John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask it be reported.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. It is $270 billion less money than they had last year. You can call that whatever you want to call it, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck where I come from. This is a duck.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the manager for yielding the time. I was in the New Orleans Airport coming back from Washington one time during the debate on health care 2 years ago. This elderly lady came up to me in the airport and said, ``Senator, are you all working on health care in Washington?'' I said, ``Yes, ma'am, we sure are.'' She said, ``No matter what you do, please don't let the Federal Government take over my Medicare.'' This was a senior citizen who thought the Medicare Program was working just fine. She thought it was the best thing she ever had. It was taking care of her and taking care of her family. But it showed how concerned they were about Congress messing with Medicare. Today, Congress is messing with Medicare in a way that is not necessary and is not essential. Mr. President, 77 percent of the people in my State of Louisiana, who are on Medicare, earn less than $15,000 a year. Do we wonder why a lady would come up to me in an airport and say, ``Please don't mess with Medicare''? Because if we destroy Medicare, where are these people going to go? I understand that for some, earning $15,000 a year is something that they do not even think exists, that nobody can be that poor. I say that because I noticed a quote in the paper this morning from one of our colleagues in the other body which I think is just terrific and it says something about how some people think. A Congressman from North Carolina said: When I see someone who is making anywhere from $300,000 to $750,000 a year, that's middle class. Middle class? It is not middle class in Louisiana. It is not middle class for 100 percent of the people who are on Medicare in Louisiana who earn less than $15,000 a year. I would agree with the Congressman if middle class is people earning up to $750,000, we do not even need Medicare. Let them go buy private insurance. Maybe let them buy a hospital if they earn that much money, or buy their own doctor. But, Mr. President, seriously, we are talking about people who can least afford to be left without some kind of security in their senior years with Medicare. Why is the Republican plan cutting $270 billion? Very simple, no magic about it: They need it to pay for the tax cuts. The House created this. It was created over there. It was conceived over there. It was born over there. They decided they wanted to put the cart before the horse: ``We are going to decide if we want to cut taxes by over $300 billion. You know what, we have to pay for it.'' ``How are we going to pay for it?'' ``Oh, I have an idea. Let's cut Medicare, let's cut Medicaid, let's cut earned income tax credit, let's cut welfare. By golly, that will do it.'' So, today we have $270 billion taken out of Medicare, not to fix Medicare. This is not reform of Medicare. It is the same old status quo. It just has less money in it, by $270 billion. Is that needed? No. It is very clear that actuaries--these are the guys who wear green shades. They are not Democrats or Republicans, they are actuaries, CPA's. What do they say we need to do to fix Medicare? It is very clear. The actuary for Health and Human Services says clearly you can fix Medicare to the year 2006 by reducing the spending $89 billion. Guess what the Democratic package does? It reduces spending by $89 billion, not $270 billion, because that is not needed. You wonder why the people come up to us in airports and on Main Street and say, ``Don't let Congress take over Medicare,'' because they are scared to death we might do exactly what this plan does: It rips it up, it cuts it up in an extreme manner and not to fix it. There is not a real innovative idea in their plan, but there are a lot of cuts, and the cuts are more than are necessary to fix it. That is clear; that is simple. Nonpolitical people have said it, and we should get about the business of fixing it with $89 billion, which is difficult to do but must be done, and then I will suggest a bipartisan commission, with our colleagues on the Republican side working with us to come up with a long-term fix. It ``ain't'' going to get done by themselves, and we are not going to be able to do it by ourselves. Do the short-term fix, appoint a bipartisan commission and get the job done.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 30 seconds.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of horror stories about how bad the welfare system is, how it discourages people from getting married, finding work, and taking responsibility for themselves and their children. I would agree that the system needs an overhaul, and that is why I worked so hard on the Senate welfare reform bill we passed just last month. But I also believe that, within this broken system, there are many places that have already begun to experiment with innovative solutions to their welfare problems. And some of these initiatives are working--they are getting people off of welfare and into jobs. One of the best examples of this success is what is happening right now in my State of Louisiana. Since October 1990, the number of families in Louisiana receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children has dropped 20 percent. A report issued by the Public Welfare Association in 1994 ranked Louisiana last in the country in AFDC caseload growth for 1989 through 1993. Last in the country. That is good news. And that is due in large part to Project Independence, our statewide program that moves families from welfare dependency to independence. Project Independence provides transportation and child care--absolutely essential elements in moving people from welfare to work. It helps participants build up self-esteem by showing them their own ability to succeed in the work world. It also helps participants receive their GED's or high school diplomas, associate or 4-year degrees, or skill training, and builds their resumes through community service. One Project Independence Program in particular, the Hamilton Terrace Learning Center in Shreveport, has been singled out for its outstanding success. Tomorrow, Vice President Gore will name this second-chance high school a winner of an Innovations in American Government Award from the Ford Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. This prestigious award honors 15 initiatives each year that have developed effective, creative solutions to important social and economic problems. It carries with it a $100,000 grant to disseminate information about Hamilton Terrace and encourage its replication. I have had the opportunity to visit Hamilton Terrace twice and each time, I was impressed by the dedication of the staff and the motivation of the students. Hamilton Terrace Learning Center puts adult welfare recipients and students expelled from other local high schools in the same classes, where the adults convey a strong message to the teens on the importance of taking school seriously and avoiding some of the mistakes they made. At the same time, the teens give the welfare mothers a fresh look back at their own behavior, and give them a better sense of the role they can play in preventing their children from making the same mistakes. Putting these two groups together brings out a strong sense of responsibility in both. The curriculum combines traditional academic courses with vocational training in fields such as food service, travel and tourism, health care, and child care. Classes are longer and about half the normal size to allow teachers time to get to know their students better. Lessons are tailored individually to each student's particular learning style. On Fridays, students either spend their time in community service or in counseling to work on specific academic concerns, and teachers meet for training and to work on solutions to problems they are facing in the classroom. And it is all work-oriented. A school-to-work coordinator works closely with the Shreveport Chamber of Commerce to assist every student in planning a course of study that will result in a good job after graduation. Every graduate is guaranteed a job or enrollment in post- secondary training. Their success has been outstanding. Of the school's 118 graduates from the class of 1994, 71 percent went on to college. Of the 58 graduates who were on welfare, all but 7 are working or in college. At 21 percent, the school's dropout rate is considerably lower than the State average of 51 percent--and that's particularly good if you consider that most students failed in the traditional system. Hamilton Terrace's success is well-known across Louisiana, and I am proud that it will be recognized nationally as well. It is an outstanding example of the real successes that are going on all around us. I congratulate its principal, John Baldwin, and all of its staff and students for their good work.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to approve and implement the Agreement Respecting Normal Competitive Conditions in the Commercial Shipbuilding and Repair Industry, also known as the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. While not perfect, this agreement appears to be our last best chance to eliminate unfair subsidies, to counter injurious pricing policies, to reign in trade distorting export financing, and to institute an effective binding dispute settlement system for shipbuilding controversies. Because of this agreement, for the first time, U.S. shipyard workers will have safeguards against having to compete with continued funding from foreign treasuries. My involvement with the issue of unfair foreign shipbuilding practices relates to my State of Louisiana being one of the premier shipbuilding States in the country. Over 27,000 Louisiana jobs are impacted by constructing or repairing ships. As has been the case nationwide, Louisiana's shipbuilding employment has suffered significantly since the 1980's. This situation is due to U.S. defense downsizing and to unfair foreign shipbuilding practices. Since 1989, I've been actively working to eliminate unfair foreign shipbuilding practices and to restore the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry. How did the United States get in this dilemma? From 1974 to 1987, worldwide overall demand for ocean going vessels declined 71 percent. During the same time span, United States merchant vessel construction dropped drastically from an average of 72 ships/year to an average of 21 ships/year. Also during this period governments in all the major shipbuilding nations, with the exception of the United States, dramatically increased aid to their shipyards and their associated infrastructure with massive levels of subsidies in virtually every form. The U.S. Government, however, decided to unilaterally terminate commercial construction subsidies to U.S. yards. Instead, U.S. Defense shipbuilding increased. U.S. Defense shipbuilding construction rose from an average of 79 ships/year in the 1970's to an average of 95 ships/year in the 1980's. The net result was a virtual abandonment by the large U.S. Defense yards to subsidized foreign yards of the international commercial shipbuilding market. In 10 years, the number of major U.S. shipyards producing only commercial ships declined from 11 to 1. The end of the 1980's saw a Department of Defense reevaluation of the need for a 600-ship navy. It also saw the U.S. shipbuilding industry reevaluate its need to compete for commercial ship construction orders in a subsidized world market. Consequently, in June of 1989, the U.S. shipbuilding industry, [[Page S 15497]] represented by the Shipbuilders Council of America, filed a claim for injurious unfair subsidies under section 301 of the U.S. trade laws against the major shipbuilding countries of the world. Later that year, however, U.S. Trade Ambassador Carla Hills, persuaded the industry that a better way to eliminate the foreign subsidies was through multilateral negotiations. Industry decided to give international negotiations a chance and therefore withdrew its section 301 claim. The 5-year OECD quest to eliminate shipbuilding subsidies had begun. From late 1989 to late 1994, the OECD negotiations were constantly on again and off again. During 1993, when the talks had seemingly collapsed, I introduced a bill in the Senate (S. 990) and Congressman Sam Gibbons introduced a bill in the House (H.R. 1402), that would have invoked significant sanctions against ships constructed in foreign subsidized yards when those ships called upon the United States. This legislation became unnecessary when the agreement was finally signed. From June 1989 until the present agreement was signed on December 21, 1994, the U.S. objective and the industry's urgent request appeared to be straightforward: ``Eliminate subsidies and we can compete.'' When the Clinton administration came into office, to its credit, it proposed a shipyard revitalization plan. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Don Phillips described the nature of the plan for the Senate Finance Committee Trade Subcommittee on November 18, 1993 when he said: Finally, this five-point program is a transitional program, consistent with federal assistance to other industries seeking to convert from defense to civilian markets. In addition, it seeks to support, not undercut, the negotiations that are currently underway in the OECD. In this regard, we have made clear our intention to modify this program, as appropriate, so that it would be consistent with the provision of a multilateral agreement--if and when such an agreement enters into force. (emphasis added). Now we have such an agreement, but the largest U.S. Defense shipyards don't want it because current U.S. transitional subsidies will need to be curbed, as well as additional future subsidies prohibited, in order to be consistent with the agreement. This is really the issue in a nutshell. We can talk about the Jones Act, we can talk about the trustworthiness of other countries, we can talk about the adequacy of enforcement mechanisms, but what it really seems to come down to for these big shipyards is whether or not we can keep our currently advantageous subsidies. In all the comments I have heard to date about this agreement, I have yet to hear of a scenario whereby U.S. industry is better off fighting unfair foreign shipbuilding practices without the agreement than it would be with the agreement. For example, this agreement will give us real tools to fight unfair French subsidies. It will allow us to counter unfair dumping of ships by Japan and Korea. It will finally plug the gap in existing U.S. trade laws that has cost so many American shipyard workers their jobs. The assertions that this agreement somehow puts the Jones Act domestic build provisions in jeopardy is discredited by our own Jones Act carriers who stand to lose the most under a faulty agreement. The largest Jones Act carriers, in fact, support the agreement and they clearly would not if this agreement hurt their interests--it does not. In addition, many of the new shipbuilding orders that have been placed at U.S. shipyards are for use in the Jones Act trade. It also seems that the optimism over the current success of our title XI financing program may be overstated. As I understand it, the new export orders associated with the current title XI program exist because our stepped-up title XI program is currently protected by a standstill clause in the OECD agreement. If we reject the agreement, we lose the standstill clause, and consequently it seems to reason that we will lose our current title XI advantage. While I recognize the need to conform our title XI program, I am willing to explore the continuation of current title XI terms, subject to reasonable due diligence negotiations, to the date that we implement the terms of the agreement. Unless we are prepared to win a long-term subsidies race with our competitors, I don't understand how we can reject this agreement. Not only is Congress faced with dire budgetary decisions, such as cutting over $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over the next 7 years, but the Department of Defense has also indicated that it will not fund commercial shipbuilding subsidies through its DOD accounts. Add heightened competition due to increasing world shipbuilding capacity and it seems to me, and history supports, that our competitors are very likely to match or exceed what little amounts we will be able to devote to title XI. It was estimated by the Shipbuilding Council in 1993 that the top six subsidizing nations in the OECD were budgeting over $9 billion on average each year to assist their shipyards. We may then find ourselves in the same untenable situation that confronted our industry in 1981: No international subsidies disciplines, inadequate U.S. trade remedies, and no recourse for the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry and its workers. Mr. President, we're all in the same boat, so to speak. However, before anyone attempts to scuttle this agreement to help revise our U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry, I'd like to redouble efforts with all members of the industry to see what we can do to close the remaining competitiveness gap. Our goal should be to couple the significant advantages of this agreement with genuine and creative improvements in U.S. shipbuilding competitiveness. With this in mind, I am introducing the Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act. The text of this bill closely reflects an administration draft that we have attempted to improve and strengthen. It is a bipartisan work-in-progress bill composed of two titles. Title I contains ``injurious pricing and countermeasures'' provisions that closely track current U.S. antidumping laws, while taking into account the unique nature of ship transactions. Title II contains ``other provisions'' including amendments to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, repeal of the U.S. vessel repair statute for signatory countries, and a special monitoring provision to ensure foreign country compliance with the terms of the shipbuilding agreement. The House Ways and Means trade Subcommittee has already held a hearing on this agreement. I understand the subcommittee is currently making final revisions to the same USTR draft that we used and intends to introduce a bill in the House shortly. It is my hope that the House can move its bill quickly in order that both legislative bodies might pass a bill and send it to the President for signature before year-end. I have requested a full committee hearing on this Senate bill with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Commerce Committee Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Chairman Trent Lott has also indicated interest in holding a hearing on the agreement. In closing, we stand before a window of opportunity for the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry. The $265 billion commercial shipbuilding market is fast approaching its cyclical peak. I am hopeful that we will seize this moment and implement this agreement. It may be our best and only chance to end foreign shipbuilding subsidies and finally five our workers and yards the level playing field for which they have asked, and deserved, for too long. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of the October 19, 1995, Journal of Commerce editorial supporting the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement be included in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to approve and implement the Agreement Respecting Normal Competitive Conditions in the Commercial Shipbuilding and Repair Industry, also known as the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. While not perfect, this agreement appears to be our last best chance to eliminate unfair subsidies, to counter injurious pricing policies, to reign in trade distorting export financing, and to institute an effective binding dispute settlement system for shipbuilding controversies. Because of this agreement, for the first time, U.S. shipyard workers will have safeguards against having to compete with continued funding from foreign treasuries. My involvement with the issue of unfair foreign shipbuilding practices relates to my State of Louisiana being one of the premier shipbuilding States in the country. Over 27,000 Louisiana jobs are impacted by constructing or repairing ships. As has been the case nationwide, Louisiana's shipbuilding employment has suffered significantly since the 1980's. This situation is due to U.S. defense downsizing and to unfair foreign shipbuilding practices. Since 1989, I've been actively working to eliminate unfair foreign shipbuilding practices and to restore the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry. How did the United States get in this dilemma? From 1974 to 1987, worldwide overall demand for ocean going vessels declined 71 percent. During the same time span, United States merchant vessel construction dropped drastically from an average of 72 ships/year to an average of 21 ships/year. Also during this period governments in all the major shipbuilding nations, with the exception of the United States, dramatically increased aid to their shipyards and their associated infrastructure with massive levels of subsidies in virtually every form. The U.S. Government, however, decided to unilaterally terminate commercial construction subsidies to U.S. yards. Instead, U.S. Defense shipbuilding increased. U.S. Defense shipbuilding construction rose from an average of 79 ships/year in the 1970's to an average of 95 ships/year in the 1980's. The net result was a virtual abandonment by the large U.S. Defense yards to subsidized foreign yards of the international commercial shipbuilding market. In 10 years, the number of major U.S. shipyards producing only commercial ships declined from 11 to 1. The end of the 1980's saw a Department of Defense reevaluation of the need for a 600-ship navy. It also saw the U.S. shipbuilding industry reevaluate its need to compete for commercial ship construction orders in a subsidized world market. Consequently, in June of 1989, the U.S. shipbuilding industry, [[Page S 15497]] represented by the Shipbuilders Council of America, filed a claim for injurious unfair subsidies under section 301 of the U.S. trade laws against the major shipbuilding countries of the world. Later that year, however, U.S. Trade Ambassador Carla Hills, persuaded the industry that a better way to eliminate the foreign subsidies was through multilateral negotiations. Industry decided to give international negotiations a chance and therefore withdrew its section 301 claim. The 5-year OECD quest to eliminate shipbuilding subsidies had begun. From late 1989 to late 1994, the OECD negotiations were constantly on again and off again. During 1993, when the talks had seemingly collapsed, I introduced a bill in the Senate (S. 990) and Congressman Sam Gibbons introduced a bill in the House (H.R. 1402), that would have invoked significant sanctions against ships constructed in foreign subsidized yards when those ships called upon the United States. This legislation became unnecessary when the agreement was finally signed. From June 1989 until the present agreement was signed on December 21, 1994, the U.S. objective and the industry's urgent request appeared to be straightforward: ``Eliminate subsidies and we can compete.'' When the Clinton administration came into office, to its credit, it proposed a shipyard revitalization plan. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Don Phillips described the nature of the plan for the Senate Finance Committee Trade Subcommittee on November 18, 1993 when he said: Finally, this five-point program is a transitional program, consistent with federal assistance to other industries seeking to convert from defense to civilian markets. In addition, it seeks to support, not undercut, the negotiations that are currently underway in the OECD. In this regard, we have made clear our intention to modify this program, as appropriate, so that it would be consistent with the provision of a multilateral agreement--if and when such an agreement enters into force. (emphasis added). Now we have such an agreement, but the largest U.S. Defense shipyards don't want it because current U.S. transitional subsidies will need to be curbed, as well as additional future subsidies prohibited, in order to be consistent with the agreement. This is really the issue in a nutshell. We can talk about the Jones Act, we can talk about the trustworthiness of other countries, we can talk about the adequacy of enforcement mechanisms, but what it really seems to come down to for these big shipyards is whether or not we can keep our currently advantageous subsidies. In all the comments I have heard to date about this agreement, I have yet to hear of a scenario whereby U.S. industry is better off fighting unfair foreign shipbuilding practices without the agreement than it would be with the agreement. For example, this agreement will give us real tools to fight unfair French subsidies. It will allow us to counter unfair dumping of ships by Japan and Korea. It will finally plug the gap in existing U.S. trade laws that has cost so many American shipyard workers their jobs. The assertions that this agreement somehow puts the Jones Act domestic build provisions in jeopardy is discredited by our own Jones Act carriers who stand to lose the most under a faulty agreement. The largest Jones Act carriers, in fact, support the agreement and they clearly would not if this agreement hurt their interests--it does not. In addition, many of the new shipbuilding orders that have been placed at U.S. shipyards are for use in the Jones Act trade. It also seems that the optimism over the current success of our title XI financing program may be overstated. As I understand it, the new export orders associated with the current title XI program exist because our stepped-up title XI program is currently protected by a standstill clause in the OECD agreement. If we reject the agreement, we lose the standstill clause, and consequently it seems to reason that we will lose our current title XI advantage. While I recognize the need to conform our title XI program, I am willing to explore the continuation of current title XI terms, subject to reasonable due diligence negotiations, to the date that we implement the terms of the agreement. Unless we are prepared to win a long-term subsidies race with our competitors, I don't understand how we can reject this agreement. Not only is Congress faced with dire budgetary decisions, such as cutting over $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over the next 7 years, but the Department of Defense has also indicated that it will not fund commercial shipbuilding subsidies through its DOD accounts. Add heightened competition due to increasing world shipbuilding capacity and it seems to me, and history supports, that our competitors are very likely to match or exceed what little amounts we will be able to devote to title XI. It was estimated by the Shipbuilding Council in 1993 that the top six subsidizing nations in the OECD were budgeting over $9 billion on average each year to assist their shipyards. We may then find ourselves in the same untenable situation that confronted our industry in 1981: No international subsidies disciplines, inadequate U.S. trade remedies, and no recourse for the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry and its workers. Mr. President, we're all in the same boat, so to speak. However, before anyone attempts to scuttle this agreement to help revise our U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry, I'd like to redouble efforts with all members of the industry to see what we can do to close the remaining competitiveness gap. Our goal should be to couple the significant advantages of this agreement with genuine and creative improvements in U.S. shipbuilding competitiveness. With this in mind, I am introducing the Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act. The text of this bill closely reflects an administration draft that we have attempted to improve and strengthen. It is a bipartisan work-in-progress bill composed of two titles. Title I contains ``injurious pricing and countermeasures'' provisions that closely track current U.S. antidumping laws, while taking into account the unique nature of ship transactions. Title II contains ``other provisions'' including amendments to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, repeal of the U.S. vessel repair statute for signatory countries, and a special monitoring provision to ensure foreign country compliance with the terms of the shipbuilding agreement. The House Ways and Means trade Subcommittee has already held a hearing on this agreement. I understand the subcommittee is currently making final revisions to the same USTR draft that we used and intends to introduce a bill in the House shortly. It is my hope that the House can move its bill quickly in order that both legislative bodies might pass a bill and send it to the President for signature before year-end. I have requested a full committee hearing on this Senate bill with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Commerce Committee Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Chairman Trent Lott has also indicated interest in holding a hearing on the agreement. In closing, we stand before a window of opportunity for the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry. The $265 billion commercial shipbuilding market is fast approaching its cyclical peak. I am hopeful that we will seize this moment and implement this agreement. It may be our best and only chance to end foreign shipbuilding subsidies and finally five our workers and yards the level playing field for which they have asked, and deserved, for too long. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of the October 19, 1995, Journal of Commerce editorial supporting the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement be included in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I recognize three Sisters of the Most Holy Sacrament who have dedicated their lives to making the lives of others more rewarding both spiritually and through education. Sister Henrietta Hebert, Sister Winifred LeDoux, and Sister Stephen Leleux have ministered primarily as educators to young women and men in my hometown of Crowley, in Acadia Parish where Crowley is located, and in south Louisiana. On October 14, these Sisters celebrated with family and friends a mass of thanksgiving in Crowley. They celebrated and gave thanks with deep spiritual humility for one reason, that they have been able to serve others for so many years. Sister Henrietta and Sister Winifred celebrated their Diamond Jubilee. Sister Stephen celebrated her Golden Jubilee. As young women, these Sisters vowed solemnly to live a life of service to others. For many years they have fulfilled those vows faithfully as educators, both academic and spiritual. Today, they continue to serve through their deeply spiritual lives, through their prayers, through their example. Their selflessness and humility stem from the deep faith which their families nurtured in them. That deep faith enabled them, as young women, to make personal and prayerful choices to serve others as Sisters of the Most Holy Sacrament. Their dedicated service has blessed and benefited so many south Louisiana students through the academic subjects they taught and the spiritual values they instilled. In turn, the community has been blessed and has benefited as well. I believe, Mr. President, that through their roles as dedicated Sisters, they actually have lead the community as well as served it. Their commitment, their values, and their spirituality have been models of leadership and service, especially for the many young women and men they have educated. Though they have been community leaders, in their profound humility they would see themselves as only as servants. Though they have given so much to the community, in their profound humility they would never seek or expect anything except to continue their service. Being from Crowley, I am one of those who was so fortunate to have been taught by Sister Henrietta. On this occasion I express gratitude with all those who have learned from her, from Sister Winifred and from Sister Stephen for all that they have taught and instilled in us. For Sister Henrietta, Sister Winifred, and Sister Stephen my personal prayers, therefore, are for many more years of peace and joy in their service to others as Sisters of the Most Holy Sacrament. Our Nation and our State are truly better off for their service to so many.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce the Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1995, a bill more readily known as all-in-bond. The bill would streamline the way in which the Government collects the Federal excise tax on distilled spirits by extending the current system of collection now applicable only to imported products to domestic products as well. Today wholesalers purchase foreign bottled distilled spirits in bond--tax-free--paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits--nearly 86 percent of total inventory--the price includes the Federal excise tax, prepaid by the distiller. This means that hundreds of U.S. family owned wholesale businesses increase their inventory carrying costs by 40 percent when buying U.S. products, which must be financed through borrowing. Under my bill, wholesalers would be allowed to purchase domestically bottled distilled spirits in-bond from distillers just as they are now permitted to purchase foreign produced spirits. Products would become subject to tax on removal from the wholesale premises. Additionally, the Federal tax collection process would be simplified by providing that only one Federal agency collect the tax. All-in-bond is an equitable and sound way in which to remove the burden of prepayment of the Federal excise tax on domestically bottled spirits while streamlining our tax collection system. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me start off by commending both the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Kassebaum from Kansas for the work they have put into this effort. It really has been an outstanding effort. It has been a pleasure to work with them personally, and with their staffs, in order to bring to the Senate today legislation which I think is really incredibly significant. It may not be, perhaps, as interesting or a hot-button issue like some of the issues Congress is now dealing with in terms of tax cuts and what we are doing with Medicare and what we are doing with welfare reform and what we are doing to the Medicaid Program. Those programs are getting a lot of attention in all of the media, and all of the interest groups around the country are taking strong positions in favor or in opposition to what we are doing. There is a great deal of national debate. I suggest that what we are doing here this morning in the Senate is equally, if not more important than some of those other great debates going on with regard to Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, and the like, because I think that this legislation really speaks to the future of America. Are we going to be a competitive Nation with skilled workers who are able to compete in the work force and compete internationally and not just in our own back yards? What we are doing today is saying to the American worker, yes, you are important and, yes, we as a Government can do better than we have in the past by giving you the training and education that you need in order to make a difference, in order to get a job in the competitive world that we live in, in order to be able to earn a living to support your family, because that is what this legislation is all about. It is about creating a system under which Americans will be better citizens, better individuals, better able to compete with the competition today, which is universal throughout this globe. It is not just competition within our own borders; it is universal competition throughout the world. I am not sure how many people would know if you asked them, does the Government do anything for training? A lot of people do not know. We have about 90 different training programs on which we spend probably $7 billion. We try to have a program for every possible need. I think as a result of these good efforts that we have had over the years, in creating these programs, we have something that is sort of a mishmash of a whole bunch of different programs. People out there in the real world do not know where to go. Can you imagine a worker who has just lost his job trying to figure out which program he fits under? He goes to some organization and says, ``I need help, I lost my job, the company has gone out of business because of foreign competition, and I need to be trained.'' Somebody dumps in his lap 90 different programs and descriptions about what they do. He has to try and figure out which one he fits under. That is the way it works now--rather, that is the way it does not work now. If I had 90 different programs dumped in my lap after I lost my job, I would probably run as fast as I could away from all that material, because I am looking for help, not for some intelligence quiz on which program basically fits my needs. So what I think is so important about this legislation is it takes all of those 90 different Federal programs and consolidates them. The programs I am talking about are the JTPA Program, job training for people who were laid off from their jobs and poor adults and students; TAA, which was a training and cash benefit program for workers laid off because of trade problems; NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance; Job Corps programs; Carl Perkins vocational education programs; adult education programs; school-to-work [[Page S 14836]] programs; programs that we have created for responding to natural disasters or base closings, where we try to train the people. In other words, we have about 90 different programs on the Federal books. What we are attempting to do with this legislation is to try and consolidate them to make them work better, to give a chance to the people who benefit from these programs to understand better which one best serves their needs. It is organized around a one-stop career center, which means that workers who need help will not have to go out and get help just to find out where to get help. We are essentially saying that we want to let the worker who needs the help know where he or she has to go, without having to hire more people to help them navigate through a maze of Federal programs. There are some people who say that for every problem, the Government has to find a solution. I think that is what got us into some of these problems in the past, where for every problem we try to create a new job training program. Every time there was a disaster, or a base closing, or a trade impact that affected workers, we created a program to train people. The intentions were wonderful. But I think what we have produced was a convoluted group of programs that have now grown to over 90 Federal programs. And so some have said, well, we ought to do that because that is what Government does, and that is what we as Democrats do--create programs. Others say, look, this is no role for Government. When somebody loses his job because of unfair trade practices, or a natural disaster, or because of downsizing, which is that new word corporations use, or if they lose jobs because of Government cutting back and closing military bases, well, we have no role. The survival of the fittest should govern. If you can find a job, good, and maybe if you cannot, too bad. Some people take that attitude about what Government should not do to help people. I think the real solution is that both of those perspectives are incorrect. Certainly, they do not fit the dynamics of the situation in the end of the 20th century as we move to the 21st century. Things have changed. People who think Government should have a program for every problem, I think, are wrong. On the other hand, I think people who believe Government has no role at all are also wrong. What we ought to be doing is trying to help people solve their own problems. That, I think, is the proper role of Government--to help create conditions which allow people to make their own decisions and to help them better solve their own problems. That is what I think this legislation is all about. It helps people understand how they can benefit from the consolidation of all these training programs and lets them decide which one best fits their needs. We all know that the American worker today is far different from the American worker in the 1930's and 1940's, where people went to work at a plant or factory and stayed there for their whole lifetime. Today, the average American changes jobs several times in their own lifetime. So they have to be constantly trained and given updated information and updated skills about how to compete, because they do not always work in the same place all of their lives, which was what we used to do in society. So things have changed. One of the greatest programs that I think we as a Government ever invented was the old GI bill, because it worked and it was simple. Government said that people who served their country were going to get help after they finished serving by allowing the Government to help pay them to go to college to get the training they needed to be able to be competitive in American society. One of the good things is that the Government did not try and make all of the decisions. The Government, under the GI bill, did not say to a person that they had to go to a particular college. The Government did not say that you had to take a particular course or a particular line of study or to major in anything that the Government decided you should major in. The wonderful thing about the GI bill is that we trusted individual Americans to make those decisions by themselves. We gave them the funds and said, ``Go to school.'' An individual could go to the school you would like to go to and major in what you think is best for your abilities, your intelligence, your interests; you make that decision. And that is why I think it worked so well. As a result, today, literally, this country has been reshaped by people who have benefited from the GI bill. So, what we have today in this legislation, which I strongly support, is it gives Americans who lose their jobs or find themselves in less beneficial jobs, an opportunity to make some decisions and choices. It gives the States that are going to be running this program the flexibility to use vouchers, which I happen to think is very, very important. I really think we, in allowing the States to use vouchers, will improve this program. I think, for States to look at the concepts of giving an individual a voucher, giving that person the right to decide where to go to use it to get his training or her training, is a major step in the right direction. First of all, when you allow an individual to decide where to go to school it creates competition among private institutions and public institutions for that person's interest. I think it is important for the individuals to decide where they want to go to school to get their training, rather than for us in Washington or in some State capital to make that decision for them. When government makes decisions for individuals, the decisions are not nearly as good as if the individual makes that decision. The second advantage, I think, is competition. Because it will say to all of these schools that provide training that all of a sudden no one is going to dictate they are going to get students. They are going to have to get students based on their ability to serve those students. That is what competition is all about. Schools that are good will survive. Schools that do not meet the needs of the individuals will not survive. That is competition and I think competition, in that sense, will produce better schools, better able to address the needs of individuals who will benefit from these programs. I think the third advantage of this concept is we will reduce bureaucracy. Because of the system now, that tries to fit people into various programs, we have created a huge bureaucracy of people who just do that. If we allow the individual to make the decision of what is best for him or her, I think we have made a major step in the right direction. I again compliment the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, and the Chair of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, for the tremendous job they have done. This is really landmark legislation. This, for the first time, says we are going to try to consolidate all of these programs and make it simpler and easier for people to understand which program will benefit their particular needs and to give the States more flexibility in how they deliver those services, to give them the option to use vouchers as a means of saying to the individual: You go out and go to an accredited facility. You pick, you choose, you decide what you want to do with the rest of your life. The Government is not going to make that decision for you. Finally, I think we are saying to American workers that we do care about your future. We do want you to be more competitive. We know a worker in this country will be able to compete--if she or he is well trained, well educated--with workers anywhere in the world. The theory and theme of this legislation, I think, is yes, there is a role for Government. It is to help people equip themselves to solve their own problems. It is not for government to solve everybody's problems all the time. And certainly not for government to walk away and say you are on your own, it is survival of the fittest and we are not going to care what you do with your future. I think this approach, in consolidating the programs under the Workforce Development Act, is a major step in the right direction. I commend the Chair and ranking member who will have an amendment to be offered later on that has been worked on over the weekend. The staff is to be commended for using part of the recess, spending this time doing the work they have [[Page S 14837]] done to produce an amendment I think makes a great deal of sense and, hopefully, will be supported by everyone. This is a good bill. It is landmark legislation. I thank the people who have been so involved in it. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the distinguished managers of the bill, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, for all of the work they have been able to put into helping us draft this amendment. I think it is an amendment that should be enthusiastically supported by all of our colleagues. Mr. President, just as a concept of the background of the entire bill, what we are doing is consolidating about 90 Federal programs that currently serve people who are in need of job training, to meet the needs and the skills, or demand, as we move into the 21st century. I think the essence of the legislation is really monumental. It is historical that the U.S. Senate and, hopefully, the other body, at the appropriate time, can realize that all of these programs we have written over the years--90 different programs--aimed at encouraging people to become better trained so they could meet the demands and challenges of the work force in the 21st century need to be consolidated. If I found myself unemployed and I wanted to get help from my Government, I do not know if I would know where to go. There are 90 programs, and if somebody dumped them in front of me and said, ``pick one,'' I would say, look, I have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which program fits my need. The reason for that is basically that I think in the last several decades, we as a Congress have tried to create a solution or program for every problem. As a result of trying to address every problem with a program, we ended up with all of these programs and tried to address every conceivable need of every citizen in the country. Some would suggest that the proper role of Government is to help solve everybody's problems all the time. I suggest that that is really not the proper role. The proper role is to help people to solve their own problems, help equip the citizens of this country to be in a position to solve their own problems. On the other extreme, some in Government think there is no role for Government at all, and that if somebody loses his job, so be it, let him survive if he can. That is the survival of the fittest theory, that suggests there is no role for Government that is proper or appropriate in helping the citizens of our country meet the needs that are facing them. If a plant is closed because of downsizing, tough luck. If a military base is closed in your area and all the jobs associated with that base are lost, tough luck. If, in fact, we have a disaster, or because of some trade policy, foreign imports are increased and you lose your job in the domestic industry here in this country, tough luck. There is no role for Government to help at all. That, I think, should be rejected categorically by all Members of this body as an improper response from Government. But we cannot, at the same time, create a program for every problem. What this legislation does is consolidate these 90 programs, make them more efficient, make them function better, make it easier for people to get help from the Government so they can help themselves. Because each of us has a duty in life to be responsible, to utilize the gifts we have, to help develop those gifts and be a better citizen. I think, by consolidating these programs, we move a long way toward accomplishing that. My amendment is, really, patterned after the great success we have had in this country with the GI bill. The GI bill's great success was not that it created a whole bunch of programs, because it did not. It created one program. It told the people of this country if they served in the military that when they got back, the Government was going to help them go to college. Under the GI bill we did not tell them which college they had to go to, and we did not tell them which program or which studies they had to take when they got there. We did not tell them what they had to major in, and we to not tell them what they had to minor in. But we said, here is some financial help. Go to the school you think can serve your needs the best and take the courses you enjoy, that you are best adapted for. The great success of the program was really its flexibility, calling on people to be challenged in what they want to do and figure out where they can best go to meet those requirements. The amendment I am offering with the managers of the bill provides incentives in this bill to encourage States to use vouchers, to give States the right to issue vouchers to the people in their State and let those individuals make the decisions as to how they best can get the proper training to meet the needs they have. Instead of what is usual in Washington or in some State capital, saying, ``You have to go here to get your training and it has to be this type of training,'' the voucher system will say to the individual, ``We trust you to make the right decision. We trust you to pick the best school, the best program, the best course that is going to meet your needs. No one in Washington is going to tell you where you can best be served. No one in your State capital is going to tell you what you have to do.'' We, in this Government, trust the individual's instincts to do what is right when the proper choices are in front of him or her. So what we do in this amendment is fairly simple. It gives States two incentives, two incentives to adopt the voucher system. First, it authorizes the Secretary to provide incentive awards to States that have begun providing services through these vouchers of up to $15 million extra money that a State would be able to receive if it sets up a voucher program within the States to give vouchers to individuals to allow them to go to the particular program they think best fits their particular needs. The second incentive is that my amendment will allow Governors to use flexible funds on economic development activities if they have established a workforce development board [[Page S 14868]] or a voucher system. This is in the third year of the program. We are saying to the States, you are going to be able to use your flexible funds on economic development if you put together this workforce development board or if you have established the voucher program. And, in the third year, under my amendment, if a State decides to set up a voucher program, then it would be able to use the flex funds for economic development activity. So this amendment essentially puts two additional incentives in the legislation to encourage the States--not demand the States to do it, but to encourage the States--to set up vouchers for the people who need the benefit of the programs. Then let that individual take those vouchers and go to where he or she thinks the needs they have can best be met within the program. That would increase competition because all of these programs would start competing for the vouchers of the individuals. People in this society know if they provide a better service, people are going to use that service. They are going to go to the school that meets their needs. They are going to go to the best school, not a worse school; not a second-class school, but the best school. So schools, I think, because of competition, because of this amendment, will do a better job because they know people will be going to them based on their ability to deliver the training that individuals who are unemployed actually need. I think it also teaches individuals responsibility, because they are going to have to make that decision. They are not going to just sit back and say, ``Tell me where I have to go, tell me what I have to do, and tell me how I have to do it.'' They are going to say, ``I have to make a decision.'' Maybe for the first time in the lives of some individuals, they are going to start taking responsibility for their future by saying, ``I want to make sure I pick the best school, that I pick the best program. And after I finish with it, I know I am going to be a much better citizen.'' That individual will become a person who can market his or her abilities after receiving the training for the program they pick as opposed to the program that someone has picked for them. In addition, I point out that in return for accepting the vouchers, school and training providers will be required to provide performance information. That means the completion rates of the people who go to their schools, the licensing rates, placement retention, wage rates, which voucher recipients and others could use to make good decisions about where to go to get the training they need. In other words, schools that provide training to unemployed workers are going to have to provide information to the workers, the unemployed workers who are looking for the training, on how their schools perform so those unemployed workers will then have information they can use to determine which school is the best for their needs. If I had a list of performance results based on schools, and at one school 95 percent of the people who went to that school and got the training became employed, and there was another school that only got jobs for about 15 percent of their people, is there any question about which school I would want to go to or anybody would want to go to? Of course, the answer is simple: They would want to go to the school that finds jobs for people that complete their programs. That is competition and that is what this amendment does. It allows individuals to become more responsible. It allows them to make the decision based on what is best for them while at the same time it requires responsibility on the part of the institutions that they would be going to, to make sure that fly-by-night groups and organizations that have been created overnight just to take advantage of these programs are not going to be successful. With the information they are required to present, everybody will have a chance to make the right decision. Mr. President, I think this amendment adds to the bill. I think it is an important step. It makes the bill an even stronger piece of legislation, one that we can all be proud of supporting. I thank the managers of the bill, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum, for their involvement and their assistance and their encouragement in this effort. I encourage all our colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, if I can just add one short note, I thank my colleagues for their most generous comments. Lt. Gov. Buddy McKay, of Florida, who served in the House with some of us when we were in the other body, in behalf of Governor Chiles, has a statement which is a couple of sentences that I want to read because I think it really makes the point very well. He said: In this country we trust citizens to choose their elected officials, but we don't trust them to choose training programs. Currently, leaders of Government employees in Washington, in Federal regional offices, in State capitals and State regional offices, and in service sites dictate those decisions for their own citizens. That is bunk. Informed citizens can make the best decisions for themselves. It is a simple enough premise in this country, but it is a revolutionary idea for government. I think the point is well made that we trust citizens to make decisions on who their elected officials are but we [[Page S 14869]] do not trust them to decide which programs are best for them. I think, as the Lieutenant Governor said, that is ``bunk.'' And this amendment would, I think, help us overcome that current situation and allow, through the voucher program, people to make the best decisions for themselves and trust the American citizen to do what is right instead of requiring the government to make that decision for them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was going to inquire of the managers of the bill, through the Chair, if it is appropriate that I send an amendment to the desk at this time.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce the Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1995, a bill more readily known as all-in-bond. The bill would streamline the way in which the Government collects the Federal excise tax on distilled spirits by extending the current system of collection now applicable only to imported products to domestic products as well. Today wholesalers purchase foreign bottled distilled spirits in bond--tax-free--paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits--nearly 86 percent of total inventory--the price includes the Federal excise tax, prepaid by the distiller. This means that hundreds of U.S. family owned wholesale businesses increase their inventory carrying costs by 40 percent when buying U.S. products, which must be financed through borrowing. Under my bill, wholesalers would be allowed to purchase domestically bottled distilled spirits in-bond from distillers just as they are now permitted to purchase foreign produced spirits. Products would become subject to tax on removal from the wholesale premises. Additionally, the Federal tax collection process would be simplified by providing that only one Federal agency collect the tax. All-in-bond is an equitable and sound way in which to remove the burden of prepayment of the Federal excise tax on domestically bottled spirits while streamlining our tax collection system. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I think, first of all, it is a little interesting to note that if this issue was of such monumental importance that it should be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, would be here advocating that. He is not. In fact, he does not support the motion to recommit. The distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, spoke here on the floor about this very issue and said that, as the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, he, too, felt that the committee had exercised their responsibility and looked at this nominee very carefully. After the committee had voted, additional material that was submitted to the committee was considered by the professional staff, by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, and by the ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden. They and the professional staff circulated all of that information to all the Judiciary Committee members. As I look around to see if there are any of these members here who are saying they somehow have not had an opportunity to consider this nominee, I see none. I think it is clear that this case has been carefully considered by the committee. I think that Senator Biden, very eloquently and in great detail, covered all of the allegations we have heard this morning with regard to information that the Senator from Mississippi was arguing was a reason to recommit this to the committee. I think Senator Biden's comments were right on target. There is no basis whatsoever to send it back to the committee. The only allegation I heard that supported that argument was basically the fact that Judge Dennis should have recused himself in a case before the supreme court that he ruled on. Senator Biden made it very clear that he had no conflict in that case, that the supreme court voted 6-1 and he very carefully documented why not only should he not have recused himself, that it would have been wrong had he done that, that he had an obligation as a justice to rule on the case, that he had no interest in the case whatever. That, I think, has certainly been clearly established. If the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee disagreed with that, I think that he would make that opinion known. He does not, and neither does the ranking member of the committee. Mr. President, I have known Jim Dennis for a number of years, a long number of years. I have known him personally and known him as a very [[Page S 14465]] distinguished jurist on the State supreme court. Somehow to argue on the other hand that he is out of touch with our State is to not consider all the number of times he has gone before the people of our State and offered himself for election, because we elect judges. If he was out of touch with Louisiana, basically a conservative Southern State, he would not have been elected to the district court which he has been elected; that he would not have been elected as a court of appeals judge that he was elected to and subsequently reelected; that he would not have been elected to the State supreme court which he was elected and has served and then reelected without opposition to a 10-year term. Louisiana does not elect people that they disagree with. I suggest that his opinions as a judge, his record as a State-elected official, as a Member of the House of Representatives, indicates that not only is he acceptable to the people of Louisiana, that he is enthusiastically accepted as someone that they have taken great pleasure in having them represent in legislative bodies and on every court in Louisiana: the district court, elected; court of appeals, elected; and the State supreme court, elected and reelected without anybody running against him. I think it is clear that this person fits the mold of the type of judges and members of the judiciary that the people of Louisiana like to see. Some say that he is not a mainstream jurist. I point out that in the 20 years he has served on the supreme court, the information that we have by the supreme court itself says that he has sat on 7,655 cases in which an opinion was published. He voted with the majority in 7,148 cases. That is 93 percent of every case they wrote an opinion on, he agreed with the majority. All of these judges are elected, from all parts of our State. If he was out of touch with the people of my State of Louisiana, they would have said so. If he was out of touch with the other members of the judiciary, he would not have voted with them in deciding the majority of the opinions in 93 percent of 7,655 cases. To somehow allege that he is not part of the mainstream I think is totally contrary to the record in the case. Some say that he is not strong enough on crime, and we have some letters from some nameless people who write and say that he is weak on the death penalty or not good for law enforcement. I have a letter from the attorney general of the State of Louisiana, the highest elected law enforcement official in our State, Richard Ieyoub. He says: John Dennis is universally regarded as one of the brightest and most effective judges in the State of Louisiana. His opinions are excellent examples of legal scholarship and reasoning. I have carefully monitored the decisions of the Louisiana Supreme Court relative to victims' rights and the operation of the criminal justice system in general, and I feel very comfortable with the decisions rendered by Justice Dennis on these matters. His opinions in the criminal law area have generally benefited law enforcement. One of the sheriffs of one of the largest areas in our State, greater New Orleans, Jefferson Parish, a distinguished sheriff, Harry Lee, who, probably more than any other sheriff in Louisiana, is noted for being tough on crime and good for victims of crime and tough on criminals. Harry Lee, the sheriff, says: In my opinion, Justice Dennis has done an excellent job, both from the standpoint of law enforcement and individual citizens. He has faithfully followed the law as written by the legislature. He is generally regarded as a fair-minded, scholarly, hard-working and effective jurist. In short, he is extremely well-qualified, perfectly suited, and well able to serve with distinction as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals. This is probably the toughest sheriff in the State of Louisiana. Would he say a respected jurist on the fifth circuit is an outstanding person and well-qualified if he was weak on crime and weak on the rights of victims of crime? Of course not. He has staked his public reputation on the fact that this person is just the type of judge we need. My friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, distinguished majority whip, has cited two cases he says are evidence of his judicial activism or taking positions that is not in keeping with what we want in members of the judiciary. I respectfully disagree with his conclusion and think that the cases that he has cited give us exactly the opposite result. He cited one case, the Billiot versus B.P. Oil Co. where victims were protected by the law of the State of Louisiana, and there are some who were penalized because they violated the law of Louisiana and are now raising opposition to Judge Dennis because he interpreted the law as it was written. When someone disagrees with the law, you do not criticize the judge for applying the law. You try and give the law a change if you disagree. That is what legislative bodies are for. In this case, it was a workmen's comp case. The person was injured and he was injured very, very severely. The law of Louisiana, the State law passed by a majority of the people in the legislature, allows for punitive damages in limited cases, in limited categories, involving wanton or reckless conduct or reckless disregard of public safety in the handling or transporting or storage of hazardous or toxic substances. In this case, it involved hazardous material that ended up--because it was mishandled--injuring a person very severely. In this case, the State supreme court said that the law does not preclude a worker from being able to get punitive damages for the wanton or reckless conduct or reckless disregard of public safety. In this case, they applied the law properly and correctly. It was not a judge's fault, if you will, that the case did not come out as some of the defendants would have liked it to come out. That is what the law said. If Judge Dennis had been an activist judge, he could have said, ``I don't think the law should say that; therefore I will come to a different conclusion.'' The exact opposite was true. Not only not being an activist by trying to rewrite the law, he applied the law. For those that do not like the law, go change the law. Mr. President, it is interesting, that is exactly what happened. They put a coalition together in the last session of the Louisiana legislature and they got the legislature to change that law because they made the argument, and a number of the members of the legislature agreed with them, that the law was too generous in that opinion--not mine, but in theirs. They changed the law. But you do not get mad at the judge for interpreting it correctly. If you do not like the law, you think it is not correct, you change the law. Do not change the judge who carefully interpreted it. That is what happened in the Billiot case. In addition, the case was decided by a 5 to 2 decision of the supreme court of the State. Were all the judges wrong? I think not. I think they correctly interpreted the law as it was. The State versus Prejean case that the distinguished Senator Lott cited, Justice Dennis voted merely to grant the defendant a rehearing based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that set out the parameters under which a death penalty can be instituted by court. The only thing that Judge Dennis was saying is that he wanted to have a rehearing in light of the new supreme court decision to see if it affected this particular case. It has nothing to do with Judge Dennis' support of the death penalty or being tough on crime. In fact, I point out that Judge Dennis has repeatedly voted in court to uphold the death penalty. Since the death penalty was reinstated, Louisiana Supreme Court has heard on direct appeal the capital cases of some 98 defendants, affirming 84 percent and reversing 16 percent of those capital convictions on lower court. Judge Dennis sat on 93 of those cases and voted to confirm the convictions 80 times, 86 percent, just about the same average of everybody else on the court. In the cases where Judge Dennis has dissented, it is interesting here because if you say that he is out of step with the majority of the court, he clearly is not. When he has dissented, however, his dissent has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Dennis, the facts show, authored the dissenting opinion in six cases since he has been on the supreme court. In six cases he dissented from the majority. In all six cases subsequently reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, in all six cases, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana [[Page S 14466]] Supreme Court. It said, ``Justice Dennis, you are right. The supreme court of your State made an error in all six cases.'' I think when you look at this man's record, his distinguished record in every court in Louisiana, I think you would have to agree with me that this person deserves a seat on the fifth circuit court of appeals. He would make an outstanding judge, an outstanding jurist, as he has all his life. I will not go into an argument as to whether it should be a Mississippi judge or a Louisiana judge for this vacant seat because I think the record is clear. You determine what area justices come from based on the caseload. I think the caseload between Texas and Louisiana and the State of Mississippi is very clear; very, very clear. I do not think there is even an argument. This vacancy should be from the State of Louisiana. In 1993, the last year we had numbers, there were 1,309 appeals filed from district courts in Louisiana to the fifth circuit court of appeals. There were only 450 appeals filed from district courts in the State of Mississippi. That is a 2.9-to-1 ratio--essentially a 3-to-1 ratio. If the present vacancy is filled with Justice Dennis, Louisiana would have six seats on the fifth circuit; Mississippi would have two seats, a 3-to-1 ratio. The ratio is as close to being proper, when you look at the caseload, as is humanly possible to reach. Louisiana has 34 active and senior district judges in our State. Mississippi has only 10 district judges, a 3.4-to-1 ratio. So, when you look at very objective numbers on where should this seat come from, I think it is very clear that the caseload and the number of judges clearly indicate that a judge from Louisiana is the proper recommendation. Second, I would argue very strongly, and I think it is very clear, the background, the history of this judge has been carefully, carefully scrutinized by the Judiciary Committee, and I think we should all support the ranking member and chairman of that committee in voting against the motion to recommit. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I would like to raise an issue that has become of concern to several members of this committee on both sides of the aisle. Previously, as chairman of this committee and of the Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from South Carolina was instrumental in establishing spectrum auctions for new PCS services, and was a guiding force on developing the rules that were adopted by the FCC governing relocation of microwave licensees out of this spectrum. He is aware, as we have discussed, that certain enterprising individuals have recruited a number of microwave incumbents as clients and now seem to be manipulating the FCC rules on microwave relocation to leverage exorbitant payments from new PCS licensees. I am advised that if this practice continues unchecked, more and more microwave incumbents are likely to employ these unintended tactics. More importantly, it will reportedly devalue spectrum in future auctions to the tune of up to $2 billion as future bidders factor this successful gamesmanship into their bidding strategy. Previously scored revenue for deficit reduction will be unfairly diverted instead into private pockets. Would the Senator agree with me: First, that this type of gaming of relocation negotiations was unintended, is unreasonable, and should not be permitted to continue unchecked; Second, that the affected parties should attempt to agree on a mutually acceptable solution to this problem; Third, that if an acceptable compromise cannot be brought forth by the affected parties within a reasonable time period, then either Congress or the FCC should address this matter as quickly as possible with appropriate remedies?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues in the Chamber today should vote for this bill, not because it is a perfect bill, because it is not, but because it is a good start. Some have said this bill is a block grant and for the first time Washington, DC, gets out of the way. My concern is that, being a block grant, it does nothing to solve the problems of welfare reform. It just puts all the problems in a box and mails it off to the States and hopes the State do a good job. Someone said ``Today, Washington, DC, gets out of the way.'' The original Republican proposal said and allowed for the Federal Government to, perhaps, pay for 100 percent of the costs of welfare reform. That is hardly saying that Washington would get out of the way, but rather that Washington would get stuck with the entire bill for welfare reform. This bill really does address work. For the first time it says people should go to work within 6 months. Welfare reform is not about programs, it is about creating good jobs for people on welfare. This bill is a step in the right direction. Reform should be about taking care of children, and while this bill is not perfect, it provides $8 billion for child care because of the efforts of many of us--my colleague from Connecticut on this side included. When it left the Finance Committee it had zero money for child care. This bill puts $8 billion in it for child care. In addition, it says the State should do something. That is reform. The Finance Committee bill said the States had to do nothing whatsoever, and that was going to be reform. This bill says the States have to maintain at least 80 percent of what they were doing. Mr. President, we should pass this bill. It can become a better bill. That is our hope.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of the Democratic leader's time.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for yielding. And I ask maybe our leader, both leaders actually. A great deal of work has been done, a lot of back and forth, and I think a good compromise has potentially been reached here. I am concerned, as our leader is, that there are a lot of other amendments--I do not know whether we have 30, 40 amendments that are still posted out there, and I am just concerned, is it the intent to finish the bill tonight, I ask both leaders?