out, and I think correctly, that the Republicans have also tried to do something different from the current CR, and that is that they would fund all of these other programs at the lowest level between the House and the Senate version of these appropriations bills. I think that is wrong. The current CR funds these programs at an average of what the House did and the Senate did. So why not do both of those things and fix this problem and assure the American people that we can make Government work. My suggestion is quite simple. Keep the Medicare premium at $46.10 and fund the rest of the programs at the average between the House and the Senate. That is not magical. I mean, I bet a person in the eighth grade could figure that out and say that is a fair compromise. But you know what? He probably would not be a politician, because if he is a politician he is going to say, ``Well, I can't do that because the other side may get an advantage, and, by God, I sure can't let that happen.'' So, I almost have decided the only way to solve some of these problems is to get people who are not running for reelection to come in and sit down, maybe get some of those kids in the eighth grade that know how to add and divide by two and split the difference. I think we could bring this to a conclusion if we did just those two things, fund all of the bills that have not been completed with an average between the House and the Senate. It is easy to figure out. That is what the current continuing resolution does exactly. If it was good earlier, it is good now. And, second, freeze the Medicare premium at $46.10 until we finish this. We can send that to the White House, a bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats to get the job done. That would allow us enough time until the end of this month to work on the bigger issues. We should not hold this country hostage, neither side, because of who gets the political gain. Again, I repeat, the people of Louisiana are beginning to believe that Congress is a nonessential Federal employee. And that is a bad statement about the ability of this Congress to get the job done. I suggest we come together and get the job done. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. BREAUX. I was going to ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. BREAUX. Five minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would just ask the Chair to state the current business before the Senate.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was honestly shocked to learn of the huge difference that exists between the Federal penalties for trafficking powder cocaine and for trafficking the exact same amount of crack cocaine. Right now, selling 5 grams of crack cocaine results in the same 5- year mandatory minimum prison term as selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. Selling 50 grams of crack cocaine gets you a 10-year minimum sentence, while you'd have to sell 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to get the same 10 years in prison. While these penalties are vastly different--100 times greater if you sell crack cocaine--the damage caused by these criminal acts are the same. Lives are lost, families are destroyed, careers are ruined, and our Nation itself is seriously threatened. [[Page S 16755]] Tough penalties are necessary to send a clear signal that the United States will not tolerate selling illegal drugs. The answer to the problem presented by this wide difference in penalties is not to lower penalties for selling crack cocaine but to increase the penalties for selling powder cocaine. Therefore, my legislation is very simple and very clear. Trafficking--that is the manufacture, distribution or sale--of 50 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 10-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. Manufacture, distribution or sale of 5 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 5-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. I'm pleased that Senator Hank Brown of Colorado has joined me as a principle cosponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was honestly shocked to learn of the huge difference that exists between the Federal penalties for trafficking powder cocaine and for trafficking the exact same amount of crack cocaine. Right now, selling 5 grams of crack cocaine results in the same 5- year mandatory minimum prison term as selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. Selling 50 grams of crack cocaine gets you a 10-year minimum sentence, while you'd have to sell 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to get the same 10 years in prison. While these penalties are vastly different--100 times greater if you sell crack cocaine--the damage caused by these criminal acts are the same. Lives are lost, families are destroyed, careers are ruined, and our Nation itself is seriously threatened. [[Page S 16755]] Tough penalties are necessary to send a clear signal that the United States will not tolerate selling illegal drugs. The answer to the problem presented by this wide difference in penalties is not to lower penalties for selling crack cocaine but to increase the penalties for selling powder cocaine. Therefore, my legislation is very simple and very clear. Trafficking--that is the manufacture, distribution or sale--of 50 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 10-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. Manufacture, distribution or sale of 5 grams of powder cocaine will result in a 5-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack cocaine. I'm pleased that Senator Hank Brown of Colorado has joined me as a principle cosponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that I believe should garner widespread support in both parties. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 would provide screening under Medicare for the third most prevalent type of cancer, cancer of the colon and rectum, which will strike 138,200 Americans this year. The bill would provide screening in a cost-effective manner which would ensure that doctors and their patients, not the Federal Government, decide which of the several recommended screening procedures are used. I am joined by Senators Conrad, Dorgan, Kerrey, Daschle, and Hollings. Let me share with you some of the frightening facts about colorectal cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, 55,300 Americans will die this year from this disease. Of the 138,200 new cases that will be reported, about half will be among men--70,700--and half among women-- 67,500. Only lung and prostate cancer attack more Americans. In my own State of Louisiana, 2,000 citizens will get this type of cancer this year. As with most cancers, early detection is key to surviving colorectal cancer. About 90 percent of colorectal cancer victims whose cancer is detected in an early localized stage survive beyond 5 years. That number drops to between 50 and 60 percent when the cancer has spread regionally and to less than 10 percent when it has spread more widely. Mr. President, colorectal cancer is a major cost to the Medicare Program. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 168,000 seniors were hospitalized with colon or rectum cancer in 1991--the most recent year for which data is available. The average hospital stay for these patients was 16 days. While private health plans are beginning to provide coverage for colorectal cancer screening, Medicare--which serves older Americans who are most at risk--does not. According to a report from the Congressional Officer of Technology Assessment released earlier this year, screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than many of the other procedures the Medicare Program already covers. Screening provides benefits at a cost of about $13,000 per life-year saved, versus $40,000 to $50,000 per life-year saved for some preventive and other services that Medicare already covers. At a time when we are looking for ways to control the overall cost of the Medicare Program, we must continue our efforts to use those limited funds in ways that are cost-effective. Mr. President, I know that other Members of this body have introduced a bill to provide for colorectal cancer screening. This measure differs from theirs in only a few ways. First, this bill is not procedure- specific. It would provide Medicare coverage for all of the colon cancer screening recommended by the American College of Physicians and which the Office of Technology Assessment found to be cost-effective. Second, the would allow the Secretary to add new procedures once they are developed. This is critically important to encouraging innovation and research in this area. As a number of medical companies have explained in recent correspondence, legislation that ``limits Medicare reimbursement to only a few of the current screening technologies does not allow for the development and diffusion of new medical procedures which might ultimately prove more effective and cost-efficient in the detection of colorectal cancer.'' Mr. President, I believe Medicare should cover all types of recommended screening and let the patient and his doctor, not the Federal Government, decide which one is appropriate. This bill would follow the guidelines approved by the American College of Physicians on April 23, 1990, which read as follows: Recommendations: 1. Screening with fecal occult blood tests is recommended annually for individuals age 50 and older. 2. Screening with sigmoidoscopy is recommended every 3-5 years or with air-contrast barium enema every 5 years for individuals age 50 or older. 3. For individuals age 40 and older who have familial polyposis coli, inflammatory bowel disease, or a history of colon cancer in a first degree relative, i.e., parent or sibling, screening with air-contrast barium enema or colonoscopy in addition to annual fecal occult blood tests, is recommended every 3-5 years. For individuals over the age of 50 who are on Medicare and at average risk of colorectal cancer, this bill would allow payment for: every 12 months, a fecal blood test; and every 5 years, a sigmoidoscopy, barium enema, or other procedure approved by the Secretary. For individuals at high risk of colorectal cancer, the bill would allow Medicare reimbursement for: every 12 months, a fecal blood test; and every 2 years, a colonoscopy, barium enema, or other procedure approved by the Secretary. Here's how the American Cancer Society described these different procedures in its 1995 Cancer Facts and Figures report: The stool blood test is a simple method to test feces for hidden blood. The specimen is obtained by the patient at home and returned to the physician's office, a hospital, or a clinic for analysis. The Society recommends annual testing after age 50. In proctosigmoidoscopy, the physician uses a hollow lighted tube or a fiberoptic sigmoidoscope to inspect the rectum and lower colon. To detect cancers higher in the colon, longer, flexible instruments are used. The American Cancer Society recommends sigmoidoscopy, preferably flexible, every 3 to 5 years after age 50. If any of these tests reveal possible problems, more extensive studies, such as colonoscopy (examination of the entire colon) and barium enema (an x-ray procedure in which the intestines are viewed), may be needed. Mr. President, if we are to provide screening for colorectal cancer, which I believe is desperately needed, we should allow all types of procedures recommended by the American College of Physicians and described by the American Cancer Society. This bill would do just that. I know that other Members of this body have indicated their support for colorectal cancer screening under Medicare. My hope is that we can all join together on a proposal that will give seniors and their doctors the maximum choice and protection from this dreaded disease. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 and the recommendations from the American College of Physicians on screening for colorectal cancer be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Johnston to designate the U.S. Civil War Center as the flagship institution charged with planning and facilitating the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War in 2011. While the date may still seem far off, it is important to remember that this will be a particularly important anniversary as it will be the last opportunity for most of us to commemorate the Civil War. The Civil War Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, LA, offers the most appropriate setting for the organization of this remembrance. There is no other center in the United States that currently studies the war from the perspective of every conceivable discipline, profession, and occupation. The center will be able to coordinate with the numerous Civil War commemorative organizations throughout the Nation. Funding for the activities throughout the sesquicentennial will come from private donations and grants. Since the end of the commemoration of the centennial of the war in 1965, the United States has come a long way toward healing some of the lingering wounds of the war. Recent events have emphasized that many of them still must be addressed, as racism, violence, and regional economics remain problems in our united Nation. If we are to continue to learn from our differences, the commemoration of the sesquicentennial offers the opportunity to reflect on where we once were and where we will next go. I urge my colleagues to join me in the designation of the U.S. Civil War Center as the flagship institution for the sesquicentennial. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and the letter of support from the center's advisory board be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that I believe should garner widespread support in both parties. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 would provide screening under Medicare for the third most prevalent type of cancer, cancer of the colon and rectum, which will strike 138,200 Americans this year. The bill would provide screening in a cost-effective manner which would ensure that doctors and their patients, not the Federal Government, decide which of the several recommended screening procedures are used. I am joined by Senators Conrad, Dorgan, Kerrey, Daschle, and Hollings. Let me share with you some of the frightening facts about colorectal cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, 55,300 Americans will die this year from this disease. Of the 138,200 new cases that will be reported, about half will be among men--70,700--and half among women-- 67,500. Only lung and prostate cancer attack more Americans. In my own State of Louisiana, 2,000 citizens will get this type of cancer this year. As with most cancers, early detection is key to surviving colorectal cancer. About 90 percent of colorectal cancer victims whose cancer is detected in an early localized stage survive beyond 5 years. That number drops to between 50 and 60 percent when the cancer has spread regionally and to less than 10 percent when it has spread more widely. Mr. President, colorectal cancer is a major cost to the Medicare Program. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 168,000 seniors were hospitalized with colon or rectum cancer in 1991--the most recent year for which data is available. The average hospital stay for these patients was 16 days. While private health plans are beginning to provide coverage for colorectal cancer screening, Medicare--which serves older Americans who are most at risk--does not. According to a report from the Congressional Officer of Technology Assessment released earlier this year, screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than many of the other procedures the Medicare Program already covers. Screening provides benefits at a cost of about $13,000 per life-year saved, versus $40,000 to $50,000 per life-year saved for some preventive and other services that Medicare already covers. At a time when we are looking for ways to control the overall cost of the Medicare Program, we must continue our efforts to use those limited funds in ways that are cost-effective. Mr. President, I know that other Members of this body have introduced a bill to provide for colorectal cancer screening. This measure differs from theirs in only a few ways. First, this bill is not procedure- specific. It would provide Medicare coverage for all of the colon cancer screening recommended by the American College of Physicians and which the Office of Technology Assessment found to be cost-effective. Second, the would allow the Secretary to add new procedures once they are developed. This is critically important to encouraging innovation and research in this area. As a number of medical companies have explained in recent correspondence, legislation that ``limits Medicare reimbursement to only a few of the current screening technologies does not allow for the development and diffusion of new medical procedures which might ultimately prove more effective and cost-efficient in the detection of colorectal cancer.'' Mr. President, I believe Medicare should cover all types of recommended screening and let the patient and his doctor, not the Federal Government, decide which one is appropriate. This bill would follow the guidelines approved by the American College of Physicians on April 23, 1990, which read as follows: Recommendations: 1. Screening with fecal occult blood tests is recommended annually for individuals age 50 and older. 2. Screening with sigmoidoscopy is recommended every 3-5 years or with air-contrast barium enema every 5 years for individuals age 50 or older. 3. For individuals age 40 and older who have familial polyposis coli, inflammatory bowel disease, or a history of colon cancer in a first degree relative, i.e., parent or sibling, screening with air-contrast barium enema or colonoscopy in addition to annual fecal occult blood tests, is recommended every 3-5 years. For individuals over the age of 50 who are on Medicare and at average risk of colorectal cancer, this bill would allow payment for: every 12 months, a fecal blood test; and every 5 years, a sigmoidoscopy, barium enema, or other procedure approved by the Secretary. For individuals at high risk of colorectal cancer, the bill would allow Medicare reimbursement for: every 12 months, a fecal blood test; and every 2 years, a colonoscopy, barium enema, or other procedure approved by the Secretary. Here's how the American Cancer Society described these different procedures in its 1995 Cancer Facts and Figures report: The stool blood test is a simple method to test feces for hidden blood. The specimen is obtained by the patient at home and returned to the physician's office, a hospital, or a clinic for analysis. The Society recommends annual testing after age 50. In proctosigmoidoscopy, the physician uses a hollow lighted tube or a fiberoptic sigmoidoscope to inspect the rectum and lower colon. To detect cancers higher in the colon, longer, flexible instruments are used. The American Cancer Society recommends sigmoidoscopy, preferably flexible, every 3 to 5 years after age 50. If any of these tests reveal possible problems, more extensive studies, such as colonoscopy (examination of the entire colon) and barium enema (an x-ray procedure in which the intestines are viewed), may be needed. Mr. President, if we are to provide screening for colorectal cancer, which I believe is desperately needed, we should allow all types of procedures recommended by the American College of Physicians and described by the American Cancer Society. This bill would do just that. I know that other Members of this body have indicated their support for colorectal cancer screening under Medicare. My hope is that we can all join together on a proposal that will give seniors and their doctors the maximum choice and protection from this dreaded disease. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 and the recommendations from the American College of Physicians on screening for colorectal cancer be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Johnston to designate the U.S. Civil War Center as the flagship institution charged with planning and facilitating the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War in 2011. While the date may still seem far off, it is important to remember that this will be a particularly important anniversary as it will be the last opportunity for most of us to commemorate the Civil War. The Civil War Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, LA, offers the most appropriate setting for the organization of this remembrance. There is no other center in the United States that currently studies the war from the perspective of every conceivable discipline, profession, and occupation. The center will be able to coordinate with the numerous Civil War commemorative organizations throughout the Nation. Funding for the activities throughout the sesquicentennial will come from private donations and grants. Since the end of the commemoration of the centennial of the war in 1965, the United States has come a long way toward healing some of the lingering wounds of the war. Recent events have emphasized that many of them still must be addressed, as racism, violence, and regional economics remain problems in our united Nation. If we are to continue to learn from our differences, the commemoration of the sesquicentennial offers the opportunity to reflect on where we once were and where we will next go. I urge my colleagues to join me in the designation of the U.S. Civil War Center as the flagship institution for the sesquicentennial. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and the letter of support from the center's advisory board be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield me 60 seconds? I do not think I have any time left.

Mr. BREAUX. Forty-four percent more children are covered. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I urge my Republican colleagues to vote for this tonight, because Newt Gingrich is going to do it in conference. You all are going to be on record of voting against it. They are going to fix it in conference. I suggest to vote against tabling, because you can add 44 percent more children who would benefit from the child tax credit. Without this amendment, you are cutting off 31 million youngsters who will not benefit from the tax credit. It is that simple. Guess what? They are going to do it in conference.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, the largest item in the Finance Committee bill, by far, is the $500 per child tax credit. It cost $141 billion over 7 years. That is a lot of money. Some people think we should not have a tax cut at all. But this bill is going to have a tax cut in it. The largest one is going to be a per child tax cut at $500 per child. I would think that all of us, if we know it is going to pass, should at least agree on one thing--the largest number of families that need it should get it. Here is what my amendment does. It addresses a problem that is very real. Simply stated, the Republican proposal only is a credit against income tax. It is not a credit against the largest tax that people pay in this country, that is, the payroll tax. For 75 percent of American families, they pay more in payroll tax than in income tax. This child tax credit is not an offset against the payroll tax. This chart shows that. The blue line is the payroll taxes that people pay on average. The orange line is an estimate of their income tax. So you see, families making $16,000, all the way up to families on this chart making almost $27,000, are paying far more in payroll taxes than they are paying in income taxes. The figures show that under the Republican proposal, something like 44 percent of all the children in America would only get a partial or no credit at all, because the credit is only against the income tax. Many families do not even pay that much in income tax. If you have a family that has two children, that is a $1,000 credit. But if they are only paying $700 or $500 in income tax, they do not get to use the credit. Therefore, simply stated, my amendment makes the $500 per child tax credit a credit against both the income tax or the payroll tax. We spend the same amount of money--not a dime more, not a dime less. But we cover 44 percent more children. We cover about 31 million more children living in families, and if we are going to spend this money for a credit, let us make sure they get it. The second chart tells you what we are talking about when we look at family earnings and how much they pay in income taxes--the actual numbers. A family making $20,000 a year is at about $458 in income tax. That would not even pay for the credit for one child. But that same family is spending over $1,500--$1,530--in payroll tax. My amendment says that the $500 per child tax credit can be used as a credit against the payroll tax, as well as an income tax, so that the family making $20,000 will get some of the benefits of this massive program that we are passing. What is wrong with saying let us make sure that the most number of children get the benefit? I have seen some of the Republican charts that say, well, under this credit, this proposal, we get a huge credit against income tax. Sure, the problem that is most families pay more in payroll tax, and it is no offset whatsoever against the payroll tax. So for families making under $30,000 a year, for most of them it is no benefit at all. Look at this chart. This is every State in the country. This is the median household income. In Louisiana, it is $25,000. Under the Republican proposal, if you are in a family making less than $30,000 a year, you are not going to get the benefit of a per child tax credit. So my proposition is very simple. If you want to add about 31 million more people to the rolls and give them the benefit, for the same amount of money--exactly the same amount of money--my credit goes out to families making up to $75,000 a year. It starts to phase out at $60,000 and eliminates it at $75,000 per family, but it makes it refundable against a payroll tax. By spending the same amount of money, we cover 31 million more children. I think that is what we are trying to do. I got this wonderful note from the Christian Coalition saying they are going to target this amendment. They say, ``We are going to portray this amendment as a vote to gut the $500 per child tax credit.'' It does not gut it; it is the same amount of money. We are just covering 31 million more children in this country by making it a credit against the payroll tax. They say they want to make sure they get the most number of people covered. That is exactly what my amendment does. They say, well, his starts to phase out at $60,000 per year. That is true, but it goes up to the same amount, $75,000, that the original Republican proposal did. Just by making it refundable against the payroll tax----