Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, you understand, of course, that Part B of Medicare requires, first, a voluntary election to participate and then, second, a monthly premium which today is approximately $45?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. You also understand the Vice President's plan would require a second voluntary election to participate in prescription drugs, and the monthly fee would be $25, or $300 a year, not $600 a year? Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thought $150 a month was the deductible. There is a copay beyond that?

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 2, do you understand Part B of Medicare--I am talking about Medicare as it existed for 35 years--requires the exact same election process as the Vice President's plan would require for prescription drugs? He is doing nothing beyond what we have done for 35 years in Part B of Medicare; that is, the physicians and outpatient services. Do you agree with that?

Mr. GRAHAM. Is that copay per prescription filled?

Mr. GRAHAM. How is that calculated?

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, it is $25 a month or $300 a year. No. 2, it is a voluntary election, exactly the same way that you had a voluntary election for Part B for 35 years. No. 3, you understand that the plan of the Vice President is a universal plan like all the rest of Medicare; over 39 million Americans who are eligible for Medicare are eligible to make the voluntary election to participate in the prescription drug benefit?

Mr. GRAHAM. I am talking about the plan that will be in effect in the year 2002 when we adopt this plan. It will be a voluntary plan. It will be a plan which will be affordable. It will not only give you the benefit of access to 50-percent coverage of your immediate prescription medication cost, but it will also give you, after you pay $4,000, a stop loss, a catastrophic intercept which says, beyond that point, the Federal Government will pay all of your prescription drug bills. That is, in my opinion, the most important part of this plan because the fear of many seniors, and the thing they see as the potential threat to not only their health but their economic security, is that they are going to fall into a serious illness where suddenly their prescription drug costs are not $20 or $30 a month but are $800 or $1,000 a month. The Vice President's plan assures that after you have paid $4,000, then you will have a stop loss against any further payments. Don't you think that is a pretty significant security for America's seniors?

Mr. GRAHAM. As you understand, all of the plans provide for no payment for persons who are above the Medicaid eligibility limit but generally below 175 percent of poverty, which means approximately $14,000 or $15,000. They would pay no premium. They would pay no copayments. They would have no deductibles. For those people, the Vice President's plan would be fully available without any charges. What we are talking about in both plans is the people who are above 175 percent of poverty. What percentage subsidization would you provide for persons over 175 percent of poverty?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here today in support of my colleague from Louisiana and to express my dismay at the content of the Interior appropriations conference report which we are considering. Senator Landrieu knows better than each of us the amount of work, dedication, and focus it took to produce the widely and wildly supported legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA, which has passed the House, passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and now awaits Senate floor action. We have a unique opportunity before us in this session of the Congress: the ability to enact conservation legislation that will have a positive impact not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren, long after we have left this Chamber. This opportunity is in the historical mainstream of the United States of America. We are starting a new century, the 21st century. It is the third full new century that has been started since the United States of America became a sovereign nation. The first of those full centuries was the 19th century. We were led into the 19th century by one of our greatest Presidents, whose bust is above the Presiding Officer, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had a goal, a goal to acquire the city of New Orleans, which ironically is the home of Senator Landrieu. The purpose was to secure water transit on the Mississippi for American commerce, as it was developing in the Mississippi Valley, the Ohio Valley of the Presiding Officer, and later in the Missouri River Valley. President Jefferson suddenly had a unique opportunity before him. While his negotiators were discussing with the French, the then-owners of New Orleans, the purchase of that city, they were met with a counter offer. Don't just buy New Orleans; buy the entire Louisiana territory. President Jefferson seized this opportunity and fundamentally transformed the United States of America. No longer were we an Atlantic nation. We were a continental nation. No longer were we a nation in which Americans were quickly using up their original land; we were a nation that had an enormous new area to develop. America suddenly had also been saved from the prospect of North America becoming a battleground for European rivalries because, with Louisiana in hand, the United States would be the dominant force in North America and would not have to contend with the prospect of the English, the French, the Spanish, and other Europeans attempting to settle their long animosities on our territory. That was a truly bold idea, an idea that led us into the 19th century and has forever transformed our Nation. We began the 20th century with another similarly bold leader, Theodore Roosevelt, whose bust is just outside the main entrance to the Senate Chamber. Theodore Roosevelt had an idea that America should become a place which respected its natural heritage. So in his almost 8 years as President, he added to the national inventory of public lands an area that is the size of all the States which touch the Atlantic Ocean from Maine to Florida--an enormous contribution to our patrimony which, again, has served to transform both our idea of America and our access to America. We had an opportunity to start the 21st century with an idea which, if not of the scale of either the Louisiana Purchase or Theodore Roosevelt's commitments to public lands, would have been a statement that our generation still recognized its obligation to prepare for the future, as those two great leaders had done. That was what the Conservation and Reinvestment Act was about--to take a portion of the Anglo revenue, which the United States receives from Outer Continental Shelf drilling, and invest those funds in a better America for our future generations. I submit that this opportunity for a bold, grand idea in the tradition of Jefferson and Roosevelt--an idea that could have come close to being a legacy--is now, in fact, sadly a travesty, a mere shadow of what could have been. I suggest that there is no more inappropriate time for us to turn timid and retreat from what could have been. When Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, the United States had a population of approximately 125 million people. By the end of the 20th century, the United States has a population of 275 million people. The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects that by the year 2100--100 years from today--the population of the United States will be 571 million Americans. It is our obligation--as it was Thomas Jefferson's and Theodore Roosevelt's and those who supported their vision of the future--to begin the process of preparing for that next America that is going to arrive in the next 100 years. That next America has to be our grandchildren. They are the people who are going to make up the 571 million Americans in the year 2100. It is possible that some of the young people who are here with us today may live through this full century and experience what that new America is going to be like. How well we are preparing for that new America is being tested by what we are doing today. I am sad to say that in the retreat from providing for an ongoing, significant source of funding to provide for the variety of needs of that new America, we are failing the next America. Like the occupant of the chair, I have served as Governor of a State. I believe one of the most lamentable aspects of this failure is the way in which we have treated States. States are our partners in this great Federal system. Probably of all the contributions the United States has made to the theory of government, none has been as significant as the concept of federalism: That we could have within 1 sovereign nation 50 States that were sovereign over areas of their specific responsibility, and that in many areas those sovereignties would merge in respectful partnerships in order to accomplish goals that were important to the citizens of an individual State but also important to all Americans. Many of the programs that were the objective of the CARA legislation were in that category of respectful partnerships between the Federal Government and the State. For those respectful partnerships to be effective, in my judgment, there are some prerequisites. One of those prerequisites is that on both sides of the partnership there must be sustainability, predictability; both partners must bring to the table the capacity to carry out their mutually arrived at plans and visions. The CARA legislation, as it was passed by the House of Representatives--I might say by an overwhelming vote--and voted out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, had such a vision because it would have provided through this source of funds of the Outer Continental Shelf a guaranteed source of revenue to meet the Federal side of that respectful partnership with the States in everything from urban parks to historic district redevelopment, to the development of urban forests--a whole array of needs which our growing population requires. With that assured source of financing, there could have been some other things accomplished. One would have been good, intelligent planning as to how to go about using public funds to the greatest benefit. Part of that planning would have been to have set priorities in which people would have had some confidence. When you say priorities, by definition, you are telling some people they are at the absolute front of the line, other people are a few spaces back, and some are toward the end of the line. But if those who stand in line believe their turn in fact will come if they are patient and, if they do the planning that is asked of them, they will finally receive their reward through Federal participation in funding, I am afraid that what we have just done is lost that opportunity because of what we have in the conference report of the Department of the Interior. Under title VII, the land conservation, preservation, and infrastructure improvement title, which is offered to us as the substitute for CARA, we have this language: This program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. The House and the Senate Committees on Appropriations have discretion in the amounts to be appropriated each year, subject to certain maximum amounts as described herein. So we have no respectful partnership, and therefore we have no reasonable expectation that the kind of goals that were at the heart of the CARA program will in fact be realized. I suggest that our partners in the States who, from virtually every organization that represents State interests, had advocated passage of the CARA legislation will find this to be a particularly disappointing and sad day. In addition to the fact that we are squandering the opportunity that comes with the enthusiasm of the new century, in addition to the fact that we are failing to meet the challenge for the new America, which will occupy this great Nation in the next hundred years, and in spite of the fact that we have acted in an arrogant and disrespectful way to our partners, the States, there is yet another tragedy in what is being proposed. That tragedy is our national parks. On July 25, 2000, the Senate Energy Committee passed its version of the CARA bill, containing what I consider to be one of its most important aspects--the national park protection fund. This fund would provide $100 million in assured, guaranteed funding for the parks for 15 years, $100 million a year, for the purpose of natural, cultural, and historic resource preservation and restoration. This was a critical section of the bill. It was mirrored after a bill which I introduced in April of 1999. During our markup in the Energy Committee, I supported this section. I did believe that it should have included even more money to adequately address the needs of our national parks. I might say in that view that I was joined by a number of members of the Energy Committee who advocated a more significant commitment to the protection of our national parks. I am blessed to say that since this bill was reported by committee, we have had even another ally join in this effort. We have had the Republican candidate for President of the United States, Gov. George W. Bush. Governor Bush, on September 13 of this year, stated that he would commit to spend $5 billion on maintenance of the national parks over the next 5 years ``to renew these national treasures and reverse the neglect.'' We are rejecting the advice and recommendation of the Governor of Texas, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, with this legislation because what it provides for national parks maintenance is only $50 million for 1 year. Fifty million dollars for 1 year is all we are going to be voting for if we accept this conference report--not the $5 billion over 5 years that Governor Bush has wisely recommended we invest in the restoration and revitalization of the great national treasure of our national parks. The conference report today takes a tremendous step in the opposite direction in terms of a commitment for the rejuvenation of our national parks. It is wholly inadequate. I rise today to plead for our national parks. As Senator Lott said at a press conference in support of the CARA legislation earlier this year, even Kermit the Frog supports this bill. To borrow a phrase from America's favorite frog, ``It's not easy being green.'' It is also no simple matter maintaining the beautiful pinks and rich browns of Utah's canyons, the bright reds and oranges of Virginia's leaves in the fall, and, of course, the myriad colors that comprise America's Everglades. It is not easy. But it is critically important. It is our responsibility. The parks tell the story of what and who we are and how we came to be. They contain the spirit of America. Maintaining these national treasures takes commitment to conservation and environmental preservation. That commitment takes money--reliable, sustainable, predictable money--in order to be able to undertake the kinds of projects which are necessary to preserve our great natural and cultural heritage. There are many examples I might use to demonstrate this necessity for a sustained, reliable source of money to protect our heritage. Let me just use one that I have had the occasion to visit twice in the last few months; that is, Ellis Island. Ellis Island, as we all know, is the place through which some 15 million persons seeking the freedom and liberty and opportunity of the United States first entered our country. It is a site which is seeping with the history of America. It is a site which is composed of about 40-some buildings, including the first public health hospital in the history of the United States; it is on Ellis Island. You may have seen some television programs which were broadcast from Ellis Island that show a series of buildings which have been renovated to their 19th century style with brilliance and beauty. Unfortunately, what you do not see are the other 35 buildings in back of those that have been rehabilitated. When you walk through those buildings, what you see is some of the history of America crumbling literally before your eyes and feet. The reason for this crumbling is that there has not been an adequate, reliable source of funds to maintain this and many others of our national heritage. The superintendent of the park told me that if she had a reliable source of funds, she could organize a rational plan for the rehabilitation of these historic buildings and, at considerable savings to the taxpayers, commence the process of saving these buildings. What we have before us is not a bill that gives us the opportunity of salvation. Rather, it is a program that virtually assures the disintegration of Ellis Island and other invaluable parts of our Nation's history and culture. Today, protection of our natural resources and our historic and cultural resources has fallen further and further behind. Suffering takes many forms. Wildlife is suffering. In the park I know the best, America's Everglades and the great Everglades National Park, the number of nesting wading birds has declined 93 percent since the 1930s. One study of 14 national parks found that 29 carnivores and large herbivores had disappeared since these parks were established and placed under our trusteeship and protection. Only half the islands in the Park Service's historic collections are cataloged. Often it takes an act of individual intervention in order to save an important national treasure. I have had the good fortune to have my daughter marry the son of a great American historian, David McCullough. David McCullough has sounded the national alarm at the disintegration of much of our historical and cultural treasures. One of those for which he sounded the alarm was the Longfellow house in Cambridge, MA. Not only was it the home of a great American family, it happened to be the home where George Washington lived when he was establishing the first components of the American Colonial Army that would eventually be victorious in the American Revolution--an extremely important site in American history, a site which, lamentably, was collapsing. David McCullough, a sophisticated person with considerable ability to energize action on behalf of a worthy project, went to one of our colleagues, Senator Kennedy, and brought to Senator Kennedy's attention what was happening at the Longfellow house in his State of Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy came to the Congress not too many years ago and got specific funding for the Longfellow house. Now it is on the road back to recovery. But do we have to depend upon the convergence of a historian and an influential Senator to save our national heritage? Are we going to say it is important enough that we do this on a predictable, sustained, professional basis? We have that opportunity with the CARA Act. We are about to lose that opportunity with this conference report. Only 62 percent of conditions needed to preserve and protect the museum collections within our National Park System meet professional standards for their protection. Considering only the park's portion of the CARA compromise--words which I find objectionable--but of only the park's portion of this alleged CARA compromise, we have nearly 290 million reasons to oppose it. Those 290 million reasons are the 290 million persons who last year visited our Nation's parks. That number grows each year as our children and our grandchildren take our place among the mountains, the forests, and the historic sites which comprise America's National Park System. The parks are more than just popular destinations. They are havens for more than 120 threatened and endangered species. The National Park Service also oversees a trove of historic artifacts that represent the story of human experience in North America, some 75 million items of our history. We owe to future generations, we owe to our children and our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, the chance to learn this story. We owe them the same opportunity to appreciate the majestic beauty of this land as we ourselves have been lucky enough to experience. In the words of President Lyndon Johnson: If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it. We are seeing that opportunity to leave to those future generations a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, we are seeing that opportunity unnecessarily and tragically slipping away. A steady diet of green will keep our natural treasures healthy well into the next century. We have the opportunity to do this. When the legislation establishing our Outer Continental Shelf drilling program and the royalties that would be derived was established, the theory was we would take the resources that we gathered as we depleted one natural resource, the petroleum and natural gas under our Outer Continental Shelf, and we would use it precisely as a means of investment in the future of our country by investing it in the protection of our most valuable natural historic and cultural resources. That is the opportunity that the legislation which was introduced, passed overwhelmingly in the House, passed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--and I am proud to say with the support of our Presiding Officer--gave us. It is an opportunity we are about to fritter away. The CARA compromise does not achieve any of these significant goals. This Senate will diminish itself in terms of its appreciation of our American experience. We will diminish ourselves in terms of our political will. We will diminish ourselves as viewed by the history of our own grandchildren if we are to accept this compromise as being an adequate statement, the beginning of the 21st century of what we think our responsibilities to the future are. I urge we defeat this conference report, that we defeat this feeble compromise, and that we start again by bringing to the Senate floor the legislation which has passed out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and give us an opportunity to debate it. Those who have some objections should offer amendments. That is the democratic way. I am confident it will pass and that it will be accepted by the House of Representatives, and signed with enthusiasm by the President, and then we will be worthy of the offices we hold and worthy of our responsibility to the American past and to the American future.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe by previous order, I have 30 minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of the fact that there is no one here seeking the floor, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to continue until someone seeks the floor or for an additional 5 minutes, whichever is shorter.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not want to speak much longer. I didn't speak much when I was on the floor before about another element of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act because I focused on my own personal experiences in south Florida. But the ``registry date'' component of the legislation will have a tremendously positive impact on my State and on our Nation as a whole. Congress every so often in the course of legislation updates what is called the registry date in immigration law. This is the way, for many years, residents of our Nation have had to formalize their status in the United States. It recognizes the fact that after many years in our country doing the hardest work, paying taxes, participating in the community, and starting small businesses, there should be an avenue of appeal to be able to stay in the United States. To apply for relief--and I underscore apply for relief, not be granted relief--to apply for relief under the new registry date, 1986, you must have been here since that time, nearly 15 years. For many Floridians, these are the most long-term employees or our established neighbors. These workers for Florida's companies have the most experience and are among the most dedicated. It is fundamentally unfair to these workers, the businesses, and our communities to uproot these families after 15 years or more. Critics have said this condones illegal immigration. Our Nation should have a firm policy on illegal immigration, and through the last few years' appropriations cycles, we have allocated more money for border enforcement. We have the Federal responsibility to strengthen our borders, but we also have the responsibility to face the reality and the consequences of uprooting families after nearly two decades of work and life in the United States. Many of these individuals did have legal status at one time and were affected by the immigration laws passed in 1996. Some were given bad advice about whether they were eligible for the amnesty program in 1986. They were told not to apply, when, in fact, they were eligible for the program. Updating the registry date allows those who have dedicated 15 or more years of their life to building and strengthening our economy and Nation to finally have the opportunity for a formal status here. It makes both economic and humanitarian sense. Lastly, I want to react to some of the debate yesterday. I believe there should be a free and open debate on this important immigration issue, but, in my view, that debate does not need to be partisan. This is an issue that affects every city, business, and family in America. It crosses State lines and party lines. There is a common ground, and I hope we can work together to find a way to allow both H- 1B and the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act to become law. It is in the greatest of America's tradition of justice and fairness. I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 [From the Miami Herald, May 4, 2000] Haitian Parents of U.S. Kids Deserve To Remain Here Together Imagine a scene where American children are made to bid goodbye to their mothers and fathers as federal agents force the parents to board a plane to Haiti, where they'll have to rebuild their lives. After going to extraordinary lengths to reunite Elian Gonzalez with his father, Attorney General Janet Reno must not let that tragedy come to pass for the 5,000 U.S.-born children of Haitians who soon might be placed in this awful situation. These parents, some of whom have been here for as many as 20 years, could be deported at a moment's notice. They'd be forced to choose between leaving their children behind or raising them in a destitute, strife-torn country the children have never seen. That's what the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, which Ms. Reno oversees, proposes to do. Ms. Reno should be consistent in her concern for children. For their sake, she must protect these families by suspending their deportation at the highest executive level. The next step is for Ms. Reno to allow these Haitians to be included in the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, which was intended to cover Haitians fleeing political violence in Haiti in the early 1990s. The law granted amnesty from deportation to Haitians who made it to U.S. shores before the 1996 cutoff date, as these 10,000 people did. But unlike those who arrived by boat or other means, most of these 10,000 came through South Florida's airports using phony documents to flee that country. Yet because they broke the law by using counterfeit papers, the INS has refused to let them apply for protection under that amnesty law signed by President Clinton in 1998. One such refugee was a former Haitian soldier who fled after refusing to follow orders and shoot at unarmed demonstrators. Another is Kenol Henricy who paid $2,500 for a passport and visa that got him to Turk and Caicos, then to Maimi. He was stopped at the airport and spent four months at the Krome Detention Center. ``I knew it was illegal,'' says Henricy, 32. ``There was nothing else I could do.'' That was 11 years ago. In the meantime, his wife died, leaving him alone to care for Kenisha, his asthmatic, American-born child. Since he arrived, Mr. Henricy has worked at the same Medley tool-and-die shop. Recently he's been sharing a house in Hollywood to help a brother pay the mortgage. Last August, Mr. Henricy received his deportation letter with an extension set to run out in September if he's denied residency under HRIFA. He's interviewing with an INS officer today. If his request for amnesty is turned down, Henricy fears he may be detained and deported on the spot. What then? Here he has work and insurance for his asthmatic daughter. In Haiti--nothing. Ms. Reno must show compassion for children like Kenisha, some who don't speak a word of Creole. She has the power to stop INS lawyers from prosecuting fraudulent-entry cases, and she must use it. The HRIFA law was intended to correct a wrong, not to break apart families.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, those persons who came by commercial airliner had to have some documents in order to get on the plane. So what they would frequently do is get counterfeit passports so they could get onto the plane and out of Haiti and escape the imminent prospect of persecution or worse. She was one of those persons. She came to the United States with false documents, counterfeit documents she admits. Had she come with no documents at all, she would have been allowed to stay here. But because she arrived with false documents, she is subject to deportation. After years of life in the United States, this action would separate U.S. citizen children from their Haitian mother. This is an agonizing choice--follow the law and leave your children behind or take your children back to a country where you suffered violence and persecution. I cannot think of any choice more un-American, more offensive to our basic principles. We have a chance to correct this and restore fairness, and we should do so as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials, one from the Miami Herald, one from the San Francisco Chronicle, which explain in greater detail the urgent need to take action and correct this injustice. I ask these two editorials be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I again lend my support to the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. I understand we may be voting at 4:30 this afternoon to waive the rules to allow this legislation to be considered. I am hopeful in the spirit of fundamental fairness the Senate will vote to allow a full debate on this issue. The focus of this legislation is the same word that I just used to refer to what I hope will be the disposition of the Senate, and that is ``fairness.'' There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days about high-tech workers, H-1B visas. Our American companies need these high-tech workers. Unfortunately, there are deficiencies in the skill level of Americans which have resulted in the necessity of providing visas for specific high-skilled foreign workers to come to the United States to fill these jobs. I hope this deficiency will just be a temporary one and we will use the debate we are having on H-1B as a spur to do the fundamental reforms we are called upon to do to see that Americans have the skills to fill these high-tech, high-wage jobs. Until then, American industry needs these workers. High-tech industries are one of the engines that have been growing our prosperous economy. I want to see the H-1B bill become law. I am a cosponsor and a long- time supporter of this legislation. However, high-tech workers are not the engine of our economic growth. The equally essential workers in our service and retail industry, manufacturing, care giving, tourism, and others are part of that economic engine. The need is great for H-1B and high-tech workers. The need is also great for these essential workers. Many of these workers would remain as legal, permanent members of our society under the relief provided with the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Simply put, what is fairness? I said before that we all learn in grammar school what is fair and what is not fair. It is fair for a teacher to punish two noisy and disruptive schoolchildren by keeping both of them inside during recess. But if the teacher keeps only one student in and lets the other go outside and play, that is unfair. In other words, fair is treating people in the same circumstances in the same way. This is exactly what we are trying to achieve with the ``NACARA Parity'' section of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. We are here today trying to achieve fairness because in 1996 we passed an immigration law that went too far. It was unfair because it applied retroactively. This is like changing the rules in the middle of the game. This is what we have done, and we should correct it, and we should begin that process of correction today. What we are being asked to do is not to provide citizenship or even legal permanent status to the persons who will be affected by this legislation. In most instances what we are being asked to do is to give these people a chance to apply for legal status in the United States, just as we have given others who are in the same circumstances the right to apply for legal residence in the United States. I spoke on the Senate floor earlier about the human faces and human stories I came to know when Congress corrected part of this unfairness, the unfairness of the 1996 act, in 1997 and 1998 with two immigration bills dealing with Central Americans and Haitians. On the Senate floor I spoke of Alexandra Charles, whom I came to know when I participated in a hearing held in Miami when we were originally introducing the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act. Let me tell you Alexandra's story. As a young child in Haiti, she witnessed the military murder her mother. Her father has disappeared. She came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor, but she has built a life here. When I testified about her at the hearing in Miami, she was working at two jobs. She was finishing 2 years at Miami Dade Community College. Congress took the right step, in 1997, to protect her future in the United States. We have the opportunity today to start the process to take the right step for others who are in Alexandra's same circumstances. We are now treating differently those individuals who faced equally arduous hurdles to come to the United States: Those who fled civil wars, those who witnessed brutal acts--such as Alexandra, seeing a military man shoot down her mother--those who were forced out of a nation after a military overthrow because of their views on democracy. Our Nation has always set the standard for offering refuge to those in need. We did so in this case. We gave legal status to many in the mid- 1980s who came here in these circumstances, fleeing persecution, seeking democracy and freedom. Then, in 1996 we took it away and did it retroactively. This is wrong. This is not the American way. We should correct this error in this legislation. In July of this year, Congressman Alcee Hastings and I met with members of the Haitian community in Fort Lauderdale, FL. One of the audience members who approached the microphone to speak was in elementary school. His name was Rickerson Moises. He and some of his siblings were born in the United States. They are U.S. citizens. His mother fled the violence in Haiti but was not protected in the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act because she came with a false document, a method she had to take to escape Haiti. If I could just explain for a moment the differences in exit from Haiti during that period of the Duvalier regime and then the military dictatorship which followed. Most Haitians who fled the country did so by small boat. They arrived in the United States with no documentation at all. They had no passports, no other documents to support their exit from their former country or their arrival in the United States. There was another group, a smaller group, approximately 10,000, who came by commercial airline. These frequently were the people who were in the greatest jeopardy. They realized they did not have time to seek out a boat, to wait possibly the days or weeks before the boat was prepared to leave. They had to leave tonight because of the nature of the threat they faced. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. It will come from the minority side.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the congressional fellow in my office, Miss Terri Ceravolo, be granted privileges of the floor during duration of this debate on S. 2045.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin, Kerry, and Wellstone to introduce legislation that will help restore fairness and justice to our legal system. Our nation is known worldwide for our system of justice. We proclaim that everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Since the passage of the 1996 immigration law and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, this statement has been only partially true. There have been thousands of individuals who have been, in simple terms, punished twice: once for a crime, even a very minor crime, that was committed, and once again for their immigration status. These are individuals who are legally here in the United States; but they are not U.S. citizens. I do a workday once a month. On these days I work a full shift on jobs ranging from garbage collection to teaching. In my 345th workday, in May 1999, I spent the day at the INS Krome Detention Center near Miami. I met individuals who had been legally present in the United States for years. They had committed a crime, and for that they had fully served any criminal sentence that was imposed. When I met them, they were being indefinitely detained by the INS solely because of their immigration status. Under the two laws we passed in 1996, the United States could not release them. And because we don't have a treaty with their country of origin--in this case--Cuba, we could not deport them. Cuba won't take them back. So we are locking up for life individuals who may have bounced a check, or stolen a car radio and have already been sentenced, and have completed their sentence, for those crimes by a court of law. Allow me to offer a few examples from my home state of Florida. Catherine Caza was born in Canada but came to this country as a legal permanent resident when she was three years old. She has always considered herself an American. Until recently, she had no reason to believe otherwise. Twenty years ago Ms. Caza made a terrible mistake. She sold drugs to an undercover policeman. For this she pleaded guilty and received five years probation--which she successfully completed. That was 20 years ago. Now she is 40 years old. She is the mother of a 7-year-old girl. She is attending college, hoping to someday become a social worker. The INS wants to deport her. Ms. Caza is scared, and justifiably so. She wonders how she will be able to build a new life for herself and her daughter, her American- born daughter, in a country that is wholly unfamiliar. Roberto and Sheila Salas are facing an equally bleak future. Mrs. Salas dreamed of going overseas with the United States Air Force. Naturally, she planned to take her husband and two children with her. Her husband, 31-year-old Roberto Salas, came to this country from Peru as a permanent legal resident when he was 17. At 19, he was sentenced to five years probation. He was released from probation two years early because he followed all the rules. He has followed the rules ever since. His family calls him a loving husband and father and a good provider. In 1997 he applied for naturalization so his wife could go overseas. Months later he was told that his adopted country was sending him back to Peru. The rules had changed. These are, as I have said, just two of countless stories from every state in the nation. This is not fair. This is not humane. This is simply not reasonable. Our legislation tries to restore a measure of sanity to the laws governing deportation of legal aliens. First and foremost: It is blatantly unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game. This is what we did in 1996. We passed a bill that applied new rules retroactively. We need to fix this. Under our legislation, if you committed a crime 10 years ago, the rules that will punish you will be the rules that were in place then. This bill restores proportionality to our immigration law. With the passage of Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act, the ``punishment will fit the crime.'' Under our current law, an individual can be deported for very minor crimes. They can be punished even if a judge and jury hand down no jail time. This person may have children who were born in this country, a spouse who is a U.S. citizen, even a business with many U.S. citizen employees. This legislation returns to judges the discretion they had before 1996. There are some cases where deportation is the appropriate sanction. There are other cases where it is clearly not. Let's let judges look at the facts and decide instead of taking over their role and insisting on a one-size-fits-all system of justice. Let's not treat someone who stole a car as a teenager, served his time, and has since become a law-abiding productive adult, the same way we treat someone who has committed violent crimes over and over again. Let's also not lock someone up for life because they have the bad fortune to come from a country that won't take them back. Long-term detention is an extremely powerful judicial tool. We ask that the INS use this action only when necessary--not as a first option. This is a very difficult issue to advocate. These are criminals. I absolutely believe they should be punished. They should fully repay their debt to society through incarceration, monetary restitution, community service, or any other sanction. Judges and juries decide these punishments, and the legal immigrant should fully comply with each and every decision. However, from that point on, they should be allowed to start over. As Americans, we cannot and should not re-punish them. What we are doing now is locking up everyone: car radio thieves, check bouncers, and others, all mixed in with the most dangerous felons. Everyone should get an equal change to plead their case. Experienced judges should have the discretion to keep together American families who now face the prospect of lifetime separation. I do not want a mass release of legal immigrants who pose a threat to our society. However--I do want fairness and discretion restored to all those who legally live in the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, with respect and admiration, I offer a tribute to my colleague from Florida, The Honorable Connie Mack. Senator Mack has served his state and nation with distinction, and I have been honored to serve with him in this institution to represent the people of Florida. Connie and Priscilla Mack have long been our neighbors in Washington; they will always remain our friends. I was first elected to the United States Senate in 1986, Connie Mack was elected in 1988. As colleagues in the Senate, we set out to work together on behalf of Florida. Senator Mack and I are loyal members of different political parties. We don't always vote the same, nor do we agree on every issue. But, as Senator Mack prepares to leave this institution, I can say with pride that we achieved our goal of working together--and our staffs have worked together--on behalf of Floridians. In offering this personal salute to Senator Mack, I also wish to praise the dedication and professionalism of his staff. On behalf of my family and my staff, I thank Senator Mack's staff--past and present-- and wish them continued success. During his two terms in the United States Senate, Senator Mack assembled a talented staff which made multiple contributions to public service. I ask that the names of these current and past members of Senator Mack's staff be printed in the Record as a token of our appreciation and to reflect their significant roles in the history of this great institution. The list follows: The Following Staff Members Worked for Senator Mack in the 106th Congress washington, dc office Tysha Banks, Beth Ann Barozie, Frank Bonner, Curtis Brison, Cara Broughton, Amy Chapman, Tracie Chesterman, Treasa Chopp, Deidra Ciriello, Julie Clark, Charles Cooper, Steve Cote, Dan Creekman, Colleen Cresanti, Graham Culp. Susan Dubin, Rochelle Eubanks, Michael Gaines, Buz Gorman, Wendy Grubbs, Alan Haeberle, Patrick Kearney, Sheila Lazzari, C.K. Lee, Peter Levin, Ross Lindholm, Adam Lombardo, Cathy Marder, Jordan Paul, Elaine Petty. Lauren Ploch, John Reich, Bethany Rogers, Suzanne Schaffrath, Carrie Schroeder, Nancy Segerdahl, Gary Shiffman, Boaz Singer, Benjamin Skaggs, Mark Smith, Sean Taylor, Yann Van Geertruyden, Greg Waddell, and Barbara Watkins. Fort Myers office Chris Berry, Helen Bina, Ann Burhans, Wendolyn Grant, Shelly McCall, Diana McGee, David Migliore, Rose Ann Misener, Patty Pettus, Sharon Thierer, and Catherine Thompson. jacksonville office Shannon Hewett and Carla Summers. miami office Richard Cores, Sigrid Ebert, Gladys Ferrer, Mercedes Leon, Sarah Marerro, Nilda Rodriguez, and Patrick Sowers. Pensacola office Andrew Raines and Kris Tande. tallahassee office Jennifer Cooper, Courtney Shumaker, and Greg Williams. tampa office Barbara Dicairano, Jim Harrison, Elizabeth Sherbuk, Jamie Wilson, and Amy Woodard. The Following Worked Prior to 106th Congress, but Probably Worked Closely with BG's Ofc former staff Mitch Bainwol, Scott Barnhart, Glenn Bennett, Ellen Bork, Shellie Bressler, Jamie Brown, Kim Cobb, Jeff Cohen, Kerry Fennelly, Kimberly Fritts, Mary Anne Gauthier, Lawrence Harris, Stacey Hughes. Jackie Ignacio, Joe Jacquot, Chris Lord, Mark Mills, Bob Mottice, Yvonne Murray, Sheila Ross, Mary Beth Savary Taylor, Saul Singer, Meredith Smalley Quellette, Jeffery Styles, Dawn Teague, Beth Walker, and Jeffrey Walter.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, Senator Reed from Rhode Island has done an outstanding job of bringing to our attention the plight of those 10,000 Liberians, many of whom are his friends in Rhode Island. I want to talk about another group of about 10,000. That is a group of Haitians. There are many more than 10,000 Haitians who have come to the United States in the last decade, decade and a half, fleeing first the dictatorship of the Duvaliers, and then the military dictatorship that succeeded the Duvaliers. Most of those Haitians came by boat and most had no documentation. They had no papers of any type when they came into the country. Under the immigration law we passed in 1998, subject to one additional complexity--which I will talk about at another time--which we are trying to get resolved with this legislation, they will be entitled to make their case for legal residence in the United States. I think at this point it is important we indicate that in virtually every instance we are talking about, we are not talking about granting a legal status and, certainly, not granting citizenship. What we are talking about is giving people a chance to apply, and that their application will be accepted and given appropriate due process and consideration. Without the kind of provisions we are trying to accomplish in this Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, they can't even submit the papers to start the process. Let me go back to the 10,000 Haitians who arrived by air. The irony is that they tended to be people who were under a particular threat of death or serious abuse and persecution. They felt the necessity not to be able to wait for a boat but to get out as quickly as possible. In order to get on the airplane, they had to go to somebody who counterfeits passports and other documentation that was required to get on the plane and get out of Haiti in the 1980s and early part of the 1990s. When they arrived in the United States they were not without documents. But they had false, counterfeit documents. If you can believe it, under our current immigration law, we make a distinction between a person who is flying--and arguably in a severe case of persecution--with false documents and is denied the right to apply for legal status, whereas a person who comes with no documents at all is allowed. This legislation will correct what I think is one of the most indefensible examples of unfairness to people who essentially are in the same condition but have a minor technical differentiation--in this case, with no documents, OK; and, with false or counterfeit documents precluded from the opportunity to apply. We would eliminate that and allow both the no-document Haitians and the counterfeit-document Haitians the opportunity to submit their case and attempt to persuade the INS to justify granting some legal status in the United States. They have 10,000--what are referred to as the ``airport Haitians''-- immigrants with all of the characteristics that the Senator talked about before. They have lived here a long time. Many of them have established families. Either they have U.S. citizen children or they have become positive members of a community. They have all of the bases to be seriously considered for legal status, but they are being denied even the opportunity to apply because of this peculiarly perverse unfairness in our immigration law, which this legislation--if we had a chance to take it up, debate it, and vote on it--has the chance to rectify. I appreciate my good friend, Senator Reid, giving me this opportunity to ask him the question. Does the Senator think we ought to seize this moment and correct the unfairness that Senator Reed has pointed out with the Liberians--I suggest an equal number of Haitians--in this Nation?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I agree with the remarks by my colleague from Florida, and I would add that, in my view, the resolution makes clear that--once the conveyance process is complete--the Secretary of the Army should work closely with the parties to which the property is conveyed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment and the restoration plan. Further, the resolution requests the Secretary of the Army report to Congress in two years on any steps taken to ensure this compatibility and any recommendations for consideration by the Congress. While this is laudable, and has my full support, this resolution should not be read to mean the Air Force must add any new hurdles to the existing base closure and disposal process. I notice my colleague, Senator Inhofe, on the floor. I would ask my colleague for his thoughts on the Homestead matter and ask him if it is his understanding that the base closure law clearly sets out the process for disposing surplus military facilities and that this resolution does not alter or amend that law?