John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding. There is a great country and western song. I think country and western writers are some of the best philosophers that we will ever see in society. In one of the songs this guy is singing, he says, ``After the breakup, she got the gold mine and I got the shaft.'' If you are a working family in America that makes $28,500 a year-- which I would point out is most of the people in my State of Louisiana by a huge amount--you are getting ready to get the shaft; somebody else is going to get the gold mine. Budgets are about priorities. There is no clearer priority than what we are talking about right now. What the budget that is pending says, ``If you are a working family that works every day, works hard, pays your taxes, follows the law, and does what society tells you to do, you are getting ready to get the shaft.'' We can argue about whether this is a tax cut or a tax increase, but the facts are very clear: What the budget proposal says, for a family that makes $28,500 or less with two children in this country, that family is getting ready to have to pay a lot more to Uncle Sam. That family is getting ready to have to dig into their wallet at the end of the year and send money to Washington that they did not have to do last year because of this budget. Now, somebody can say that is not a tax increase. But I must say, if a person has to pay more than they paid last year, that ``ain't'' fun. If a person has to pay more than they paid last year, call it anything, but that person is going to be hurt. Now, we have heard people talk about what people said, and Senator Domenici is on the floor, who talked about this program in the past. My predecessor in the U.S. Senate, Senator Russell Long, a person I have tremendous amount of respect for, says we have to start making work more attractive than welfare. How many times have we heard speeches on the floor, ``The problem is people don't work enough. We have too many people on welfare.'' Ronald Reagan said this program, when it was passed, was ``The best antipoverty, the best profamily, the best job-creation measure to ever come out of the Congress.'' Today, this budget says we are going to slash it, and we are going to give the shaft to the people of this country who are hard-working Americans who are trying to make ends meet, trying to send their kids to school, trying to make sure they do not go on welfare. We will make it a lot harder. That is one thing. Again, budgets being about priorities, what are they doing with the money? It is one thing to cut people who work every day really hard and are barely making it, can barely afford to pay the rent, and say ``We will take this money away from you, that we are trying to help you with,'' and we are going to try and give a tax cut to families that make up to $200,000 a year--a tax cut of about $5,000 over the next 5 years--and wealthy taxpayers earning up to $350,000 get a tax cut of $20,000 when all of their tax cuts are fully phased in. Now, people say we do not want to get into class warfare. I am not talking about class warfare. I am talking about something called fairness. Is it fair to say to someone making $28,000, ``We will make you pay more,'' in order to say to people who make $200,000, ``You will pay less.'' What are our priorities? Budgets are about priorities. It is one thing to say this program is not working exactly like it was supposed to. I would suggest it is. I would suggest the Senator from Pennsylvania who says that it only applies to offset income tax knows not of what he is speaking, because it is clearly not correct to say that. It is clearly not correct. This program was expanded by a bipartisan effort, I would point out, to include not only income taxes. We know people making that amount of money do not pay a lot of income taxes. But we have increased a payroll tax five times. These people get hit with a payroll tax, get hit with a gasoline tax Congress passed, get hit with excise tax, and alcohol and tobacco and other products. All of these taxes can be used to offset the earned income tax credit, not just the income tax. We know the figures, that a lot of the people do not pay income taxes, but everyone pays payroll taxes, excise taxes, gasoline taxes, and all the other things that get hit and keep them in the bowels of poverty. Again, who is getting the shaft and who is getting the gold mine? I think it [[Page S7145]] is pretty clear that this suggestion says we will repeal any of the increases. What else do they do with regard to this proposition? I think it is very important to know. Here is what the proposal does: No. 1. It repeals the 1996 increase in deductions that people who are working and making 28,000 a year get. It repeals it outright. It also repeals the workers who do not have children, the credit that they would get. Is it not fair to have people who do not have children to not be able to benefit in the program? In 1993 Congress added this section. In a bipartisan effort, under that credit, taxpayers without children would be eligible for some credit. This budget says they are out of here, forget them, we are not going to help them. I do not understand that. Well, you can say that is not a tax increase but, by golly, they are going to pay more money to the Federal Government. And I do not think it helps them or makes them feel better to say those people in Washington told me this was not a tax increase, but I am paying more money than the last time. How can that not be a tax increase? It definitely comes out of their back pocket at a time when Congress is saying: Get off the dole, go to work, support your family, follow the law and, by the way, we are going to make you pay more so we can give a tax cut to people making $200,000 a year. Priorities. It is a question of priorities. Now, I know some people are going to say, well, this program has increased so much and we have this huge increase, and it is just going out of control. Let me suggest that the growth rate is not explosive and it is not out of control. It is doing exactly what Congress intended it to do. It is growing because it was designed to grow because of expansions in the bill that were signed into law. The charts are going to show something that goes up like that. That is because Congress said, in a bipartisan manner, that in addition to income tax, we are going to cover things like payroll tax, which is the most regressive tax of all; we are going to cover the gas tax, which we have increased; the payroll tax, which is increased; the excise tax on products, which has increased several times. Of course, it has increased and it is starting to level off.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to extend the deadline for the completion of the conversion of the vessel M/V Twin Drill. This vessel is what is known as a SWATH or small waterplane area twin hull vessel of advanced design that provides for an unusually smooth operating platform. This vessel currently undergoing initial conversion in Louisiana to ready her for a complete conversion to a U.S.-flag day cruise service. Under terms of section 601(d) of Public Law 103-206 the M/V Twin Drill was granted full coastwise privileges provided that the cost of major conversion work on the vessel in a U.S. shipyard was more than three times the purchase value of the vessel. Furthermore, the owners were required to commit to build a new vessel entirely within a U.S. shipyard. These requirements were to have been completed by certain dates. A number of delays resulted from the discovery of additional work that was necessary because of unknown conditions on the vessel slowed the project to the point where it will now be impossible to complete the conversion by the statutory deadline. Given the significant investment to date, and the progress already made, it is only reasonable that we provide some additional time for this shipyard work to be completed. This will cost the Government nothing, but it will mean immediate jobs at the shipyard and long-term employment opportunities onboard the Twin Drill. Failure to act would also mean foregone job opportunities in the construction and operation of the new vessel as well. A similar provision was passed by the House of Representatives last fall as part of the Coast Guard authorization legislation which we were not able to act on before the end of the last session. It is time we finish the job and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, is it in order for me to engage in debate on the pending legislation at the present time?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, with that understanding, I would like to make some comments on S. 395. Mr. President, I rise in support of the provision included in S. 395 which would lift the ban on the export of the Alaskan North Slope crude oil so long as such oil is carried on U.S.-flag vessels. This amendment would reduce our trade imbalance and raise $99 to $180 million in revenues for the U.S. Treasury. It would also create an additional 10,000 to 25,000 new jobs and would certainly spur domestic energy production. In 1973, Mr. President, shortly after the first Arab oil boycott, Congress adopted this ban, and since then the domestic and world energy markets have dramatically and significantly changed. Today, the export ban diminishes our energy security because it artificially depresses wellhead prices on [[Page S6675]] the west coast, making it uneconomic for domestic oil producers to invest in marginal operations. Mr. President, a Department of Energy study confirms that lifting the ban on Alaskan crude oil would improve domestic energy security by encouraging domestic exploration activities. DOE estimates that domestic production will increase between 100,000 and 110,000 barrels a day if the ban is lifted. In addition to increasing domestic production, this bill will also help to stabilize the decline in the size and vitality of the domestic merchant marine. By authorizing the exports of Alaskan oil on U.S.-flag vessels, we can help preserve a vital element of our domestic merchant marine, and we can do so without subsidies from the American taxpayer and without measurably increasing any risk to the environment. Mr. President, in 1990, Congress overwhelmingly supported enactment of the Oil Pollution Act. That legislation ultimately will require all oceangoing tankers plying our waters to be built or rebuilt with a double hull. It already ensures that American flag and foreign flag tankers will continue to be subject to the same strict safety requirements. And since December 28 of last year, it has imposed substantial financial responsibility requirements for all tankers entering U.S. waters. Last year, the Department of Energy conducted an extensive study of the likely effects, including likely environmental implications, of changing the current law. The Department, and I quote: Found no plausible evidence of any direct negative environmental impact from lifting the ANS export ban. By and large, Mr. President, the same U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed vessels that carry Alaskan oil to market today will continue to carry the crude to market tomorrow with a change in policy. The same skilled merchant mariners will continue to man the vessels. Current Department of Defense and Department of Transportation projections indicate that we are facing a critical shortage of trained mariners capable of manning the ready reserve force. This bill will help ensure that we will continue to have a reservoir of capably trained mariners sufficient to man our reserve fleet in time of national emergency. And our Nation will continue to have access to a fleet of environmentally safe and militarily useful vessels that otherwise are destined to be converted into razor blades. By enacting this bipartisan legislation, we can help ensure the continued existence of the largest segment of our domestic merchant marine. Let us demonstrate again that we can work together to help promote our energy security, our national security, and at the same time preserve jobs. Mr. President and my colleagues, I will just add a couple of remarks and point out that again this ban was enacted at a time when this country literally was on its knees from the standpoint of energy requirements. The Middle Eastern oil nations had banded together to form cartels which restricted amounts of oil being exported to the United States in particular. We all remember the long lines that occurred in the 1970's when people had to wait in line to buy gasoline for their automobiles and vehicles. Everyone in America wanted Congress to do something about it. One of the things that we did was to say, all right, we are not going to allow any of the Alaska North Slope oil exported to other countries. We are going to keep it right here. Mr. President, I think we probably acted with some degree of haste in taking that action and in thinking that by doing so we were somehow going to increase the domestic production. I think in reality we should all understand that oil is a commodity which can be traded all over the world; that, indeed, many ships that are plying the oceans filled with oil are sent to different ports in the middle of a voyage depending on the need because the price is better in one area or the need is greater in another area or for whatever economic determination that is made. So the point is that oil is traded on the world market according to need and price. If we can, indeed, take some of the crude oil in Alaska and sell it at a better price in overseas markets, we should be allowed to do that. The price return will allow greater domestic production in areas of the United States where that production can occur. I am a Senator from the State of Louisiana. I have nothing to do with oil, of course, that is produced in Alaska. But I think this is good policy for my State, for the State of Alaska, and indeed for all of the States in the United States. I think it will increase production, and it will not do damage to any part of our Nation. It is good economic energy policy for the future of our country. Mr. President and my colleagues, I hope we would move on this. It should be relatively noncontroversial. I know some Members have legitimate concerns, and they will be heard, but I think we should move forward, debate the issue, vote on this legislation, and ultimately we should adopt it as good energy policy. Having said that, Mr. President, seeing no one else seeking recognition at the moment, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I inquire of the chair and also the floor managers. What is the pending business of the Senate? I would like to make some comments on bill S. 395.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his comments and his effort in trying to bring about a compromise that makes sense. A lot of people have been working very diligently on this issue of product liability. The Senate and the Congress has worked on it for a number of years. We have all struggled with it. I think the standard that we are all trying to reach is a standard of fairness, to give neither people who are injured by faulty products an advantage or people who manufacture those products an unfair advantage. The key I think is a level playing field. The key is fairness to everyone. That is something that has been very difficult. I want to particularly commend the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, which I serve, Senator Hollings, for the great work that he has done in trying to make sure that fairness is the standard by which we operate. Also, Senator Heflin, I think, has made a great contribution to ensuring that we do not act in haste, but do this very, very carefully. There have been a number of Members on the Republican side--the distinguished occupant of the chair, the Presiding Officer of the Senate this morning--has also been very involved in trying to create a package that is fair and creates that level playing field that we are all striving for. There are a number of other Senators I have not mentioned that have been involved in trying to bring all Members together in doing something that makes sense. My own preference is that this is something that the States ought to do. I am a States righter when it comes to personal injury and the tort system, and how the States can handle this can best be decided by the States. I think, Mr. President, in trying to reach an agreement here today I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the first cloture motion this morning in order to allow Members to present to the Senate what I think is a fair and reasonable compromise, and tries to balance those who think that nothing should be done on the Federal level and those that think that everything should be done by the Federal Government here in Washington. I think that the pending amendment that is out there that has been talked about, as a proposed compromise, the so-called Gorton- Rockefeller, their second proposal, is defective in a number of ways, and can be improved in order to reach a fair settlement of this issue, and put it to rest once and for all. I think Gorton-Rockefeller is effective in a couple of ways. My substitute, which I will offer after cloture is not invoked, will be an amendment to the Dole-Coverdell substitute, which will still be pending, tries to address those defects in the Gorton-Rockefeller in the following ways: No. 1, on punitive damages. This has always been something that has been very controversial, but there is a reason for punitive damages. It says to a manufacturer of defective products, ``Do not do it again.'' The damages that are awarded have to be in relation to the ability of the defendant to pay. Obviously, a multibillion-dollar corporation is not going to really be affected by a small fine of $100,000. They will just say it is the cost of doing business, and continue to manufacture the defective product. So punitive damages serve a purpose. It says to the manufacturers of products that harm people in this country, ``Do not do it anymore.'' It has been very effective. There are products today that are not on the market because of punitive damages. Companies have said ``We can't afford to do this anymore and we are not going to do it anymore.'' There are a number of products that are no longer manufactured--Dalkon shield, asbestos products, products dealing with breast implants. Some automobile manufacturers are no longer producing types of cars, because they know that if they do they will cause problems and they will be penalized doing it. So they make a very practical decision: ``We are not doing it anymore.'' The problem with the Gorton-Rockefeller substitute is that, I think, it is fatally flawed. They try and solve this problem by saying that small businesses will not be liable for punitive damages if they have 25 or fewer employees. They make a separate category for small businesses of 25 or fewer employees. That is an interesting way of approaching it. What would happen is that many companies would just structure their operations with 25 or fewer employees. A trucking company, each truck could be a separate company. A cab company, each cab could be a separate company. A boat company, each one could be a separate company. What do we do in companies that have 23 employees at the time of the injury, or 25 employees later on during a year? It is very complicated and it really, I think, calls for companies to structure themselves so they can avoid ever having to pay for any punitive damages for products that would cause problems to individual people. In addition, they say that, well, if the judge thinks that punitive damages should be awarded more than this cap, then the judge can do it; but if the defendant does not like what the judge does, he can ask for another trial. Why do we have to be so complicated? That provision just calls for additional litigation, more cost, more expense, additional trials, by directing a very, very, complicated situation I think is not necessary. What my amendment will do is to take from the suggestions of other Members who have suggested ideas that address this problem in a fair way. Our colleague, Senator Dodd from Connecticut, has suggested something that I think makes sense and is the essence of my amendment. It says that when a jury finds that punitive damages are warranted because of conscious and flagrant violations by the manufacturer of a product, then the decision on how much the punitive damages should be will be decided by the judge. He does it by looking at that particular defendant, determining their ability to pay, determining how successful economically that company is, looking at their intent, how they handle everything, how long the violations continued, and then the judge will make a decision on the amount of the punitive damages that are necessary to prevent this from happening again in the future. Mr. President, and my colleagues, I think that is a fair way of resolving this problem. A very complicated structure that says 25 or less has one standard, and then the judge can overrule the jury if he wants to, but if the defendant does not like it they can ask for another trial, is too complicated, too time consuming, encourages too many additional trials, and is not the way to do it. I prefer the suggestion of Senator Dodd, which is in my amendment, which simply says if the jury finds the defendant was so negligent in a fashion that deserves punitive damages to be awarded, then the judge will decide what is an effective and correct amount to be awarded. Second, on the statute of repose, I think the Gorton-Rockefeller amendment is defective again. Remember this uniformity argument we talked about? They kept saying we need to pass this bill because we want to make it uniform throughout the United States. Their bill is defective because it says the statute of repose will be 25 years unless the State wants to make it less. That is not uniform. It says we of repose and 50 different standards for a person who is injured to have to worry about. That is not uniformity at all. The statute of repose, of course, says that after a product has been in place for a period of time you can no longer bring a cause of action against that product because it is defective. My amendment says let us make it uniform, 25 years across the country, nationwide; it is the same in every State. That brings about uniformity both for the person who manufactured the product and uniformity for the person who may be injured by a defective product. I think that makes sense and is the right way to go. The third area I think they are defective in, in their suggestion, is on the question of joint and several liability. What they are trying to do is address the problem of a manufacturer or defendant that is just a little bit responsible, just a little bit negligent. Their argument is if someone is only responsible for 3 percent of the injury he or she should not be liable for 100 percent of the damages for noneconomic damages, that is the pain and suffering type of injuries that a person would receive from a defective product. But the way they have tried to handle this problem is say you are not going to have any joint liability for noneconomic damages and that will take care of the problem. Yes, that takes care of the problem. It wipes out the possibility of an injured person, perhaps, from getting any recovery at all. What I am going to suggest in my amendment is simply this--and this is the language, again, that has been suggested by Senator Specter, who has come up with I think a very good idea to solve this problem. I picked some from Democratic colleagues, Senator Dodd, some from our Republican colleagues, Senator Specter, and tried to put them together because that is what we have been talking about for the last several days. Senator Specter's suggestion, which I have included in my suggestion, is simply to say there is a de minimis standard. If a defendant is responsible for less than 15 percent of the injuries that were caused, they cannot be held jointly liable, they can only be held liable for that percentage of the damages that it has been determined they are at fault for, that they caused. If it is 3 percent they can only be responsible for 3 percent. But after that threshold, if they are 20 to 30 to 40 percent responsible, then they can be held jointly liable. I think that takes care of the so-called de minimis problem, whereby we should not hold someone responsible for the whole amount of damages if they only caused a very small, de minimis, portion of those damages. But after a certain point, joint liability should prevail. We picked up Senator Specter's suggestion, which I think is a very good one, that says if a person is 15 percent or more responsible for these losses, then they can be held jointly liable for noneconomic losses that they caused. That defendant, of course, has a cause of action for anybody else who is liable for the other portion of the damages. That is what normally occurs. The defendant then brings in the other party and they can be held responsible--to the defendant who has paid the entire amount--for their portion. So the system works very well. But my suggestion, I think, takes care of the de minimis concern that has been expressed by many of our colleagues. I will offer this amendment and will be able to offer it if the cloture motion is voted down. I think it would be a big mistake, when we are so close to coming up with a compromise agreement, to at this time invoke cloture and prevent the opportunity to offer this amendment with a chance of it becoming law. This is really an attempt to try to reach a legitimate compromise. We can debate this for a long time. We could continue to prevent cloture from being invoked. I think it is time the Senate bring this measure to a close. What I have tried to do is pick some of the best ideas from my colleagues. I continue to emphasize that many of the things I have in my legislation are the product of the suggestions of some of my colleagues--Senator Specter in particular with this de minimis standard, my colleague Senator Dodd with the concept of punitive damages being set by the judge after a trial has occurred that determines that punitive damages would be justified. I think that makes good sense, to try to incorporate Republican ideas and Democratic ideas, to put together a package which is truly a compromise. One of the things the advocates of this so-called tort reform legislation have advocated is a national standard when it talks to punitive damages. I have incorporated their ideas on the national standard being in fact that the plaintiff must show a conscious and flagrant indifference to safety concerns, and the plaintiff must do it and show it by clear and convincing evidence. That will be a national standard now for punitive damages in product liability cases. I have incorporated that suggestion. That is the same as in the Gorton- Rockefeller legislation. In fact, much of what this substitute that I will offer really incorporates is the better features from the Gorton-Rockefeller language. But it also tries to address the three major areas in which I think they were defective, and those are how punitive damages are set, how they deal with joint and several liability, and how they deal with the statute of repose. So I hope when we come to the floor to vote on cloture this morning, which has already been set, our colleagues will know there is an effort among many of us who have been involved to some extent in this legislation to try to put together a package of amendments that is truly a genuine compromise, that tries to treat people who are injured by defective products on the same level playing field that we are trying to treat defendants who in fact have manufactured defective products. It is improper for this body to try to give advantage to one group over the other group. If we conclude there should be some national standards, then the national standards should apply both to those who are injured as well as to those who make the product that has caused injury, in the same way. It would be unfair and improper to say one side is going to get more fair treatment than the other. I am concerned the provisions that are pending in the Gorton-Rockefeller substitute in fact are not fair; in fact they do allow for more loopholes to be created with the 25-employee limitation, they do create some other problems with regard to the establishment of punitive damages, they encourage more trials, and they encourage, I think, abuse of how punitive damages would be set. We have tried to offer something that addresses all these problems in a fashion that truly represents a fair and just compromise. But we do need to ask our colleagues--who may be trying to figure out the situation as to where we are--ask them to vote against the cloture motion and allow us to come in with a compromise that I think for once and for all will settle this very, very difficult, very emotional set of issues that we have struggled with for so many days. The alternative I will offer, and hope to be joined by a number of our colleagues, will be something that will give everybody an opportunity to say we made some reforms but we did it ultimately and finally in a fashion that is fair to everyone involved. With that, Mr. President, is there any time left on the leader time?

Mr. BREAUX. I will just reserve that 30 seconds in case the leader needs it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a speech by Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards be printed in the Congressional Record. Governor Edwards recently made remarks concerning the House- passed Contract With America and its effect on Louisiana. I found Governor Edward's remarks very informative, and I wanted to share them with my colleagues. The speech follows: Speech by Governor Edwards I have said repeatedly that I do not believe the actions of American voters last fall were an endorsement of the so- called Republican ``Contract with America'' so much as a general dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire for new faces. National surveys indicate that few voters knew anything about the contents of the so-called contract when they went to the polls, and still fewer based their votes on support for its provisions. As the Republican Congressional leaders continue to act upon what they claim is a mandate for their so-called contract, however, it has been necessary for me as a responsible Governor of a small state (1.7 percent of U.S. population) with a large percentage of poor people to take a closer look at just what the provisions mean to the people of Louisiana. I don't like what I see. I am convinced that Louisianians, at least, would not have voted for the contract. I am alarmed because it appears that the end result effectively will be a contract ``on'' the children of Louisiana and, ultimately, on the well-being of the entire state. Neither Louisiana nor our nation can afford to balance the federal budget on the backs of its most vulnerable and its most precious resources--its children. But what makes these particular efforts even more onerous is that the cuts will not be applied to reduce the federal deficit and, thus, reduce the price these same children will be paying on behalf of the nation in the future. Rather, the cuts will be used to compensate for tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations. This ``contract on Louisiana children'' means that while families with incomes of $200,000 a year get tax breaks that will put cash in their pockets, many of our poor children will have food taken out of their mouths. Literally, 59,000 of Louisiana's poor children will lose school lunches; 28,500 poor children will lose meals and snacks in child-care and Head Start programs, and about 410,000 children will lose 10 percent of their food stamp benefits. Under the welfare block grant proposal of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Louisiana will lose about $1.68 billion over the next five years that otherwise would be used for our children--especially those who are poor, hungry, disabled, abused or neglected, or sick. Even setting aside the devastating human effect, the state would suffer economically. The $1.68 billion potentially lost to the state's economy represents almost twice as much as Louisiana's annual, net income-tax revenues. The ripple effect throughout our business community--whether it be ``Mom and Pop'' service stations, shoe shops or grocery chains would be a disaster that would have a ruinous ``trickle down'' effect on our parishes and towns. Louisiana already is struggling to meet its obligations to serve the health-care needs of our poor people under new federal Medicaid requirements that have reduced federal aid to the state and threaten to wipe out new economic gains the state is making. We cannot afford this contract on our state's economy. And that would only be the start. Louisiana would get a smaller share of federal dollars that it does today, despite having a larger proportion of poor people than most other states and an average per-capita income that is only 80 percent of the U.S. average. History shows that block grants tend to shrink over years as the spotlight fades away from them. Further, if the national economy fell into a decline, there would be no strengthening of the assistance safety net. And there is more. The contract threatens the 433,958 children under age 21 who received Medicaid-covered services in 1993 in Louisiana at a cost of about $1,928 per child. In 1991, 31,420 births were financed by Medicaid, and payments for maternity and newborn care were 4.5 percent of total Medicaid expenditures in the state. Meanwhile the infant mortality rate decreased by 22 percent between 1984 and 1992--from 12.1 to 9.4 per 1,000 live births--obviously a result of better access to health care, among other factors. What will happen to the birth rate, to the pregnant mothers, the infants, and to our children if that access is reduced because of budget cuts? That is a campaign ``contract'' victory I for one would not care to claim. I am the very embodiment of the difference a good education can make in the future of a poor child. However, if Republicans succeed with their stated intentions: 101,621 Louisiana college students--who already pay more than the Southern states' average in tuition--will pay more for student loans; 670 of Louisiana's young people will not participate in national service jobs that allow them to earn college tuition; 62 of our state's 66 school districts will lose money now available to help them make their schools safe and drug-free; 2,400 Louisiana students with special needs will lose extra help they need to learn and to succeed, and 27,000 teenagers in Louisiana will lose summer jobs. Our young people cannot afford this ``contract on their future.'' And there is more: 7,460 Louisiana children are at risk of losing access to safe, affordable child care--a move which not only threatens the well-being of the children but also the while they are at work; another 1,700 abused and neglected children will lose foster care; 28,500 blind and disabled children lose SSI cash assistance immediately, and 114,000 low-income children lose cash assistance. The contract falls also on 41,531 senior citizens and families with children in our state who will lose assistance they depend upon to provide heat during the winter, and 17,747 Louisiana families who otherwise could count on an FHA loan, their only access to an affordable home loan, to help them buy their first houses. These are only some of the disastrous effects of the contract on Louisiana that threaten the young, the weak and the poor--in short, the very people who need our help the most. I do not believe that was the intent of the American voters nor is the wish of Louisiana voters. And I do not believe it is in the best interests of either the American people or their elected representatives. I am reminded of the words of Jesus who described in the Gospel of St. Matthew (Chapter 25, verses 44-45) how on Judgement Day those on the left hand of God would ask: `Lord, when saw we Thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee? Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me.' May I respectfully suggest as we open our ears to listen to the popular political rhetoric of tax cuts and budget balancing that we pause for a moment and open our eyes to the consequences on those who can least afford to bear the burdens which will be heaped upon them in the attempt to achieve these goals.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I would like to honor Jeffery Allen Breaux. Jeff was a native of my hometown of Crowley, LA, and he passed away on April 15, 1995. It is with extreme sorrow that I pay tribute to him on behalf of his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Larry J. Broussard, Sr.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 608

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. It is my understanding, does the Senator agree, that this uniformity argument really does not apply; if each State wants to make it more difficult for an injured person to recover, they have the right to do that? Under this proposal, we could have 50 different States with 50 different sets of rules with regard to an injured person's ability to recover damages, if it is more restrictive than this bill.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I think he has very clearly made the point we are talking about--fairness. This legislation does not represent fairness at all. I think the Senator from South Carolina has made that point very well. I thank him.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I would like to ask the Senator a question. One of the arguments I have heard on the side of the proponents of the legislation is that we have to do this in Congress, in Washington, because we have to have what they call uniformity among all of the States, and all of the States have to have the same laws when it deals with personal injuries that are derived from defective products that hurt people, that we have to have the same laws in all of the States. It is my understanding that this legislation says you have to have uniformity, unless the State wants to make it even more difficult for an injured person to recover, and then we can have 50 States having 50 sets of different rules, if the rules make it more difficult for an injured person to recover. That is not uniformity.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and my colleagues, here we go again, back on the famous product liability reform bill. I think one of the things that Members do in an effort to try to get legislation passed, I would say sort of tongue in cheek, when they are uncertain about the merits, they label it ``reform.'' We have had the Tax Reform Act, we have had the Health Reform Act, we have had the Product Liability Reform Act, and no matter whether it is real reform or not, if you call it reform long enough and loud enough and enough people hear it, then a lot of constituents will start writing and saying, ``You have to be for that reform act that is pending in the Senate or pending in the House. I am not really sure what it does, but if it says that it is reform, it must be good and you had better vote for it if you ever want to come back and get reelected or speak with your constituents in any kind of civilized fashion.'' I say here we are again, because once again in this Congress, the Senate is going to be called upon to address what some have called a Product Liability Reform Act. I raise the question at this time as to why we need to be doing this because, in fact, I think this is something that, over the many decades, years and years of our country's history, has been an area that has been reserved to the States in order for the various State legislators to look at these issues and make decisions based on what is appropriate and proper when it comes to dealing with the personal injuries of the people who reside in their respective States. Now, there are some in this Congress who will say no, we are going to do it all from Washington, and we do not care how long the States have done it or how intense they have been in their efforts at laying out systems that make sense for the people of their respective States--no, we do not care about that. We are going to take it all here, here in Washington. We are going to do it all from Washington because we know best. I suggest just this. People in some parts of our Government here in Washington, and some parties here, are saying when it comes to some subjects like product liability reform--again, the word reform is attached to everything you want to change; let us reform it--they make the point that States are so backwards and so inefficient and so ineffective in handling personal injury cases, they would say that we are going to bring it all to Washington, but that with welfare reform, the Federal Government is so ignorant and so slow and so messed up that when it comes to welfare reform, we are going to send that to the States. They say we are going to block grant all the welfare programs and rules and regulations on welfare and send it to the various States--all 50 States. Let each State decide what is best for the people of that State when it comes to welfare programs and how to reform it because the States know best and the Federal Government is really too slow and too ignorant to make the right decision. But when it comes to product liability, the States are so slow and so dumb and do not know what to do we are going to take that jurisdiction away from them and bring that jurisdiction to Washington because Washington will do a much better job. The inconsistency of those positions in my opinion is irreconcilable. I would suggest that in areas where the States have worked their will and where they have done a good job we should leave it alone. I would suggest that when it comes to product liability, the phrase ``if it ain't broke don't fix it'' applies. I would also suggest that those who say this is such a crisis of litigation that it threatens the very legal institutions by which we govern ourselves, look at the facts at what is happening out there. Is there an explosion of litigation? Ask anybody in this body who would be willing to answer this question of the amount of litigation that says we have to supercede what the States have done and bring it all here to Washington. I think the facts are clearly just the opposite. In all State courts in 1992, all tort cases or cases that people sued because of personal injury in civil courts amounted to just 9 percent of the total civil cases filed. And product liability suits, of which we are talking about today, accounted for only 4 percent of all the tort filings in all of the civil courts, in all of the State courts, in the Nation. That amounted to .0036 percent of the total civil case load of all of the State courts in the United States of America--.0036 percent. When we read those figures, one might ask the question. Why in the world does anybody think that there is a problem? Why does anybody think, if it is that small a number of lawsuits being filed that represent product liability suits, that it is such a mess that we would have to take it away from the States and we are going to do it in Washington, we are going to make it right in Washington because we in Washington know best what is best for the people of my State of Louisiana, or any other State in the Union, that we know so much more about how to solve this we are going to do it in Washington. People back in Louisiana say, ``Senator, are not you saying at the same time that we do such a lousy job on handling personal injury product liability legislation in my State that you are going to take it to Washington but when you talk about welfare reform, Washington does such a lousy job you want all the States to handle it?'' Why is it any different? We are talking about laws that affect the health and safety and the future of the people of a prospective State. When it comes to those areas I am a strong States rights Senator. I believe the rights of the States should not be trampled on. The rights of the States to govern what happens within their territorial boundaries should not be superseded by the Federal Government without a legitimate and an overriding mandate as to why we should do it on the Federal level. I would suggest that when only .0036 percent of all civil cases filed in State courts amount to cases filed dealing with product liability, that it is not a national problem, justifying jerking the rug out from under the States and say, no. Here in Washington we are going do it, and we are going to do it a lot better than you have been able to do it back home. I do not buy that. I will say to my colleagues in the Senate that my own State of Louisiana has addressed these problems, and they have handled it in the State legislative bodies. Interestingly enough, some people say, ``Well, this is a big battle between business and plaintiffs. It is a big battle between the people who get sued and the people who do the suing. And there are too many people doing the suing. So we have to pass legislation in Washington to protect those who are getting sued.'' That is not so where I come from because I asked the Congressional Research Service to compare the legislation that is pending in the Senate, and legislation passed the House as well with the laws that we already have on the books in Louisiana. Do you know what they found? Here is the concluding paragraph. This ought to knock somebody's socks off who is saying we should be doing what some have suggested. Conclusion: H.R. 956, which I understand is the pending bill, the House passed product liability bill. H.R. 956 would be more favorable to the plaintiffs than is Louisiana law with respect to product seller liability. I repeat that again. The bill before the Senate would be more favorable to plaintiffs than is Louisiana law with respect to product seller liability. This is from the Congressional Research Service dated March 17, 1995. Therefore, if businesses say we get sued too much, we know we need changes in the law and we want more protection, my goodness. The bill that we have pending before us today on the Federal level is more favorable to the plaintiffs than what Louisiana has already done to limit product liability suits and to make it more difficult to prove damages and to recover. Louisiana has already drafted legislation. It is on the books. It is the law of the land in my State. plaintiffs or whether we should be benefiting those who make defective products. My argument is that we should not be taking this jurisdiction away from the States who have had to address these issues, for countless numbers of years. The States know the needs of people and they know the needs of the companies that produce products that operate in their respective States. The question is; and I will ask it until someone can give me a good answer. Why is it necessary to usurp the jurisdiction of the States and make the argument that some things the Federal Government knows best and we are going to handle it here in Washington? When I was in law school they used to call it forum shopping. They used to say you pick the district where you want to file the suit depending on the type of judge you have, and you file it where you have the best judge for your particular cause. If you are a defendant or a plaintiff, you forum shop. I would suggest that the companies that are concerned about defective products that they may have produced, say in some States we get a good deal but I bet we can get a better deal if we bring it to Washington. So let us forum shop. Let us see if the U.S. Congress can take away all the jurisdiction from the States and bring it all to Washington because big brother in Washington knows better than the people of our respective States. I just cannot get passed the point argued by some people. On welfare reform, the Federal Government is so dumb we are going to give it all to the States. But on product liability the States are so dumb we will give it to the Federal Government. That is forum shopping. Pick the issue and find where you are going to handle it, pick the best forum, the best results on a particular issue. The point I am trying to make here today is the States have in fact addressed product liability. For my State, as the CRS has concluded, the Federal bill is better for plaintiffs than our State law. But I side with the States. I side with my legislatures who have looked over Louisiana and said this is what the people of my State want. This is what is best for our State. They passed it by majority vote. The laws have been signed into law by the Governor of our State, and it is the law of the land. For the life of me I cannot decide why that should be changed and have everything sent to Washington for a change. In addition to that, I am concerned about the fairness of this legislation. I do think it is one-sided. I do think on the Federal bill we do not treat people who are injured with the same rights and the same standards as we do the people who have made defective products. That is not fair. If there is anything we ought to be following as our guideline on legislation that affects human health and safety, it is fairness. It is how people are treated, both who make the products that are defective and that cause injuries and how we treat people who are injured by those defective products. Nobody should have an advantage. We should speak of fairness. We should speak of a level playing field. Everybody should be treated equally. But I will assure you that my reading of the legislation S. 565 does not provide any basic system of standard of fairness. Let me give you an example. The bill S. 565 provides a series of hurdles and limitations on the ability of people who are injured, that they have to cross over in order to be able to recover from manufacturers who make defective products. But it expressly exempts business from many of the same requirements that we put on individuals who are injured, many of them quite seriously by defective products. The standards, in other words, for the people who are injured and what they have to show and what they have to prove in order to get recovery from their bodily injury is different from the standards that this bill places on business, when they have injuries that are economic injuries caused by the same defective products. I would suggest that is wrong; that is not fair; that is not balanced; that is not a level playing field. Let me give you an example. If company A, for instance, purchased a piece of equipment from company B, and that piece of equipment was defective and one day explodes, company A that bought it could sue company B that manufactured for the economic injury they suffered. They could sue for the loss of profits they would have made if that piece of equipment had not broken or exploded. They could sue the company that sold them that product for all of their lost profits caused by the disruption of that accident. On the other hand, let us take the family of the poor worker who was operating that machinery which exploded in the same factory. When he or she brings their case to the courts of the land under this legislation, they must face limitations and hurdles in order for them to recover. To make matters even worse, under the Senate Commerce Committee's version of the bill, if that machinery, for instance, had been in place for 20 years or more, the injured person in the family could not even bring litigation to recover any of their losses for their injuries while the business would not be restricted in any way. Why is it all right for the business to be able to sue for lost economic profits because of a piece of defective equipment but the individual who may be injured physically by this same piece of defective equipment is somehow prohibited from bringing a case against the company merely because it had been in place for maybe 20 years? What is fair about that? Why should they not both be prohibited from bringing the case or both allowed to bring a cause of action for defective equipment? How can you say this is fair? I talked a little bit about punitive damages. It is really interesting; remember when I talked about Louisiana, that we have already addressed this? In Louisiana, there are no punitive damages, period--none--for product liability. You cannot get punitive damages for a product liability case in Louisiana. That is what the legislature said. That is the law of our land. This bill allows it. This bill says we can have punitive damages limited to $250,000 or three times economic losses of the person who is injured. Now, I do not know why there is a huge rush to do this in the first place. My State has done it. I wish they had not done it. I disagree with it. But this bill says punitive damages--which are intended to say to a manufacturer, you have done wrong; do not do it again; you will be penalized--will be limited to $250,000 or three times the economic damages. That sounds like an awful lot if it is a mom and pop product manufacturer, but if it is an international business? Does it mean a lot to them, when they may make more than that in profits in an hour? Is it really a deterrent to say you are only going to be able to have punitive damages of $250,000 or three times economic losses? If I was a big international manufacturer and I saw that my punitive damages were going to be limited, why worry about it. That is just the cost of doing business. I am going to make the product, sell a lot of it and if somebody litigates this and takes 4 or 5 years to finally get a judgment against me, I will just pay the judgment and if the punitive damage is so low, why worry about it? This is the point I wish to make here. I do not know why people think there is such a rush of litigation that provides for punitive damages that we need to change the law. The statistics I have show only 355 punitive damage awards in product suits occurred from 1965 to 1990. That is in the Nation. Only 355 cases between the years 1965 and 1990 ever awarded punitive damages, and half of these awards were reduced or overturned on appeal. And in three fourths of these cases the defendants took steps to improve the safety of their product. Of course, that is the point of having punitive damages. They say to a manufacturer of a product that they knew was defective or likely to be, we want you to make some changes; we want you to do things differently. The threat, even a small threat of punitive damages for detective products makes a great deal of sense and should not be changed. This portion of the bill, quite frankly, discriminates against low and middle income people. I think it discriminates against women, infants and children by limiting the damages to three times the economic injury or $250,000. I give you an example. The same type of lawsuit for a defective product against company A. The product causes making $1 million a year and doing very well in society. Now, compare that with the same injury from the same product to perhaps an ordinary housewife who is not employed except within the home, is not employed as a salaried person. If the injury causes the executive to miss 1 year of work and causes the housewife to miss 1 year of work, the executive would be able to receive $3 million in punitive damages--three times his economic loss. And, for the same conduct, the housewife would only receive a very small amount, $250,000, for the same type of injury, in the same case, with the same defective product. I do not think that is fair. So I will conclude. We will have a lot of time to debate this over the period of time that is allotted for us to consider this legislation. But the two points I have tried to make today are quite simple. No. 1, the States are already doing this. And to all Members of Congress who have stood in the Chambers of the House and Senate over the years and said I am for States rights, the Federal Government should not interfere where it is not necessary, the Federal Government does not always know best--the people of the States know what is best as communicated through their State legislatures--I say that we should not be yanking the rug out from under the States. We should not be usurping the power of the States to handle personal injury legislation affecting the people of that State concerning products that injure them. Point No. 2 I think is equally simple and not difficult to understand. The legislation that is before the Senate at this time is simply not fair. It is simply a piece of legislation that discriminates against those who have and those who do not have. The goal of this legislation should not be for us to try to make it better for one category of Americans over another category of Americans; that the goal should be to create a system of balance, a level playing field, and a system of fairness for all of our citizens, whether they be businesses that make products or people who use those products. It should not be a guiding light for us to say we are going to do everything we can to help those who make the products but discriminate against those who use the products. I think in the couple of cases that I have tried to cite this bill does not provide the fairness that we as Members of this body should be striving to accomplish through this legislation. Mr. President, I will have more to say on this legislation as the debate continues but at this point I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. I do not doubt in any way the sincerity of the Senator from New Hampshire in his beliefs and strong feelings on this subject. I will only make two very brief points. First, we already have on the books rules and regulations that govern the handling of wild animals and, indeed, all animals that appear in circuses: How they are treated, how they are transported, how they are fed, how they are cared for, how they are treated when they are sick. Those rules and regulations are already on the books. If indeed those rules are deficient, the appropriate committees in the Congress of the United States should review those rules and then make recommendations to the full body. None of that has been done in this case. Second, I trust the Sergeant at Arms, whom I know the Senator from New Hampshire knows very well. I am certain he has reviewed the risks and lack of risks associated with the appearance of a portion of Ringling Bros. Circus on the Capitol Grounds. He, indeed, has the responsibility of determining whether events can take place on the Capitol Grounds that do not impair the safety of the Members of this body, as well as the employees who work here, as well as, in fact, the physical grounds that constitute the Capitol of the United States. I trust, I am certain he has made a decision that these events can take place without putting any person at risk, any Members at risk or, indeed, any of the physical structures of the Capitol at risk. Therefore, Mr. President and colleagues, I think the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, in good faith and with all sincerity--I admire the work he has put into this--I suggest is inappropriate at this time and ask for its defeat.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 34 relative to the Ringling Bros. Circus and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration under the following time agreement: 1 hour under the control of Senator Smith to offer an amendment regarding elephants. I further ask that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Smith amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 34.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself time from the distinguished minority leader's allocated time. How much time is remaining under that?

Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, I have listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon, and last week to some extent, to my colleagues speak on the program known as National Service or AmeriCorps. Unfortunately, I think it has become more of a political debate than it has been a debate on the merits of this concept. I was thinking the other day that if two Members of Congress, perhaps two Members of the Senate, would have the opportunity to sit down one evening and pretend that they were neither Republicans nor Democrats and they would say to each other, ``Well, let us for the sake of argument see if we can in the privacy of this room sit down and come up with a program, not thinking about who gets the credit, but come up with a program designed to bring about new ideas and how we might teach to our young men and women in this country something about community, something about opportunity, and something about responsibility, what type of a program would we write, if we were not concerned about who gets the credit?'' I would think that in that room perhaps they would look out over the history of our country and say, ``All right, when Congress had that opportunity in the past, what type of programs did of the most successful programs being the GI bill. The GI bill was based on a very simple premise; that was, people who served their country have an opportunity to get back something from their Government but that they got something from their Government because they had given something to their Government in the first place. That was what the GI bill was based on. It said to returning GI's who had served this country in the military that because of your service, your country is going to help you. We were going to help you go to the college of your choice. And as a result of that program, we gave literally hundreds of thousands of young Americans the opportunity to go to college, not because it was a handout, not because it was a grant, not because it was some sort of entitlement, but it was based on the theory that they had given something to their country and, therefore, their country was going to give them something back. And what we gave them was an opportunity for an education. I would think then that the two Senators would say, ``All right, let us see if we can now craft a program that builds on that GI bill, that concept that has served so many millions of Americans who have gone to college under the GI bill, let us see if we can craft a program that teaches young Americans something about responsibility, teaches them something about the communities that they live in, and something that also gives them an opportunity to better themselves. And, oh, by the way, let us make sure that program that we write will cost no more than one-thirtieth of 1 percent of our national budget.'' That would be a real challenge. But I guarantee you, if the two Senators did not care who got the credit, they would come up with something that is very close to the National Service Program, the program known as AmeriCorps, which today is facing the prospect of being slashed and burned and killed before it has a chance to ever- present young Americans with opportunities, to teach them responsibility, and teach them something about their community. Suppose people when we talked about the GI bill had said, ``We are not going to do that. Let them go out and earn their own living, let them work. We are not going to have a GI program to help kids get to college. We don't care what their status is. We are not going to do that.'' How many young Americans would not have had the opportunity to be as successful as they are as a result of that program? So what we have, I think, Mr. President, is a National Service Program that should be allowed to continue. It should be allowed to prosper. It should be allowed to flourish. What that program says to young Americans is that we are going to ask you to work in your community, not in a far-off country in another part of the world, although those services are needed, but we are going to ask you to work in your State, in your city, in your county. We are going to ask you to work with your local people who have identified what their problems are, what their concerns are, where they need help, if they need help in education, if they need help in police protection, if they need help in environmental cleanup programs, if they need help in health services for their local community. We are going to ask you to go back to your local community, and we are going to ask you to work in that local community. We are going to pay you a minimum wage stipend because we know you are not going to be able to do it if you do not have some form of assistance to allow you to feed yourself and clothe yourself and help you live your life. We are going to pay you a minimum wage and ask you to do that, knowing that you could be making a lot more money in some other job, particularly if you have already graduated from college and are now paying back these loans. But in return, if you do that, we are going to help you go to college. We are going to help you with a grant to go to college based on the fact that you have worked in your community to make it a better place to live. That is the concept of reciprocal responsibility. That is saying to young men and women that your Government is going to help you if you give something back, if you give something back to your community and this country right here in America. That is the whole essence of what the AmeriCorps Program is all about. It is not a giveaway program. It is not saying we are just going to give you money because that is what Government is all about and go to college because your Government is giving you something and asking nothing in return. Those two Senators, who would not care about which party got the credit, would be very proud of this new direction, of this new partnership, of this new way of thinking, that says, yes. We have programs that give grants to go to college. In most cases you have to show that you are poor. In most cases you have to go through a lot of paperwork to show that your parents do not have enough money. But this program will be based on the fact that we want to help anybody who believes enough in their country to believe in working in their local communities, assuming some responsibility at a time in their lives when that is very, very important, connecting that young person to their community in a way that perhaps they have never had the experience in doing before. And based on what they do, your Government will help you go to college with assistance. I would suggest that program would be one that we could all be very proud of. We know, unfortunately, the problem is Congress sometimes gets involved with who gets the credit, who gets the blame. I think a good program like this should have enough credit for everybody to take claim for it. I was interested just the other day in reading an article by one of our Republican colleagues from the House. He said in talking about this program and the Republican effort to slash it and to kill it and to, in effect, terminate it, this Republican House Member said, ``We have a wounded President.'' He further said that AmeriCorps ``is something that this President deserves to be proud of, but it is a target for those people who do not even want to give him that.'' I would suggest that is the real message that we are leaving on the floor today, not that this is not a good program, not that it does not teach a young person something about his own community or her own community, not that it does not teach them responsibility, that a government will help you if you do something. There is no free lunch. And I would not suggest they are not going to have it because it gives a young person opportunity by allowing them to have a college education. No. I would suggest that this House Member hit the nail on the head when he said that we have, in his opinion, a wounded President, this is a program that this President can and should be proud of, but that it is a target and it is a target not because of the merits; it is a target because of the politics. I would suggest that is not how we should legislate the future of young men and women in this country. We have heard a lot of numbers thrown out on the floor today about how much the program cost. It is costing us one-thirtieth of 1 percent of our national budget. Is that too little to invest in giving young men and women an opportunity, a sense of community, and teaching them about responsibility? I think not. In return for each full year of commitment, a 2-year maximum, a volunteer can receive $4,725 in tuition assistance and health care and a stipend which is approximately the minimum wage. So we pay young men and women a minimum wage to work in their local community doing things that are extremely important in that local community, and then, after they have done it, we say we will now help you with tuition for you to go to college. I think that is a bargain. I think that is a new way of thinking about the role of individuals and their Government, that their Government is going to help them when they show responsibility and a willingness to contribute to their local community. I would suggest that is much better than just sending them the check and saying, ``Well, we are the Government; here is the check; go to college.'' What we are saying with this program is that we are going to help you if you do something in return. I think that makes a great deal of sense. wage, they are not a volunteer.'' The former distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn, my good friend, almost laughed at that suggestion because we all know now we have a volunteer army. Does anybody suggest it is not voluntary anymore because we pay them a salary? Of course, not. We pay everybody who volunteers in the military. We pay them more than a minimum wage. We pay them a livable salary. But the whole military is voluntary now. No one is drafted. No one is required to serve. It is an All-Volunteer Army, and yet we still pay men and women who voluntarily join the military. So I would suggest that paying a young person a minimum wage stipend in order to work in their local community does not detract from the fact that this is a voluntary program. Many of these young graduates who return to work in their local communities are voluntarily doing it. They could earn a great deal more if they would go right into the private sector at a high-wage job. But, no, they are saying this is what I wish to do. This is a way to pay back my Government for what it has done for me. It is still clearly a voluntary program. I do not understand why we are arguing about this. Some of the polls that I have seen say that over 90 percent of the American public, when they are explained in a rational and reasonable tone what the national service program is all about, say this is a good idea; why did we not think of it before? Why do we only have grants coming out of Washington that you have to go through weeks and months of paperwork to make sure you have the right income level to finally qualify? Why not say to all Americans we are going to help you if you are willing to serve in your community? That is the essence of what national service is all about. That is the essence of what AmeriCorps is all about. The Peace Corps was a successful program. We sent men and women from our country to far-off lands to help improve conditions in those far-off countries and people thought it was a good idea. It was and it still is. Here is a Peace Corps Program for our own country to help urban areas, to help rural areas, to help local officials who desperately need young, talented, future leaders of this country working in their communities. I think the beautiful thing about it is that it is a partnership, it is a reciprocal partnership between you and your Government to help people quit thinking the Government owes them something, that just because they are born the Government owes them something and is going to pay for it. It is a partnership. Again, if I could have those two Senators who did not care whether they were Republican or Democrat, who did not care that this was Bill Clinton's idea, I guarantee they could walk out of that room and say we thought of something that really makes sense. Let us make sense. Is it perfect? Of course, not. Nothing is perfect. Are there some examples of how things should not have been done? Of course. But the program is in its infancy stage. Let us let it breathe for a few years to try to get it on track. If there are some problems with it, let us fix the problems and make sure they do not occur again. But do not kill the program. Do not say to the young men and women of America, we are going to continue to try and teach you there is something like a free lunch, because this program is just the opposite. This program says you will get from your Government help and assistance when you agree to give something back. Funding was $575 million for fiscal year 1995, one-thirtieth of 1 percent of our budget. Can we not invest one-thirtieth of 1 percent in the lives of future Americans, young men and women who want to learn about community, who want to learn about responsibility, who want to have opportunity given to them for what they have invested? I think that is a wise expenditure of tax dollars. I think we are going to see great dividends paid, maybe not right now but in future years; that when somebody sits back and compares some of the good programs that Congress has done they will point to the GI bill as one of our most wonderful programs, but at that time, if we are successful, they can also say that when Congress had the opportunity in the 1990's they built on the GI bill and passed a national service program, and now, maybe 10, 20 years later, it is producing the results we would like to see. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment to help restore some of the draconian cuts that were passed by the House on this program. My amendment would allow for still a 20-percent reduction in the spending from last year. Most programs come in and say we need more money, more money, more money. My amendment is going to say, all right, in this time of fiscal balance and concern about deficits, let us reduce last year's spending by 20 percent even though we have more money and more requests than we did before. Let us reduce by 20 percent the President's request for the National Service Program, but let us keep it viable. Let us keep it working. Let us keep the innovative ideas that are coming out of that program so that we can say, when we had the opportunity to teach our young men and women in this country the things that are needed in order to make this country great, we stood up and were counted and voted in favor of my amendment. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BREAUX. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the minority leader's time.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, in the last several months, the debate over welfare reform has lost its focus. We should be talking about how to move recipients from dependence on public assistance into work in private sector jobs. Instead, we are talking about a number of other issues--teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, breakup of the family, whether to block grant welfare programs to the States, entitlement spending versus discretionary spending, and so on. These are all important issues, but they miss the mark. They are distractions from what should be the primary focus of the welfare reform debate--work and personal responsibility. Ultimately, Mr. President, the best social program we could ever come up with is a good job. What the American people want is fundamental change in the welfare system. We won't get this fundamental change if Congress shucks accountability to the States. Everyone certainly agrees that States should be given more flexibility to design their programs in a way that meets their unique economic and social circumstances. But the Federal Government must be accountable for making sure that the tax money we raise is well spent and produces the results the American people are demanding--that is, self-sufficiency through work. While few people would argue that welfare reform should be about work, a vital piece of the puzzle has been missing from the beginning. That is, how do we actually move people from welfare into an appropriate job. Last year's proposal from the Clinton administration supplied an incentive for welfare recipients to work by placing a time limit on cash assistance, but it maintained and even expanded an ineffective education and training system that recipients have to pass through before they are sent to look for work. Past Republican proposals such as the one contained in the Contract With America also imposed a time limit and insisted on immediate work, but provided no mechanism for linking recipients with private jobs, implying that they would rely on a vast public jobs program. The latest Republican proposals completely evade this and many other questions by boxing up the problem and sending it back to the States. The legislation that Senator Brown and I are introducing today would provide a direct mechanism for moving individual welfare recipients into suitable jobs. Our proposal is to enable and encourage States to use vouchers for job placement services. It would firmly commit the Federal Government to the principle that work experience is the best training for private employment. It would also transfer power from governments to individuals by putting control in the hands of individual welfare recipients in a competitive job placement market, while giving each State flexibility to tailor the new system to its particular economic and social circumstances. Mr. President, vouchers take the welfare debate beyond the arguments that are being made over block grants. Instead of ending the Federal welfare bureaucracy, only to replace it with a State bureaucracy, vouchers would do away with bureaucracy and put the power to choose in the hands of individual welfare recipients. Existing funds would be used to pay for the vouchers, and State and Federal Government costs might actually be reduced as bureaucratic solutions are replaced with private sector solutions. States would develop a list of approved service providers--placement agencies, private employers, employment-based JOBS programs, and so forth--available to welfare recipients once they have applied for public assistance and started their job search. Recipients would use the lists to make their service choices. Instead of being assigned to a job by a caseworker, the recipients would consult with their caseworkers, review all the options that are available, and choose the program most suited to their needs. Payment to public and private placement agencies, employers, and other approved employment programs would be based on performance only. Vouchers would be redeemed in full only after an organization had successfully placed the recipient in a full-time unsubsidized job for a set period of time. solution to the welfare problem. But I am convinced that it is a necessary part of any realistic attempt to get welfare recipients into jobs in the private sector. I am also glad to be joined in offering this bill by my friend and colleague from Colorado, Hank Brown. This is just about the only bipartisan welfare reform legislation that has been introduced in this Congress and I am proud to have Senator Brown as a cosponsor. I hope that more of our colleagues will join us in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, for more than 10 years the Congress has deferred to Federal courts on making and shaping telecommunications policy. Antitrust law intended to remedy anticompetitive practices when AT&T dominated all facets of America's telecommunications services is the basis of court controlled communications policy. The resulting breakup of AT&T in 1983-84 under Judge Greene's modified final judgment is still the policy basis for keeping the brakes on the future development of this critical industry: Telecommunications is the engine of America's continuing race into the information age. Technical complexities and the massive scale of economic returns for potential competitors in the industry have made it difficult to arrive at any industry-led agreement on fair and just terms for bringing full competition to reality. Certainly such an agreement would simplify congressional efforts to unleash the industry from Federal court edicts so that the benefits of open competition will bring new and lower cost services, increased employment, and a continually improved telecommunications infrastructure. Right now, Mr. President, between 50 and 65 percent of all U.S. jobs involve information processing, goods, or services; 90 percent of jobs created over the last 10 years were information related. But there is more to come if we in the Congress can fashion reasonable legislation for evenhanded treatment of potential major competitors. Telecom giants are poised to spend billions over the coming 10 years to restructure their networks. One estimate of capital spending by the Bell companies alone on the information highway for equipment and infrastructure between 1994 and 1998 is $25 to $50 billion. Mr. President, I believe that we can supercharge and sustain this potential growth if we fashion communications laws that will assure all telecommunications competitors that each of them will have a fair chance to thrive in fully competitive markets. We have a situation now in which each competitor is fearful of a law that will give an unfair advantage to equally powerful competitors. As I see it, Mr. President, the key to establishing open competition in telecommunications is to deliver a fair process for freeing the grip that Bell operating companies now have on the local exchange system. Ideally, Mr. President, if any telecom carrier can have interference- free, open access to the local exchange to fully compete for the delivery of telecommunications, video, and information services to homes and businesses and at the same time allow for the regional Bells to have access to and the ability to provide long distance service for their customers, we would have created the stimulus for maximum growth in this industry. But the Bell operating companies, Mr. President, are understandably reluctant about engaging in a process of enabling open access to the local exchange if it means tying their hands while equally strong competitors are raiding their customer bases. I am considering legislation that would require the Bells to provide to competitors interconnection to Bell company local exchange switches; provide access to network features on an itemized basis; provide technology that will allow consumers to move to a competitor and keep the same telephone number, and take other steps to assure State and Federal regulators that their systems are open to full competition. The Bells are concerned, Mr. President, that this process of opening up the local loop under some legislative proposals will not be satisfied until utility companies with massive capital, and customer bases of their own will have permanently eroded Bell Co. customer bases. This is not a situation, Mr. President, of a world-dominant AT&T competition with and upstart, customer-poor MCI in the early 1980's. Major Bell company competitors are customer are customer rich, and they are capital rich. They are more than capable, Mr. President, of competing on a level playing field. I have discussed these issues and my suggestions with the Long Distance Companies Coalition, with cable television representatives, and with Bell company executives, and they agree that my idea offers a possible compromise and is worth further discussion. I believe that if we can assure each competitor, region by region, that none of them is to have a headstart or an unfair advantage in the race to acquire customers for new services, that we can reach an accommodation that will lead to the passage of important and far- reaching telecommunications legislation in 1995. I believe that we can do this, and I believe it is urgent that the Congress direct our attention to this in this session. I urge my colleagues to help and join me in crafting a workable telecommunication fair competition amendment. I think my suggestion is one that can be ultimately agreed to by both the long distance carriers, the cable companies, as well as the regional Bells. It is an idea and a concept that needs further discussion, further debate, and further exploration by the various interests that are going to be affected by it. I think it does provide us an opening which I think is significant and one that hopefully the companies and people affected will take advantage of. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to help those employees who are living under a new reality of the 1990's--corporate downsizing. This bill will allow taxpayers who lose their jobs due to corporate downsizing to roll over, tax-free, any lump sum payment received as part of the termination into an individual retirement account [IRA] or similar qualified plan. Taxes would be paid when the funds are withdrawn at retirement. This will allow the upfront payment to serve the purpose of providing the necessary income for retirement. This legislation will relieve an enormous tax burden on thousands of Americans and further encourage retirement savings. Last year the bill was estimated to cost $405 million over 5 years. Without this legislation, many workers, generally 5 to 10 years from retirement age, will see between 40 to 50 percent of these payments immediately eaten up by Federal, State, and local income taxes. Of course, if these payments are made out of excess funds in a qualified retirement plan funded by the employer, this problem does not arise. This however, is not always the case. Given the generally dismal rate of underfunded private retirement plans, payments will often come out of the general revenues of the company rather than from a qualified plan, and thus will not qualify for the tax exempt rollover provisions that currently exist under the code. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join me by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, diabetes is the third leading cause of death from disease in the United States. It is the leading cause of blindness in people aged 25 to 74 and the most frequent cause of nontraumatic lower limb amputations. Diabetes also greatly increases an individual's chances of succumbing to stroke or heart disease. What is such a shame, Mr. President, is that diabetes is a condition that can generally be treated so that major complications do not occur. In some cases it can even be prevented. While there is no known cure for diabetes, individuals with the disease can lead completely normal lives--even extraordinarily productive lives--if they know how to balance their diet, get enough exercise, and manage their disease. through self-maintenance and education programs. Generally, classes are taken when an individual is diagnosed with the disease and periodically thereafter in order to keep up with the changes in their condition and to get the most up-to-date treatments available. Appropriate preventive education services for those with diabetes have the potential to save a great deal of money that would otherwise go for hospitalizations and other acute care costs. Education also saves these individuals from a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering. Studies by the American Diabetes Association and others have shown that the Medicare program could save $2 to $3 for every $1 spent on diabetes education. Medicare currently covers these services in inpatient or hospitalbased settings and in limited outpatient settings--specifically hospital outpatient departments or rural health clinics. Unfortunately, Medicare does not currently cover education services if they are given in any other outpatient setting, such as a doctor's office. Even the limited coverage of outpatient settings that is currently permitted under Medicare is subject to State-by-State variation according to interpretation by the program's fiscal intermediaries. The Medicare Diabetes Outpatient Self-Management Training Act of 1995, which I am reintroducing today along with Senators Chafee, Cochran, Inouye, and Hollings, would provide for Medicare coverage for outpatient diabetes education on a consistent basis throughout the country. The bill would extend Medicare coverage of outpatient programs beyond hospital-based programs and rural health clinics. It would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to guarantee that coverage be available only for those services delivered through programs that meet stringent quality standards. Uniform payment would be achieved through implementation of new working guidelines. This legislation is all about preventive medicine and is a sensible approach that should show savings for the Medicare Program in the long run. I hope that my colleagues will join me as cosponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.