Floor Statements

Mr. President, 35 years ago Lois and I, along with John Jr. and Bill Breaux, rented a U-Haul truck and headed north to Washington, D.C.

Lois tells the story about Bill the night before we left saying his prayers and concluding with ``Good-bye God, we are moving to Washington.'' And, we had to pull John Jr. from under the house.

Well, today, John Jr. is 38 years old. Bill is 37, and Beth is married to Jeff Shepherdson and has three children--Anna Kate, 6, Campbell, 4, and C.J., 2 years old, and Julie, our youngest is now 28, works in New Orleans, and is here with us today.

I'll always remember that trip. My mother, who is deceased, and my father, followed us to D.C. We got there at night. I had never even visited Washington, so we drove right to the Capitol, and that evening the Marine Corps band was in concert on the Capitol steps. It was beautiful, and I thought they were playing just for us.

It's been a great 35 years--a few years as a staff person, 14 years as a Member of the Congress, representing southwest Louisiana, and it will be 18 years as a U.S. Senator, representing our State of Louisiana. I had the privilege of serving with five Governors and seven Presidents.

I have said for a year now that I would announce my decision whether to seek another term as U.S. Senator after the governor's election this year. I further said that I would make that announcement between November 15 and December 15. The difficulty of that decision is shown by the fact that today is December 15.

Lois and I have spent a lot of time discussing this decision--not formally, but, ``what do you think?'' type discussions. Although one time she actually sat up in bed, drew a line down the middle of a page, and listed the pros and cons of running--not surprisingly, they came out just about even.

We have received lots of advice--from my staff, from family and supporters here in Louisiana, and from around the country. Some of the letters from total strangers were so touching and heartfelt that we will forever treasure them.

My colleagues in the Congress, especially in the Senate, spoke to both Lois and me frequently with their thoughts and suggestions. Colleagues, actually from both sides of the aisle, urged me to run again, and for their encouragement and friendship I cannot begin to say how much Lois and I appreciate them. My special appreciation also goes to Tom Daschle, Harry Reid and Mary Landrieu.

The citizens of Louisiana have greatly honored my family and me by allowing me to serve these 30-plus years as their Congressman and U.S. Senator. I can honestly say I enjoyed every moment and appreciated the opportunity that I have had to serve.

But there comes a time in every career when it is time to step aside, and let others step up and serve. And for my family and me that time has arrived. I will not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate.

Throughout my years in Congress I have been guided by a simple philosophy to make government work for everyone. I did not go to Washington to get nothing done other than argue about whose fault it was when we failed to make government work.

My sincere hope is that future Congresses will be able to pursue the center- out coalitions that I have advocated. It is my hope that cooperation and legitimate compromise between our political parties will not be seen as political failure, but rather as a means of building a stronger democracy that better serves our Nation.

To my wife Lois, we started this journey together many years ago and you have been there every step of the way--through the good times, and there were many, and through the not so good times, and there a were a few. I could not have asked for a more helpful and supportive partner and friend. No one has been more lucky and fortunate than me in finding you.

To my staff here in Louisiana and in Washington, let me say I could not have accomplished anything without you. Our office has the greatest of reputations and all of you are truly part of our family--and will always be.

To my father Ezra and to Lois' mom, Doris, I say thank you for putting up with all the things we dragged you through, whether you wanted to be there or not. And to our children, John, Bill, Beth and Jeff, and Julia, I say thank you for being there--you have made us very proud every step of the way.

I am not leaving today. There is still a lot to get done this Congress. We have to get the energy bill passed, and I want to get started on legislation for the 40 million Americans who have no health insurance. I look forward to co-chairing with Governor-elect Kathleen Blanco the very important summit meeting on healthcare in Louisiana.

So this is not goodbye. After working more than half my life on issues important to Louisiana, I intend to continue that involvement in the future, but in a different capacity. But for now, thank you for the privilege and honor of serving Louisiana and our country.

Mr. President, today we passed historic Medicare legislation. Getting here was not easy. Behind the scenes, for months and even years, staff has worked incredibly hard to help produce this complex and comprehensive bill.

In particular, I would like to thank Senator Baucus' Finance Committee staff who put in countless hours and remained dedicated to this legislation during long and difficult late-night and weekend sessions. Dr. Elizabeth Fowler lead the Finance health team. Dr. Fowler's expertise, even-handedness, and professionalism were critical in getting us to where we are today. Other professional staff, including Jon Blum, Pat Bousliman, Andrea Cohen, Bill Dauster and Daniel Stein, all served the entire U.S. Senate and served us well. The Minority Staff Director, Jeff Forbes, was also instrumental in seeing this legislation through until the end. We were able to achieve many Democratic priorities in this bill because of their hard work and dedication.

I would also like to thank Senator Grassley's staff on the Senate Finance Committee for the critical role they played in passing this historic legislation. Linda Fishman, Ted Totman, Colin Roskey, Jennifer Bell, Mark Hayes and Leah Kegler worked tirelessly for many months to get a bill drafted, through the Senate Finance Committee, passed on the Senate floor and out of tough conference negotiations with the House. The majority staff director of the Senate Finance Committee, Kolan Davis, also played an integral role in getting this conference report passed.

Our Nation's senior citizens owe the whole Senate Finance Committee team a debt of gratitude for making this Medicare legislation possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.

We have now come to the time of decision with regard to whether we are going to have the capacity to, in fact, reach a compromise on one of the great issues of the day; that is, whether the Congress has the political courage and political will to set aside partisan differences and to allow both sides to come together and reach agreement. We can argue about which party benefits from a Medicare reform bill and which party will suffer, but the real issue is not whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party wins or whether the President gets to sign a bill that reforms Medicare in the Rose Garden. The real question before this institution on both sides of the aisle should be whether for once we can come together and craft a piece of legislation that creates a program that is substantially better than the 40 million seniors currently have under Medicare.

When Medicare was created in 1965, it was bipartisan. It was a change. Some say we should not change Medicare. I would argue that Democrats have never feared change. In 1935, when we wrote the Social Security Program under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership, Democrats changed the status quo. When we led in 1965 the effort to provide medical assistance for our Nation's seniors, we challenged the status quo. We stood up for change and created a new program. Today, over 38 years later, we have the opportunity to once again change a program which has served seniors well but not nearly as well as they deserve. Democrats should not fear that type of change.

Medicare today, on average, does not cover 47 percent of the average senior's health care costs in this country. Not one of us in this institution--our employees, Members of Congress--has health care insurance that is that deficient in what it does not cover. Forty-seven percent of those costs have to be borne by the senior citizen individually or, if they do not have enough money, by their children or their grandchildren or, if they become so poor,

they are put into the State Medicare Program for the poorest of the poor. That is unacceptable. That is not in keeping with the greatness of this Nation, to have a health care program for seniors that is that deficient.

This institution cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill is not perfect, but this bill is good. We cannot let political pundits on both sides of the aisle who try to dictate what our choices are say, well, let's pass a Republican-only bill so that we can blame the failure of its passing on the Democrats. Neither can we allow Democratic political pundits to say to us we should not pass this bill for the reason that it would allow the President of the United States to sign it in the Rose Garden and that would be a political benefit for him.

If we cannot take good legislation and pass it and both claim credit for it, then, quite frankly, we should be doing something else. Good government is good politics. This is good government. This is a good bill.

There are two different approaches to solving health care. Some of my friends on the Republican side would say: The Government should have nothing to do with it. The private sector should do everything, keep the Government out of it, and we can design a program with the free enterprise system that will work just fine.

Unfortunately, there are some on my side who would say: No, the Government has to do everything. Government would have to do it all. The private sector cannot be involved at all.

Both of those approaches are incorrect. The best way to solve health care problems is to do what this bill does; that is, to combine the best of what government can do with the best of what the private sector can do and come up with legislation that says: Yes, the Federal Government can supervise it but not micromanage it. Yes, the Federal Government can help pay for it through the tax system--and this bill does that--but the private sector needs to be involved as well. The private sector can bring about innovation. They can come up with new ideas and new concepts faster than we can in the Congress and in the Federal bureaucracies here in Washington. The private sector can bring about a degree of competition which is sorely lacking under the current micromanaged system with 133,000 pages of rules and regulations. That does not allow innovation or competition. That is one of the reasons the program as we know it today, as good as it is, can be made a lot better.

The issue for our Nation's seniors is not just living longer lives; it is also about living better lives. For the first time, seniors will know that when they need prescription drugs, they will be available. Four hundred billion dollars will set up a structure where they will have insurance that covers prescription drugs, just as in 1965 when we made changes that said the Federal Government will help provide insurance to cover hospitalization, we said that for the first time the Federal Government will help with a program that will provide insurance coverage for doctors.

This is a good program. We should not fear change. This is a major step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I think one of the subjects that really united both Republicans and Democrats was the question about dual eligibles. There was a large number of seniors being treated as second- class citizens

of this country because, if they were poor, they were not in the Medicare Program. If they were poor, they were not allowed to get through the Medicare door, and for no other reason than they were poor.

Under that scenario, low-income seniors, maybe 80 years old, who worked all of their lives, but ended up in a very low-income status, were relegated to the Medicaid Program, where there was not a consistent amount of benefits for their health care programs. They were subject to the will and whims of the various State legislatures. Some treated them better, some treated them worse, and some didn't treat them hardly at all.

What we were able to do, which I thought was a priority for many Republicans because it was in the House bill--but it also was a priority for many Democrats in this body--was to say that we are going to bring those low-income seniors, for the first time, into the Federal Medicare Program. We did that. That is part of this bill. Those low- income seniors now are going to have the opportunity to be in the Federal Medicare Program. They will know what their benefits are. They will know, for the first time, they have access to prescription drugs, which is what I think the bill is all about. In addition, we were able to find an extra amount of money to help them with any type of copayments they might have.

Some States have high copayments; some States have no copayments on drugs. But what we were able to do was to say: Here is extra money for the purpose of helping States to reduce the copayments down to $1, if they are buying a generic drug and only $3 if they are buying a prescription drug. In addition to that, the subsidies and assistance we have for low-income seniors in general is extremely important.

Starting in April of this coming year, they will get a drug discount card. If they are low-income, they will start off with a $600 credit on that card, to be able to immediately have the benefit of something, where they have nothing at all today.

On balance, when you have a 150 percent of poverty and below special assistance program, when you have a discount card that starts in April, and all of the seniors, for the first time, will be in the same Federal program, I think that is significant. For the first time, we will say to seniors who are low income that you will no longer be treated as a second-class citizen and be different from all of the other seniors you know. You will be part of the Federal program and you will have access to prescription drugs.

Again, I think the question is, Have we designed a perfect bill? The answer is no. But I think when you look to associations such as AARP and the National Council on the Aging, we have a bill that merits their support.

Mr. President, we have reached that point where the debate is on the size of the bill and not the merits of the bill.

Let me just say, 38 years ago this Congress passed this document that I have in my hand for the first time. It was in 1965 that we enacted Medicare, which was a noble experiment. It was led by Democrats and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. It was, indeed, a change and a challenge. No one knew whether it was going to work. People could not be guaranteed it was going to serve the needs of America's seniors. But it was a chance worth taking. It was a change. I suggest today Democrats in particular should not fear change if it is aimed at improving a document that has served this country so well.

The only defect of this legislation was that it didn't do everything that it should have. For instance, while it covered doctors and it covered hospitals, it did not cover what at that time were new innovations in the area of prescription drugs. Members of Congress knew we had to take care of seniors going to the hospital. We had to take care of seniors seeing their doctors. But no one really thought that seniors getting prescription drugs was going to be that important.

Today we have the opportunity to correct what we did not do in 1965 and bring about a reform to this program which is greatly needed. I would just say that is why organizations such as the National Council on Aging, which represents all of these seniors who go to these senior centers throughout our States and congressional districts, as well as the AARP--and Democrats many times cite the AARP when they agreed with them. But now when they do not agree with them they find fault with the organization.

I suggest the Nation's largest organization representing over 35 million seniors has had their health economists and their lawyers carefully study the document that is before us and made a recommendation to those of us in Congress. They said this is something we support because it is indeed, on balance, the bill we should approve and send on to the President for signature.

Again, I say it is not a perfect bill. But, once again, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We also cannot let the political pundits of both of our parties suggest we cannot vote for this bill because somehow it may give credibility to the other party. I have actually heard that from both sides of the aisle. I think that would be a tragic mistake.

The issue today is not which political party wins. The issue today is whether we can craft legislation that allows America's 40 million seniors to come out a winner. I think on balance this bill does that because it combines the best of what government can do with the best of what the private sector can do.

Many on my side of the aisle think the Federal Government should do everything all the time. We can't do that. We can't do it very effectively. So I think it is important to note that on the other side of the aisle, many of them think the Federal Government should not do anything and that the private sector should do it all.

The truth lies, as most truthful matters lie, somewhere in between. The fact is, we ought to combine the best of

what Government can do with the best of what the private sector can do and create a new Medicare reform for the 21st century.

With regard to the points of order, I made it very clear the two points of order we are going to be voting to waive are not dealing with the so-called premium support language that is in the bill. It doesn't deal with the cost containment provisions that are in the bill. It doesn't deal with whether we are going to bring in the Medicare Program all low-income seniors who are currently in, under the State Medicare Program--it doesn't deal with any of that. It deals basically with the fact that we are spending more money in this legislation than the structure of the budget would allow us to do.

That is not uncommon, and the proper procedure is to have a waiver of those points of order, which is what we are going to be voting on.

The first point of order really lies because of the fact that we put more money to help the State Medicaid Programs, something that most people on my side of the aisle strongly supported, to make sure we help those programs make sure the drugs that they are going to still be involved in helping seniors with--that they will be able to help them to the maximum degree possible.

In addition, one of the other reasons the first point of order lies is because previously the Finance Committee helped the States with their unemployment insurance, something most people on my side of the aisle strongly supported. It is not sufficient for people to go back to our States and tell seniors that we somehow prevented this bill from being adopted because of a point of order that was very technical in its essence. I think people want to know where we stand on the merits of the bill. Are we for prescription drugs for the first time, for seniors, since 1965? Are we for giving them a program where the Federal Government pays 75 percent of their drug costs? Are they for or against a program that is going to give particular help and assistance to our Nation's low-income seniors, which is so terribly important? Are we for bringing low-income seniors into one standard national Medicare Program or are we not?

I would not want to go back and somehow argue the technical merits of the point of order and say this is why I could not vote for prescription drugs for seniors, a $400 billion package. There are going to be some on the more liberal wing and more conservative wing who will find reasons to be against this bill, but on balance it represents a centrist coalition, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I coauthored Section 507 of H.R. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003, which would amend current law regarding physician self-referrals. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Grassley, in relation to the exception language contained in this provision.

I would like to clarify congressional intent with regard to the ``exception'' language included in S. 1, as this language may ultimately be included in any compromise between the two bills.

I would like to discuss the extent to which the Secretary would have discretion to exempt a hospital based on the factors identified in the language. The language in the conference agreement states that, for the purpose of determining whether a hospital qualifies as under development, and therefore exempt from the self-referral limitation, the Secretary:

. . . shall consider--

(1) whether architectural plans have been completed,

funding has been received, zoning requirements have been met,

and necessary approvals from appropriate State agencies have

been received; and

(2) any other evidence the Secretary determines would

indicate whether a hospital is under development as of such

date.

It was my intent in crafting this language that the factors outlined would serve as an illustrative guide to the Secretary. The Secretary ``shall consider'' these factors, but will not be required to see that each and every factor is met. Is it your interpretation, that the Secretary would have discretion to make a reasonable determination of whether a specialty hospital is ``under development''?

Is it your understanding that a specialty hospital that has, as of November 18, 2003, met zoning requirements, received approval from the local planning board, and received partial funding, but has not yet completed all architectural plans would quality for the exception?

Similarly, is it your understanding that a specialty hospital that has completed or substantially completed architectural plans but has not yet received full funding would also qualify for the exception?

I thank my distinguished colleague for engaging in the colloquy.

Retail Pharmacies and Community Pharmacists

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for the work he has done on this legislation. It has been difficult and time-consuming, and it has occupied a great deal of his time. It seems to me that everything the Energy bill does in terms of traditional oil and gas exploration and development, and what it does in geothermal, encouraging wind power and alternate fuels, has sort of become secondary to the question of MTBE.

I guess Americans who are watching this debate where we are talking about an Energy bill might say the whole thing will rise or fall on what Congress does with MTBE. They would say:

What are you talking about? Energy security, energy efficiency, and lessening our dependence upon foreign imports; that is all part of this legislation. It does a good job in that area. Could it do more? Of course. But it does a good, solid job in working with the issues of electricity and traditional oil and gas development and alternative fuels.

So the question now comes down, for many on my side of the aisle, to what Congress is doing with MTBE. I thought I would try, in a limited way and in a limited amount of time, to explain what I think the issue is.

The legislation establishes for MTBE--which is a fuel additive, to make fuel burn cleaner, like ethanol--the same standards for liability for one who produces it and misuses it as it does for ethanol. What does it mean? The legislation simply says you cannot sue a manufacturer of this fuel additive because it is a defective product if it is made according to the standards to which the Government told them to make it. Congress mandated that people produce MTBE to be a fuel additive so that gasoline would burn cleaner. You can add ethanol or you can add MTBE, and the results are that you have a cleaner product.

Some in this country say: Well, if MTBE gets into the drinking water, the ground water, we ought to be able to sue the manufacturers because they have produced a defective product--even though they have nothing to do with the injuries or the damage that occurred.

What I mean by that is this. Here is an example. Suppose somebody goes down to the local Exxon station and they buy 100 gallons of gasoline, and then that person takes the 100 gallons of gasoline and dumps it into the drinking water system of their hometown. Should someone be able to sue Exxon because they have made a product that this person dumped into the river system or the drinking water system? Of course not. They would be laughed out of court. If the Exxon service station took the 100 gallons of their gasoline and dumped it into the river system, then Exxon, the seller and manufacturer of that product, would be negligent and would be responsible, and you could sue them.

But there are numerous lawsuits brought against the manufacturers of MTBE, not because they did anything wrong with the product they make; the product is made to be put into gasoline to make it burn cleaner. It is made according to the standards set up and required by the Federal Government.

So the legislation says: Wait a minute, you cannot sue the manufacturer for doing what Congress told them to do in making a product that, if used in a correct manner, is very efficient, effective, and helps clean up the environment.

Some say: No, we want to sue them because it is a defective product. The product is only defective if someone misuses it. Then they ought to be able to be sued. They should be responsible.

Somebody gave me the analogy of a company that makes baseball bats. If somebody buys a baseball bat and takes it home and beats up his wife or his children, or the wife beats up her husband, then someone should not be able to sue the manufacturer of the baseball bat. Of course not.

The bat, if used for its intended purpose to play the game of baseball, is not a defective product. That is the purpose for which it was manufactured. If someone uses it to cause harm, they should be responsible, not the manufacturer of the bat, not the manufacturer of the product.

If MTBE is used as it is supposed to be used and made according to the standards Congress told it to be made by, it is not a defective product; it is a very valuable product. The legislation simply says if the product is used according to how it should be used, you can't sue the manufacturer because someone else misuses it.

The important thing is that it does not deny an injured person redress or the opportunity to sue if damage is done. The proposed language in the chairman's bill makes it abundantly clear that any claims of negligence or spills or drinking water contamination can go forward in the judicial process. That is part of the chairman's legislation. The only claim that is restricted is suing someone who makes a product according to the formula they are supposed to make it; they cannot be sued for making something that we told them to make in the first place. Not only is that common sense, it is good judicial sense. That is what the bill says.

I read the legislation. I said: What is everybody talking about? Because it can't possibly be true. Guess what. It is not. The lawsuits that are still available to proceed against misuse of these areas are substantial. It specifically maintains claims for environmental remediation costs. You can still sue for drinking water contamination. You can still sue for negligence, for spills, or other reasonably foreseeable events. You can still sue for public or private nuisance. You can still sue for trespass. You can still sue for breach of warranty. You can still sue for breach of contract. And you can still sue for any other liability, other than a liability based on the claim that you made a bad product and, therefore, you ought to be liable for damages. I think that is something no reasonable person would say is needed or necessary.

I was reading the language. You can talk about papers and this group sent out this piece of paper and that group sent out this piece of paper, and we get all this material about ``vote against this'' and ``vote for it.'' Every now and then it becomes important, I say to the chairman, to actually read the legislation. You cannot put a spin on the words of the legislation. Legislation is not a political document from the Democratic Policy Committee nor a political document from the Republican Policy Committee. It is the language on which we are going to be voting.

The language says very clearly that ``nothing in this subsection''-- in the bill--``shall be construed to affect the liability of any person for environmental remediation costs, for drinking water contamination, for negligence, for spills, or other reasonably foreseeable events, public or private nuisance, or trespass, or breach of warranty, or breach of contract, or any other liability other than the liability based on the fact that it is a defective product.''

MTBE is not a defective product. If you misuse it, it can cause problems. If you drink it, it could kill you. That is not its intended purpose. If you drink gasoline, it will kill you. That is not its intended purpose. Its intended purpose is to run engines for the economy of this country.

I am well satisfied that we have crafted a section on MTBE liability that is reasonable; it makes legal sense, and it just makes common sense. There may be other reasons not to be for the Energy bill, but it should not be on this particular issue which has been misconstrued by those who say they have concern.

I yield the floor.

Good morning, Mr. President and colleagues.

I was very interested in listening to the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am trying to keep track of what he was quoting from. We decided he was quoting from Miller, chapter 1, verses 6 through 12. I am sure it is considered a holy document. And of course, as most documents, there are two sides to every story. Indeed, on that I imagine you have at least two sides to Miller, chapter 1, verses 6 through 12.

I arrived in this institution over 30 years ago and remember quite well driving up from Washington 35 years ago in a U-Haul with two small children and my wife. I was in absolute awe of the Capitol. In fact, the first time I had ever had an opportunity to visit Washington was when I came here to work as a very young aide to a then-sitting Member of Congress on the House side.

Over those 35 years, I have come to love and respect and appreciate all of the good things that this institution, including the other body, as well as the Senate, stands for. It is a wonderful opportunity to engage in serious debate about the important issues of the day and to address the important issues and problems facing the people of this Nation. That is what this institution does best.

Unfortunately, every now and then the institution tends to break down and we spend an inordinate amount of time doing things that do not address the great issues of the day or contribute anything to solving the great problems of the day. This is one of those times. I have not lost my respect for this institution, and particularly the Senate, even though as in most things in the real world, sometimes things did not run quite as they should. We have now engaged in a couple of days of exhibiting how this institution does not work very well, although on very rare occasions. I still have the utmost respect for this institution and will continue to have that respect for as long as I live despite the fact that every now and then it breaks down.

The issue it has broken down on--I imagine most people in this country are probably watching the morning news show; some are probably watching cartoons with their children. I doubt very well most are watching what some would consider a cartoon-type of atmosphere in this debate which has been on longer than it should. The issue is quite simple: Are Democrats stopping Republicans from getting their judges approved? And are we doing it in a way that is somehow unconstitutional or outside the rules of the Senate?

If you look at the record of the judges, our side has pointed out we have approved 168 judges while only 4 have stopped. I was trying to say, how does that relate to the average American? If the Washington Redskins had a 98 percent win-loss record, people would think that is absolutely astounding, and Spurrier would be given a big raise if they had 98 percent win-loss. If Tiger Woods won 98 percent of the tournaments he entered, people would be writing in amazement about that incredible person capable of winning 98 percent of the time. I happen to play tennis, and if Andre Agassi won 98 percent of his matches, I would imagine people would say this is truly incredible, someone would be capable of winning 98 percent of the time. I guess I should throw in the New Orleans Saints because if they won 98 percent of the time, I cannot imagine what the State of Louisiana would do.

But that is, in fact, the record the President of the United States, President Bush, has established with regard to the judges he has submitted for confirmation. It is truly a remarkable record of having almost every person he has submitted to the Congress be considered by appropriate committees and considered on the floor and approved. A 98 percent record is truly a remarkable achievement by any measure, whether it is a sports metaphor or whether it is any other type of metaphor we can imagine.

I will bring it closer to home. Imagine any Member of this body getting 98 percent of the vote. Maybe the distinguished Senator from Georgia who is in the Chamber is capable of that, but I don't know if any of us would ever get 98 percent of the vote. Some have been fortunate to get over 50 percent every now and then, but no one ever gets 98 percent of the vote. Teams do not win 98 percent of their games, golfers do not win 98 percent of the tournaments, and neither do tennis players. It is unheard of.

If the average person starts looking at a record where 98 percent of the nominees have, in fact, been approved and are sitting on the bench and doing their duty, by any measure of any standard of operation in this country, people would say that is a pretty outstanding record. Yet the Senate has spent the last several days complaining about a 98 percent achievement record by the President of the United States, saying somehow that is not enough; somehow it should be 100 percent every time with every nominee.

Most American people would say: What are they talking about? Why are they spending so much time saying 98 percent achievement is not enough? That is where we are. That is what we are talking about.

Enough said about that. After 2 days of talking 24 hours a day, we have heard enough about the 98 percent record. Some I voted for cloture and some I decided not. But the record speaks for itself. It is an outstanding record.

Let me talk about one of the things we ought to be doing if we are going to be the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, which I think the Senate truly is, something I have been working on for over 5 years as former chairman of the National Commission on Medicare Reform and now a member of the Senate Finance Committee working with our colleagues, trying, in a bipartisan fashion, to address one of the really important issues of this Nation.

We are at a health care crisis in America. We have literally millions and millions of Americans with no health insurance at all. They have to go to emergency rooms. They are in the poorhouse and get services under the State Medicaid Program. Many of these people work hard every day. Yet the companies they work for no longer provide health insurance. It is truly a national problem of monumental proportions, yet we are not talking about that in the Senate today.

Another issue is the fact that we have something over 40 million American citizens who have a health insurance plan that is inadequate, outdated, and in desperate need of reform in terms of how much money we spend on the program. The current program we have for seniors is unsustainable in terms of the money we spend and where it will come from.

All of the Members in this Chamber and all of our employees have health insurance that is significantly better than every single one of the 40 million Americans who do not have health insurance. Our health insurance covers hospitalization, our health insurance covers doctors, our health insurance covers emergencies, and our health insurance covers prescription drugs. Yet we have not been able to do for seniors what we have done for ourselves. That is something that challenges this institution and something to which this institution has to pay attention.

The simple fact is that Medicare today does not cover 47 percent of an average senior's health care costs. It is embarrassing that we, arguably the strongest Nation in the history of the world, have a system where the seniors of this country who have worked, earned, and paid into a fund to provide health insurance when they are old, now are covered by a policy that only covers 53 percent of the average senior's medical costs, and leaving 47 percent somewhere else.

We have been working very hard for a long period of time to reform Medicare. The groups that have been working together have reached an agreement that is a tentative agreement, and no one is bound by it until we see the final product, and that includes me.

The interesting thing about this is that if anything should not be political, it is health care. But I can think of no subject that has become more political than health care, and no subject that has become more political in health care than how we treat the Nation's seniors.

Republicans continue to talk about why Democrats will not do what is needed and necessary to pass a reform bill. And Democrats continue to say Republicans want to privatize it and end Medicare as we know it.

There are Republican political pundits in this city who have said we should pass a Republican-only bill in the House of Representatives and send it to the Senate so the Senate Democrats can kill it; it will be a terrific political issue for us. On the other hand, there are Democratic political pundits in this city who will say there is no way we can support and pass a Medicare bill. Why? Because it would give President Bush an opportunity to sign a bill in the Rose Garden and he might get credit doing so.

So we continue to play what I would call the political blame game. We are more concerned about ourselves and our political parties than we are about the 40 million seniors who desperately need the help in order to get prescription drugs under a reformed Medicare plan.

If we go along those lines, what we will have done is to say, once again: It is their fault it did not get done. And they will say: No, it is your fault it did not get done. But once again what we will give to America's seniors is a basket of excuses. And I have suggested many times that seniors cannot take an excuse to the drugstore and get their prescriptions filled. It is not possible.

What they need is both sides to act like grownups and both parties not just to look at their political base but to look at what is good for America, and join forces and say: Yes, it is going to be a compromise. No, it is not going to be everything I would like if I had an opportunity to write the bill, but we do not. Each of us is part of a larger body, and each of us is part of a body that is almost evenly politically divided.

So that is a challenge that is facing us. What we have tentatively agreed to is an insurance program under Medicare, for the first time since 1965, which will cover prescription drugs for America's seniors. They will pay a premium and have a small deductible and have some copayments, but every Member of the Senate has that type of a drug plan. The Federal Government will pay 75 percent of it, and the senior beneficiary will pay 25 percent.

We will spend $400 billion over the next 10 years trying to make that happen. We see seniors every day going to Mexico and going to Canada to buy drugs from foreign countries. Why? Because they do not have insurance that covers it. Hospitalization in Canada is cheaper than it is here. Doctor treatments and doctor visits are cheaper in Canada than they are here. Why do seniors not complain about that and say: ``I am going to have my doctor visit in Canada. I am going to go to a hospital in Canada''? It is a very simple reason. Because they have an insurance policy in this country that covers doctors, and it covers hospitalization. But it does not cover prescription drugs. There is no insurance. So they have to bear the burden of 100 percent of the costs of prescription drugs.

This legislation will be designed to say: All right, we are going to solve that problem. We are going to give you a prescription drug plan. We are going to take seniors who are now under the Medicaid Program for the poor and put all of them into the Medicare Program for all 40 million American seniors. I think that is good, solid, public policy. We are going to make sure all low-income seniors get a special rate by reduced premiums or no premiums at all to make sure we take care of the most vulnerable among us as far as the senior population is concerned.

It is important, as I conclude, when we look back on this session, that we will be able to say we have done more than create more excuses. The seniors can no longer live on political excuses coming out of Washington as to why we have not completed the job. There will be things in this bill that both sides will be able to pick and find and say, I can't be for it because of this. But I would just ask my colleagues to look at the broader picture, to look at the total package and say: When we have an opportunity, perhaps once in several decades, or once in a lifetime, to truly get something done to put in place a system that can be improved upon in the future, we will seize that unique opportunity and come together in a bipartisan fashion. And the American people will be able to say: Yes, they did it, and they did a good job.

I think that is what this body should be dealing with. That is one of the critical, important issues of this day. And I would suggest we get on to it just as soon as we possibly can.

With that, Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the veterans of the U.S. Armed Services and to thank those who continue to serve bravely and protect the United States around the world.

My home State of Louisiana has made a significant contribution to the war on terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, more than 15,000 Louisiana men and women have fought to protect Americans from those that threaten our safety. Every military installation in Louisiana has contributed to this effort. There are 4,000 men and women from Fort Polk currently serving in Iraq, more than 6,000 members from Barksdale Air Force Base deployed since September 11, and thousands of reservists and Guardsmen continue to be activated and deployed throughout our country and the world. In the coming months, over one hundred more Marine Reservists from Belle Chasse Joint Reserve Base in Louisiana will be called into action in Iraq. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude for their sacrifice.

I also want to let the roughly 379,000 veterans living in Louisiana and those around the country know we do not forget your service to our country. We will be eternally grateful for your service to the United States in our past and present wars against communism, fascism, and terrorism. Our Nation stays strong because of your efforts, and the world is a better place for the things you have done.

On this anniversary of the historic World War I armistice in Europe, I honor the great achievements and sacrifices of the acting and retired members of the United States Armed Services and thank them for their bravery.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sport Fishing Restoration and Boating Safety Act of 2003. The legislation, cosponsored by Senator Lott and Senator Hollings is funded through the Aquatic Resources Trust fund, which I am honored to know is commonly referred to as the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux). This bill reauthorizes activities funded by two of the Nation's most effective ``user-pay, user-benefit'' programs--the Sport Fish Restoration Fund and the Recreational Boating Safety Fund--which constitute the ``Wallop-Breaux'' program.

In 1984, when I was a member of the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of sponsoring, along with then Senator Malcolm Wallop, what I consider to be the most significant legislation for anglers and boaters to have passed the Congress. We guided through the House and Senate legislation that greatly increased funds for fishery and boating and related programs in virtually every State of our Nation. In 1985, the first year that the Wallop-Breaux amendments were effective, their impact caused the funding for fishing and boating programs to increase from approximately $35 million to $100 million. Funded by a Federal manufacturers' excise taxes on fishing equipment and a percentage of the Federal fuel tax attributed to use in motor boats and small engines, Wallop-Breaux will this year alone provide to the States approximately $450 million to the greatest of outdoor recreations-- fishing and boating. It is sometimes difficult to fathom, but over the past nineteen years, Wallop-Breaux has disbursed upwards of $5 billion to the States to improve recreational boating and fishing, promote conservation, protect the environment and to conserve wetlands.

As my colleagues know, Wallop-Breaux and other important programs funded through the Highway Trust Fund received a five-month extension, awaiting consideration of full term reauthorization. Over the last two years, I have met with the American League of Anglers and Boaters (ALAB), the constituent group comprised of 34 organizations representing the spectrum of fishing and boating interests. The purpose of these meetings has been to prepare for introduction of this reauthorization legislation. I am pleased to report that ALAB support the legislation I bring before you today.

Foremost on everyone's agenda was the need to secure a stable and predictable funding base for boating safety grants to the states. The challenge was to increase the funding and dependability of delivery of boating safety grants to the States.

I pledged my support to these Wallop-Breaux constituent groups to enact improvements to the overall program. After countless meetings and considerable deliberation, I am pleased to report that the legislation I am introducing today reflects a general consensus on improving Wallop-Breaux to the benefit of all stakeholders. I want to stress that this would not have been possible without the leadership of Senator Lott, Senator Hollings and other key members of the committees having joint-jurisdiction over Wallop-Breaux programs. Under the legislation, Boating Safety Grants will now have guaranteed and increased funding. This program will now receive 18 percent of the total Wallop-Breaux, increasing present funding from $64 million to $95 million in the first year of enactment.

The legislation also dissolves the Boat Safety account. The balance currently in the account plus the interest,

approximately $87 million, will be distributed over the next five years to accounts in the fund.

State boat safety grants will now have a 3 to 1 match, the same as the Sport Fish Restoration grants, enabling state funds to go farther by reimbursing them 75 cents for every Federal dollar.

And lastly, all programs funded through Wallop-Breaux will be assigned a percentage of the total fund to allow a simpler and fairer process. When the amount of funds increase or decrease so will all of the programs based upon their percentage.

The growing popularity of recreational boating and fishing has created safety, environmental, and access needs that have been successfully addressed by the two Wallop-Breaux programs--Recreational Boating Safety and Sport Fish Restoration. The reauthorization is important for the safety of boaters, the continued enjoyment of fishermen, and improvement of our wetlands and waterways.

This reauthorization will allow continued funding of programs that benefit boating safety, coastal wetland protection and restoration and sportfish restoration, as well as Clean Vessel Act grants that help to keep our waterways clean.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the positive impact of Wallop-Breaux programs in years past, as well as presenting significant improvements contained in the legislation that I am introducing today. I ask that my colleagues join Senator Lott, Senator Hollings and me in cosponsoring this landmark legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sport Fishing Restoration and Boating Safety Act of 2003. The legislation, cosponsored by Senator Lott and Senator Hollings is funded through the Aquatic Resources Trust fund, which I am honored to know is commonly referred to as the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux). This bill reauthorizes activities funded by two of the Nation's most effective ``user-pay, user-benefit'' programs--the Sport Fish Restoration Fund and the Recreational Boating Safety Fund--which constitute the ``Wallop-Breaux'' program.

In 1984, when I was a member of the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of sponsoring, along with then Senator Malcolm Wallop, what I consider to be the most significant legislation for anglers and boaters to have passed the Congress. We guided through the House and Senate legislation that greatly increased funds for fishery and boating and related programs in virtually every State of our Nation. In 1985, the first year that the Wallop-Breaux amendments were effective, their impact caused the funding for fishing and boating programs to increase from approximately $35 million to $100 million. Funded by a Federal manufacturers' excise taxes on fishing equipment and a percentage of the Federal fuel tax attributed to use in motor boats and small engines, Wallop-Breaux will this year alone provide to the States approximately $450 million to the greatest of outdoor recreations-- fishing and boating. It is sometimes difficult to fathom, but over the past nineteen years, Wallop-Breaux has disbursed upwards of $5 billion to the States to improve recreational boating and fishing, promote conservation, protect the environment and to conserve wetlands.

As my colleagues know, Wallop-Breaux and other important programs funded through the Highway Trust Fund received a five-month extension, awaiting consideration of full term reauthorization. Over the last two years, I have met with the American League of Anglers and Boaters (ALAB), the constituent group comprised of 34 organizations representing the spectrum of fishing and boating interests. The purpose of these meetings has been to prepare for introduction of this reauthorization legislation. I am pleased to report that ALAB support the legislation I bring before you today.

Foremost on everyone's agenda was the need to secure a stable and predictable funding base for boating safety grants to the states. The challenge was to increase the funding and dependability of delivery of boating safety grants to the States.

I pledged my support to these Wallop-Breaux constituent groups to enact improvements to the overall program. After countless meetings and considerable deliberation, I am pleased to report that the legislation I am introducing today reflects a general consensus on improving Wallop-Breaux to the benefit of all stakeholders. I want to stress that this would not have been possible without the leadership of Senator Lott, Senator Hollings and other key members of the committees having joint-jurisdiction over Wallop-Breaux programs. Under the legislation, Boating Safety Grants will now have guaranteed and increased funding. This program will now receive 18 percent of the total Wallop-Breaux, increasing present funding from $64 million to $95 million in the first year of enactment.

The legislation also dissolves the Boat Safety account. The balance currently in the account plus the interest,

approximately $87 million, will be distributed over the next five years to accounts in the fund.

State boat safety grants will now have a 3 to 1 match, the same as the Sport Fish Restoration grants, enabling state funds to go farther by reimbursing them 75 cents for every Federal dollar.

And lastly, all programs funded through Wallop-Breaux will be assigned a percentage of the total fund to allow a simpler and fairer process. When the amount of funds increase or decrease so will all of the programs based upon their percentage.

The growing popularity of recreational boating and fishing has created safety, environmental, and access needs that have been successfully addressed by the two Wallop-Breaux programs--Recreational Boating Safety and Sport Fish Restoration. The reauthorization is important for the safety of boaters, the continued enjoyment of fishermen, and improvement of our wetlands and waterways.

This reauthorization will allow continued funding of programs that benefit boating safety, coastal wetland protection and restoration and sportfish restoration, as well as Clean Vessel Act grants that help to keep our waterways clean.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the positive impact of Wallop-Breaux programs in years past, as well as presenting significant improvements contained in the legislation that I am introducing today. I ask that my colleagues join Senator Lott, Senator Hollings and me in cosponsoring this landmark legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes under the time remaining.

Mr. President, my colleagues, I am for reforming the so-called class action litigation system we have in place. I think a strong majority of the Members of the Senate also favor a reform piece of legislation passing this body and ultimately being signed into law. But this is a two-way street, as everything we have to do in this body has to be. A 51-to-49 Senate means that neither side has the ability to do whatever they want without negotiating with the other half of the Senate. Either side has the potential to stop anything. That is what happens so many times in this body during this period of time we are in now where both sides can say, we are not going to do it this way, or, do it my way or don't do it at all. The clear result of that is nothing gets done. The end result is that both sides can blame the other side for failure in getting anything accomplished.

For those who truly want to get something done and worry less about who gets the credit, it is obvious that the way to do it is to sit down and negotiate and try to reach an agreement. I am absolutely convinced that an agreement that addresses the real problems dealing with class action could be reached in short order and allow us to get as many as 70 to 75 votes for a real class action reform bill. But that has not happened. It has not happened because my colleagues on the Republican side have generally said, we have what we want and we want to pass the bill that we wrote, even though they wrote much of it after it had already left the committee, as the distinguished Democratic leader talked about just a moment ago.

I have introduced a bill--S. 1769--which I think addresses all of the concerns people have raised about any potential abuses dealing with class action litigation. The idea would be for us to sit down with our colleagues and negotiate between their version and the version I have introduced to see if we can reach common ground and pass this in less than an hour with a substantial three-fourths of the Senate probably voting for it.

Many people have said the problem is forum shopping; many plaintiffs try to find the best forum they can possibly find and litigate in that forum for the best judgment they can get. My legislation says, no, we are going to follow principally the same rules the committee set out. If a third or fewer of the plaintiffs are from one single State, it belongs not in State court but in Federal court. That is the same situation that the committee has reported out. We are in agreement. If between one-third of the plaintiffs are from one State and two-thirds are from one State--if between one-third and two-thirds have been injured in Louisiana and filed suit--then Federal court decides whether it belongs in Federal court or State court.

That is principally the same finding that the committee bill has. We are in principle agreement in that regard. The Federal court makes the decision. For those who want it in Federal court, a Federal judge looking at all of the particulars of the litigation will decide whether it belongs in his or her court on the Federal level or whether the State has a greater interest in trying it on the State level. There is no disagreement.

But one area of disagreement I would like to point out is the situation of what happens if over two-thirds of the plaintiffs happen to be from one State, such as Louisiana. It is a big difference in what we do here. If two-thirds or more of the plaintiffs suffer injuries in my State, or any particular State, by the alleged defendant who is doing business in that State, who sells products in that State, and who must follow the law of that State passed by the State legislature, my proposal says that belongs in State court.

In the committee bill as drafted, they say even if every single person has been injured or has allegedly been injured in my State of Louisiana by a defendant allegedly in violation of the laws of Louisiana, passed by the State Legislature of Louisiana, if the defendant who caused the injury--even though they do business in my State and sell their products in my State, even if they have multiple stores in my State and are doing business and taking money out of my State for the things they sell, and if the defendant happens to have citizenship of Delaware, where many corporations are incorporated, or any other State, that doesn't belong in State court anymore; we are going to

put that in Federal court, which is already overburdened. The Federal judiciary says they don't want that jurisdiction.

Justice Rehnquist says he is opposed to it for that reason, among others.

This legislation says: No, we are going to put it in Federal court, even if everybody who is hurt and who is residing in the State, and the injuries were caused in violation of State law passed by the State legislature, because the defendant happens to have citizenship and is incorporated in another State, we will send it to Federal court.

People much more articulate than I have talked about this. One of the distinguished writers who has looked at this, Professor Arthur Miller from Harvard Law School, said the following:

S. 274 goes too far in broadening Federal diversity

jurisdiction. S. 274 would place in Federal courts most class

actions if the defendant is a citizen of a State that is

different from any member of the plaintiff class. I can find

no justification for denying State courts the right to hear

cases primarily involving its own citizens who claim they

have been harmed by a violation of their State's laws.

That is what the committee bill does. That is a principal reason their great expansion of Federal jurisdiction is so wrong.

I had a case in Louisiana. There are many crawfish farmers in Louisiana, probably the only State that has crawfish farmers--and maybe a few in the State of Texas. But they allege injuries because some chemical manufacturer had sold them pesticides and killed all of the crawfish in Louisiana. Every single plaintiff was from Louisiana. The injuries occurred in Louisiana. They sold the product in Louisiana. They were doing business in Louisiana selling the products. The State law of Louisiana said what they did was illegal and wrong and the plaintiffs deserved some compensation for the injuries they received. But no; under the committee bill, just because the defendant chemical manufacturer happens to be out of State the Federal court is going to be brought in to interpret State law that has been interpreted by the State supreme court and passed by the State legislature applying it to every State resident of my State.

That is not a legitimate way of handling cases that are uniquely a State concern, covered by State law and affecting only State injured plaintiffs in these cases. That is not what we want to do.

Our legislation also says that one of the abuses is these coupon sellers. We solved that problem in the past. Attorneys were filing on the number of coupons that may have been issued in settling a case for a defective product. You could go to the store and buy the product for a discount. The lawyers were being paid on the total number of coupons issued--not the ones actually redeemed. The attorney fees would be based only on those who exercised the right of buying the product with the use of their coupon.

As many people said, this is forum shopping, which the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, talked about. They don't want forum shopping for plaintiffs, but they don't mind giving it to the defendant because the defendant, under this legislation, could ask that the case be removed out of State court at any time. Before the jury gets the case, if they think it may not go well, they will file a motion to move it to another court.

That is not right. How many times do they have a bite at the apple? Things aren't going very well anymore; we had better try another court. Let's go to the Federal court because we may lose in State court. If forum shopping is bad for plaintiffs--which we correct--it is no more justifiable for defendants to be able to do it, which is what this committee bill does.

I am only saying we need to say no to bringing this bill up until we have had a chance to talk about these issues in a serious form.

If I offer my amendment and the bill is brought up, they will move to table it, and, bingo, it is all over with, and we all go home. That is not the way to legislate on something as important as this. We need to negotiate. We need to talk about it.

What we are trying to say is, don't bring this bill up now. Vote against the motion to invoke cloture and let us see if we cannot sit down and talk about the differences that are not that great but hugely important--not that many but very important--between the two versions of the bill. I think we can put them together and get 75 votes, call it a day and everyone can be proud of the product we have produced.

I reserve the remaining time.

Mr. President, I yield myself the time I consume.

I echo the remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader which indicate another reason why we should not be voting for cloture on this bill; that is, the changes that were made to the bill after it got out of committee. I refer to it as being the ``committee

bill,'' but the bill before the Senate is not the committee bill. A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: the committee bill was changed. You report one thing out of committee, you expect that will be the thing that comes to the floor--maybe some technical changes, a period here, a paragraph there--but they changed the substance of the bill from the time it left the committee.

If we were dealing with a committee bill, you could make a legitimate argument that you should proceed to the bill that the committee reported. But what they are asking us to do is proceed to a bill that the committee did not report. In fact, it is substantially different from the committee bill. That is not normal procedure.

That is why the Democratic leader has suggested what we ought to do is say: Time out. Put together the heads of the people interested in this and see if we cannot produce a package where we could get three- fourths of all the Senators voting for it. It has substantial changes made by the committee managers. They certainly have a legal right to do it, but from the terms of policy and how we legislate, if you have a clear vote in the committee to do one thing and then come out and do something entirely different on a key part of the bill, that is a substantial change that did not come through the committee process.

What I am saying is we ought to be talking together, both sides talking together, in order to get a substantial vote to enact this legislation.

I support class action reform. I think our bill, S. 1769, has, in fact, clearly addressed the issues of forum shopping and the coupon settlements. We clearly spelled out when cases would be in State court and when cases would be in Federal court. We do not reach out and say that even if every single injured party was from one State and was injured in violation of the State laws passed by the State legislature and previously interpreted by the State supreme court, that just because a defendant happens to be incorporated in the State of Delaware, for instance, that somehow yanks that case out of State court which is best suited for interpreting State law and brought into Federal court which the Federal Judiciary Conference already says they do not want because they have more business than they can handle, resulting in further delays. That is not what this bill should be all about.

Therefore, I suggest we say no to the cloture vote and that we sit down and work out the minor differences but important differences between S. 1769 and the bill in the Senate which has never come through the committee process. That is unfortunate. That is the main reason we should say no to cloture at this time.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, a former senior staff member to this body and a good friend, Greg Pallas. Greg lost a long and courageous battle with a rare form of cancer, and passed away on October 17, 2003.

Greg was born on June 27, 1952, in Los Angeles. He graduated from the New York Military Academy and United States Naval Academy Class of 1973. After graduation, Greg served as a Naval Officer aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and then went to work at the Pentagon.

Following his distinguished career in the military, Greg continued to serve his country as an outstanding staff member of the United States Senate. For 18 years, Greg was Legislative Director and later Chief of Staff to our friend and colleague, Senator J. James Exon of Nebraska where Greg was instrumental in managing the work of the Senate Budget Committee.

When Senator Exon retired in 1996, Greg left the Senate and became the Director of Congressional Liaison and Business Development at ITT Industries, Defense in McLean, VA.

Greg was a member of Emanuel Lutheran Church, the American Legion Post 199, the Military Order of the Carabao, the U.S. Navy Public Affairs Alumni Association and the Navy League.

Greg is survived by his loving and devoted wife, Diane McRee, one of my own dear friends and herself a longtime staff member to the United States Congress, and his cousin, Connie Traver.

I admired Greg. He cared deeply about the Senate and about his country. I know the entire extended family of the United States Senate joins me in sorrow at the loss of our friend.

We were privileged to know and to work with him, and we offer our condolences and prayers to Diane and to all of Greg's friends.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding to me.

I will take a few moments to explain my position on this important legislative effort and point to the fact that I have worked on a substitute amendment that has the ability to bring both sides together in a way we have not yet achieved.

It is clear that in all difficult legislative areas, when you have a very closely divided Senate, the only way we will actually get legislation adopted and passed and sent to the President for his signature is if we aggressively work together to limit our differences and maximize the things we have in common in order to produce a legislative package that can sustain the rules of the Senate and allow a bill to actually pass and become law.

There is room for reform in class action litigation. I do not think it is as bad as some portray the situation to be, but it is probably a problem that does need to be addressed. For those who think we should do nothing in this area, I would say there are some things we can do that improve the situation and, most importantly, get us a product that can actually become law.

Many times we in the Senate are faced with the question of, do I want to try to do everything I would like to do and risk getting nothing done, or would I like to try to reach a legitimate compromise and actually get something passed that may not be everything I would like but would be far superior to doing nothing at all. That is the situation we face with regard to the question of class action litigation.

My substitute bill, which would be offered, hopefully, as an amendment, does the following: It builds on the committee report in the sense that what we do is say to those plaintiffs who file a class action case in a particular State, where one-third or less of the plaintiffs, the people who are injured in a State, happen to be from that State, that like the committee bill, that case would clearly be a matter of Federal jurisdiction. Where two-thirds or more of the plaintiffs who are injured or alleged to be injured reside in a particular State--say Louisiana--where the injuries were alleged to have occurred, if two-thirds or more of those injured citizens who have filed a case, two-thirds or more, happen to be from my State of Louisiana, then it is a State court in which the action should be brought.

As the committee bill, my bill also says that when you have a situation between one-third and two-thirds of the plaintiffs coming from a State, a particular State where the injury occurred, then the Federal judge would look at the circumstances, as the committee bill, and make a determination of whether that case more appropriately belongs in the Federal court or belongs in the State court.

What is the difference between the two approaches? One big difference is that in the committee bill it says, that even if two-thirds or three-fourths or 98 percent of the injured people reside in Louisiana, where the alleged injury occurred, if the defendant happens to be a citizen of some other State, as so many corporations are, then the case goes automatically to the Federal court to interpret as best they can the State laws, such as my State of Louisiana.

That is incorrect. If the majority of the injuries are in the State of Louisiana--say it is a meatpacking company that has sales in Louisiana and it has caused injuries in my State of Louisiana by selling tainted products of meat that cause real injuries in Louisiana--and 75 percent of the injured people are in Louisiana but because the company may be domiciled or a citizen of the State of Delaware, that all of a sudden the Federal court is better situated to handle that case. That defies logic. If the injured people are in my State, two-thirds or more, then logic says the case can best be handled and interpreted by the State courts and the State supreme court which would be interpreting the State tort law that the State legislature passed.

Why should we say merely because one defendant's cause for alleged injuries happened to be in Delaware, where so many companies are incorporated, that automatically means it should be in the Federal court? The Federal court does a great job of interpreting Federal law, but I suggest when it comes to interpreting State law, on which these plaintiffs would be judged, the State court is better situated to make those determinations. I will have more to say about that particular aspect.

Let me mention briefly when it comes to the so-called coupon settlements the distinguished Senator from Texas mentioned, our legislation addresses that, to the extent that we can, by saying where coupons are issued to many plaintiffs who may have bought a defective product, the situation in the past has been many plaintiffs' attorneys would have their fees set not on the number of coupons that were actually redeemed, but only on the number of coupons that were actually issued in terms of the settlement.

For instance, people buy a defective product and many times the resolution of the case is based on each plaintiff getting a coupon or discount on a future purchase. The problem was many attorneys were getting paid on the total number of coupons issued rather than the ones redeemed. Our legislation says their fees would only be based on the number of coupons actually redeemed, and I think that makes a great deal of sense as well. It also says you cannot run a merry-go-round and continue trying to take cases from one court to the next. Under our legislation, we say defendants have a right to try to remove a case to the Federal court, but they cannot do it an unlimited amount of times. Our legislation simply says such removal would occur in a timely fashion, and we suggest within 30 days after filing of the complaint. Surely the defendants know whether they want to be in Federal court or State court. They cannot wait up until the end of the case in the State court, after years of litigation, and say, oops, we want to move it to Federal court and have that as an absolute right. They ought to do it in a timely fashion. Our legislation addresses that as well.

Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks by saying the good Senator from Utah is a very respected chairman of the committee. I think he wants legislation to pass. My fear is, unless we sit down and work together, we are going to have a stalemate. Both sides will have an argument. Democrats will have one argument and Republicans will have another argument, but the result will be nothing will pass.

My approach is simply that we can say don't proceed to this bill until we have had serious discussions between both sides, such as we have done on asbestos. I think those asbestos cases have made progress. It is not quite there yet, but they have made progress. Why? Because they have been willing to sit and talk among all the parties. I think we should do the same thing with the class action litigation. We can say we are not going to proceed to this bill until we have had an opportunity to sit down and have good, legitimate discussions.

I think we can come to an agreement so that we will not have the bill passed by just one vote or lose by one vote, but rather have it pass by 75 or more votes in this body. I think that is possible, but it is going to take, first of all, saying we are not going to proceed to the legislation until we have had those discussions. We are going to share what we have just outlined with my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Hopefully, they can look at it and see if there is room for legitimate talks and legitimate compromise. I think there is. The alternative is to do nothing. I think that is unacceptable.

I thank the chairman for yielding me a few moments to make some comments. I yield back my time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

A couple minutes--3 minutes.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I will just make a couple of comments in opposition to the resolution because I think the resolution is sort of a broad-brush approach that takes down everything the FCC has recommended, things that make sense that are good and also things about which some people may have questions. It really is a resolution that assumes, in my opinion, that if things are small, they are necessarily good; if things are big, they are necessarily bad.

I think particularly as this is clearly spelled out with regard to part of the FCC's rule that deals with the question of television ownership, the rule from the FCC basically allowed the television stations to move up to a 45-percent-of-viewer cap before they would be

prohibited from owning additional television stations.

It seems to me that if you look at media concentration now, you have 1,721 television stations in the United States and the networks only own a very small percentage of those stations. If you consider the people who watch the stations, you will find also that the viewership of these network-owned stations, indeed, is very small.

It is not as if a couple of networks have all the viewers and are therefore monopolizing what people see and there is no diversity. That is simply not the fact at all. If you look at Viacom, which owns CBS, in prime time viewing, they have about 3.4 percent--3.4 percent of the total TV households. News Corp, which owns Fox, has about 3.1 percent. General Electric, which owns NBC, has 2.8 percent. And Disney, which has ABC stations, has about 1.5 percent of the total TV households watching their network programming in prime time.

The problem with the argument that the cap is somehow going to change things and make a concentration of ownership of what people see makes no sense whatsoever, because the way it is currently measured, stations that are in large television markets are assumed to have everybody in the market watching their stations.

A station that is owned by the network that happens to have a station in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, New York, or Chicago probably exceeds a cap of 35 percent of the potential viewing audience, but in reality they may have only a very small number of people in those cities actually watching them.

So the standard of measurement that we use is totally illogical. It would be like saying an automobile dealer in New York has 6 percent of the total sales in the United States because New York is about 6 percent of the market. That would be fine if the automobile dealer sold every car that is bought in New York, but that is not the case. There are probably literally thousands of other competitors in that market.

The same thing is true in the television market. As an example, an ABC station in Los Angeles does not have everybody in the Los Angeles market watching their station. There are probably 200 to 300 additional stations that a viewer can watch in the evenings and look at a diverse range of programs that happen to be available.

So the argument that because a station happens to have a tower in a large city it has all the viewers in that city is illogical at best and misleading in fact.

Another point is when we look at the amount of diversity that networks give, obviously the studies have shown they, in fact, offer far more local programming than nonnetwork-owned stations. Those facts are clear. They are indisputable.

I think what we do in saying we are going to throw out what the FCC has done makes no sense. The network-owned stations, in fact, show about 37 percent more local news than locally owned stations do. So I argue that this resolution be voted down.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, and anyone who may be listening to this ``debate''-- which is really not a debate yet but probably will be a debate when we vote on Thursday when the time is allocated for Members to speak to present their positions on the resolution that is before the Senate-- let us remind ourselves that the resolution that has been introduced, S.J. Res. 17, is a resolution to completely throw out all the work of the Federal Communications Commission that they have spent 2 years in crafting. That is not something this body should consider doing without a great deal of thought and understanding.

The Federal Communications Commission is a body of experts--people who have made careers of understanding the communications industry in this country--who are charged with looking after the best interests of the people of this country with regard to communications policy, and also to make sure that the system they devise, in keeping with what Congress has done, is a system that allows American industries to prosper, thrive, and to be successful in bringing about good communications to the people of this country, and at the same time try to create a level playing field that really balances the national interest with the public interest and with the interest of legitimate communications companies.

It is no question that it is a public interest we are talking about because the airwaves do belong to the public; they do not belong to the companies. The real challenge the Federal Communications Commission has always had is to create the proper balance that protects the public interests for those who use the public airwaves and at the same time allows companies to be able to make a sufficient profit to be able to operate and provide the services which are expanding at an incredible rate.

There is no question that America has clearly the best communication system in the world. We have more services available to more people at a price that is more affordable than any other country anywhere in the world. You can argue the Internet is not fast enough or we do not have enough choices between cable companies or that the rates are too high; those are basically issues we deal with through the commission, and they make recommendations.

Congress has enacted overall communication policy and the FCC has to follow what the Congress has said. They have come up, after 2 years of study and hearings and public debate, with recommendations dealing with ownership rules as to who can own and in what degree of concentration television stations and radio stations and newspapers to try and make sure we do not get out of balance; that the American public is protected by having a different choice and fair choices about what they want to watch, what they want to hear, and what they want to read. That is what the Federal Communications Commission does.

The resolution before the Congress says after 2 years and what has been presented as rules under the FCC, we will throw all of that out; that the Congress, in its wisdom, will take a couple of hours, debate this issue, and throw out 2 years of work by the FCC, 2 years of hearings, 2 years of debate, 2 years of discussion and we will have a hearing in the Commerce Committee that will last a couple of hours and debate it 30 minutes apiece on Tuesday and then vote on whether to throw out what the Federal Communications Commission has done for 2 years as a matter of public policy.

It is clear the administration says this is not the right thing for the Congress to do. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement of administration policy.

It says if Congress passes this, we will veto it. It is very clear. The administration says the new FCC local and national media ownership rules more accurately reflect the changing media landscape and current state of network station ownership, while guarding against undue concentration in the marketplace. They point out this resolution throws all of that out the window, replaces it with nothing, and says we do not like it. Maybe some people like some of it and do not like other parts, but they got rid of everything the FCC recommended.

That is bad policy and not something the Congress should do. I strongly oppose the resolution. I hope the Congress, in the wisdom of the Senate, will not adopt this resolution. Or at least I hope we do not adopt it in such a large margin that it prevents it from being successfully vetoed.

Many of the arguments, when talking about television, newspapers, and radio come down to big is bad and small is good. That is obviously a simplistic statement and a simplistic argument.

Many of the people who support the resolution talk about three areas: localism, diversity, and media concentration. In reviewing what the FCC has done in each of these areas, you will see we have a fair approach to guiding how the industries operate in the 21st century. This is not 1930, before we even had television. When Americans finally got a TV, citizens had a choice of maybe one network and then three. We have so many choices now people do not know what to pick. I have 150 television stations I can watch with diversity and differences of opinion.

When they talk of localism, they say we have to get rid of this resolution because of localism, we want to have more local people able to own the stations. I remember a group of businessmen came to me and argued about localism and how they wanted to make sure the networks did not own all the television stations because if the networks located in New York City owned all the local TV stations, everything would come out of New York. I am reminded of the television commercial. When they ask where they are from and they say New York City, they said, String 'em up, as if people in New York cannot be fair and make sure that local people get what they want, because they can.

They argued if the networks owned all the local television stations, somehow everything would be directed out of New York by the network owners who own the local station down in Louisiana. These people own stations in my hometown down in Louisiana. I asked them where they were from and they were from New York City. The idea that local ownership means a local group of people in the local town will own the local television station is not in keeping with the facts. Stations not owned by networks are not owned by a local mom and pop, people in the local community. They are, in turn, also owned by a large corporation, many headquartered in Los Angeles or New York or large entertainment centers around the country.

The argument falls when you talk about localism by saying if networks could own stations, you are preventing local stations from owning a local station in a community. It is simply not true. It is very rare indeed when a group of local owners happen to be from the local community as opposed to being very large companies and corporations that own the stations themselves.

They say if you have the local owners, you get better local news, because they will have more interest in providing what the local community wants. It is not borne out by the facts. In fact, studies we have received in the committee clearly show--and this is a factual determination--that the network-owned stations--ABC networks, NBC, CBS networks that own the local stations--on average present as much as 37 percent more local news than the non-network-owned stations. That is important for those who argue you have to throw the rule out because we do not want the networks to own the stations, because if the networks own the station you do not get local news coverage. The actual facts show when you look at the programming, the network-owned stations, on average, show 37 percent more local information programming, more local community needs shows and information-providing shows on local events, and they provide 37 percent more coverage of local events than the non- network-owned facilities. The fact is most of the locally owned stations are not locally owned but are owned by corporations all over the United States. The networks do a much better job of providing local input and local news than the network affiliates.

The argument some make that we need this resolution to throw out this rule because we do not want the networks to own the stations because we want to have more localism is clearly not borne out by the actual facts, just by reading the schedules of the local news available on network programming and network-owned stations as opposed to non- network-owned stations.

The other argument is you have to have diversity. I mentioned a little bit about this in my first argument. They say if the networks own the stations, you will not have diversity; you will not have diversity of opinion; you will only have the network's opinion broadcast and no diversity or difference of opinion. What we have to look at is who actually owns the non-network stations. They are, indeed, large corporate entities. Nothing wrong with that, but large corporate entities,

many of them on the Fortune 500 list of some of the most profitable corporations in America. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not a lot of difference, if any, whatsoever, from the networks that own the stations.

The Tribune Corporation, Gannett, Hearst-Argyle, Cox Communications-- are these mom-and-pop operations? Of course not. They are large corporations that operate all over the United States. They operate cable companies, newspaper companies, television stations all over the United States. They are not going to bring about any more great adversity than the networks that own their share of stations.

The final contention is media concentration. The argument that some would make is, well, the amount of media concentration is so bad, when you have the network-owned stations, with a rule that says you can go from 35-percent penetration in the market to 45 percent, it would allow this media concentration to exist to a certain extent that would be very bad for the American public.

We have about 1,721 full-power television stations operating in the United States of America. There are a little over 1,700 of those stations. The concentration of the networks owning these stations is indeed very small.

CBS, through Viacom, owns about 3.4 percent of the total television households in this country. On average, their concentration of the network-owned stations is about 2.27 percent of the stations in the country. Fox--we all know the Fox network--owns about 2 percent of the stations. NBC owns about 1.69 percent. ABC owns .58 percent of the stations that operate full-time, full-power television in this country.

Our hearing in the Commerce Committee showed very clearly that no one tried to defend this existing 35-percent so-called cap that we have as a rule right now; that the FCC moved up to 45 percent because the measurement of concentration is totally unjustifiable and unsustainable.

The current rule says if you have a television station in a market or in several markets that add up to 35 percent of the population, you have reached the cap. That is absolutely a totally inadequate measurement of media concentration. It is like saying if I sold cars in New York City, which has 6 percent of the U.S. population, therefore I am selling cars to 6 percent of the population of the United States, when, in fact, I just have one car dealership in a city that has 6 percent of the population.

If there were no other car dealers in New York, yes, then I could say that I am selling 6 percent of all the cars in America because I am selling them in the city and I am the only dealer there. But that is the problem with the measurement we are using today and the reason moving it up to 45 percent certainly makes sense.

If I had television stations in Los Angeles, New York, Houston, and Miami, I would probably pass the cap--even if no one in those cities ever watched my television station. The current measurement assumes if you have a TV tower and a station in each one of those cities, in those cities everyone is watching your station every day, all day, and only your station.

Well, some of these cities have 150 television channels that people watch. They don't just watch NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox. They have 150 stations they can look to. Yet the current rule says if you have one station in each one of those big markets, and the population of those markets adds up to 35 percent of the population of the United States, you have reached the cap, and you cannot go over the cap, and you can't have another TV station--when, in fact, no one in the city may be watching your station or maybe only a few people in the city watch your particular station.

So when you are talking about concentration, it is not where the TV tower happens to be located; it is how many of the people in an area are watching your station. If you look at the ratings, you see that none of these operations in prime time come anywhere close to having 35 percent of the people in the country watch their station.

For Viacom, what, 3.4 percent is the amount of people watching. It is 3.4 percent of total TV households. It is not 35 percent; it is not 45 percent; it is only 3.4 percent. But the way the FCC and Congress measure it, because they have stations in large cities, such as Los Angeles, somehow they have reached the cap and they can't go over the cap, and, therefore, the idea of raising it to 45 percent some believe is so bad because of this media concentration; when, in fact, it has nothing to do with concentration. The current measurement is really outdated and makes no sense whatsoever.

So when people say the FCC is raising the cap to 45 percent, and a station can have 45 percent of the viewing audience in the country, it has nothing to do with that. The measurement only indicates the number of people in a city who could possibly be watching the station. If they were the only station in Los Angeles, that may be true, but when they have 150 other TV stations they are watching--you see the highest concentration is CBS with 3.4 percent, Fox is 3.1 percent, ABC is 1.5 percent, NBC is 2.8 percent--I think it really does not make the argument on the question of diversity and media concentration by saying that because you are located in a large city, you have media concentration merely because there are a lot of people in that city.

It is just like back to my example of owning a car dealership in New York. Obviously, just because New York is 6 percent of the population does not mean because I own an automobile dealership in New York I have sold every single car that is bought in New York. If I did, I would have 6 percent of the concentration of car sales in the country. But there are probably 1,000 car dealers in New York, and, obviously, everybody has a little piece of the action, but nobody has 100 percent. Yet the measurement the FCC uses really measures not the amount of concentration, it merely measures the population of the city.

So those who say what the FCC did was incorrect because it allows greater media concentration, that is simply not true. So I think the resolution should be rejected. If Congress does not reject it, this administration will veto it, and the result ultimately will be the same.

But on the three principal arguments of localism, diversity, and media concentration that are used in order to say why this resolution should pass, I think the evidence and the facts, as opposed to the rhetoric, are very clear that those three reasons are not sufficient to overturn the Communications Commission that has spent 2 years in bringing this to us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I withdraw my suggestion.

Regular order.