Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. September 25, 1999: Salvatore Bonaventure, 34, Detroit, MI; Darnell Butler, 26, Baltimore, MD; Rodney Campbell, 35, Tulsa, OK; Lewis Crouch, 68, Gary, IN; Roy Dunbar, 31, Chicago, IL; Zachery Gordon, Jr., 25, Baltimore, MD; Gordon Green, 42, Philadelphia, PA; Dominic Hunt, 21, Baltimore, MD; Richard Love, 15, St. Louis, MO; Gerardo R. Martinez, 29, Chicago, IL; Jesus Revron, 32, Philadelphia, PA; Duane Russell, 26, Minneapolis, MN; Fabian Venancio, 41, Tulsa, OK; Unidentified Female, 15, Chicago, IL; Unidentified Male, 46, Long Beach, CA; Unidentified Male, 48, Long Beach, CA; Unidentified Male, 31, San Jose, CA. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 31-year-old Roy Dunbar of Chicago, was an art teacher who worked at his local boys and girls club. Every day at that club, more than 300 kids participated in athletics and other after-school activities. Known as the ``professor'' at the club, Roy tried to steer youngsters away from gangs, violence and drugs. One year ago today, Roy was driving home when a gang member he knew from the neighborhood flagged him down. Roy expressed concern for the boy and encouraged him to stop associating with gangs. Evidently, the boy was insulted by Roy's words because the boy pulled a gun and shot at Roy until the gun was out of ammunition. Another victim, 15-year-old Richard Love of St. Louis, died after he was shot in the abdomen by two of his friends while they were playing with his .22 caliber pistol. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago Friday, Saturday and Sunday. September 22, 1999: Telly Butts, 22, Gary, IN; Ray Clay, 40, Detroit, MI; Emmitt Crawford, 54, Oklahoma City, OK; Berneal Fuller, 27, Gary, IN; Ricardo Griffin, 22, Detroit, MI; Benjamin Hall, 45, New Orleans, LA; Desean Knox, 14, Gary, IN; Randy Ladurini, 29, Minneapolis, MN; William McClary, 29, Detroit, MI; Yonatan Osorio, 17, Dallas, TX; Victor Richardson, 28, Denver, CO; Marice Simpson, 26, New Orleans, LA. September 23, 1999: Domingo Alvarez, 63, Miami, FL; William Belle, 70, Miami, FL; James Bonds, 43, Baltimore, MD; Peter A. Cary, 50, Seattle, WA; Jean Paul Henderson, 20, New Orleans, LA; Alfred Hunter, 26, Detroit, MI; Kenneth Ponder, Sr., 27, Louisville, KY; Jason L. Ward, 28, Oklahoma City, OK; Eric D. Williams, 24, Chicago, IL. September 24, 1999: Dudley R. Becker, 52, Seattle, WA; Sher Bolter, 57, Louisville, KY; Barry Bell, 27, Oakland, CA; Alexander Brown, 33, Philadelphia, PA; Arletha Brown, 32, Toledo, OH; Ryan V. Coleman, 29, Chicago, IL; Teddy Garvin, 17, Washington, DC; James Hojnacki, 34, Toledo, OH; Michael Irish, 55, Denver, CO; Dianne Jefferson-Nicolas, 53, Chicago, IL; Odel Norris, 20, Philadelphia, PA; Eric Leron Martin, San Francisco, CA; Paul Rexrode, 34, Baltimore, MD; Aaron Walker, 18, Washington, DC; Unidentified Male, 14, Chicago, IL. We cannot sit back and allow this senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Ms. Browner; Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt; and Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Mr. Westphal; expressing their support for this legislation also be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would join my colleague from Florida, Mr. Mack in clarifying our understanding. I agree with his remarks, and make the further point that the Plan authorized by this bill will capture a large percentage of the water lost to tide or lost through evapotranspiration for use by both the built and natural systems, with the natural system having priority over the water generated by the Plan.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Everglades is sick. This sickness has been long coming. It was approximately 120 years ago that man looked at the Everglades and realized that it was different, different than almost anything he or she had seen before, and seeing this phenomenon of the Everglades, made a commitment. The commitment was to turn the unique into the pedestrian by converting the Everglades into something that would look more like man and woman had seen in other areas of this country or other areas of the world. The result of that has been 120 years of an effort to change the Everglades, to convert the singular into the common. The results of that 120 years have brought the Everglades to their current position. This cannot be cured without the serious surgery that we are about to sanction by the passage of this legislation. Since the passage of the central and south Florida flood control project in 1948, placing the Everglades in the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers at the direction of Congress, nearly half of the original Everglades have been drained or otherwise altered. According to the National Parks and Conservation Association, the parks and the preserves of the Everglades, of whichever Everglades National Park is the jewel, are among the 10 most endangered national parks in the country. As Florida's Governor in 1983, I launched an effort known as ``Save Our Everglades.'' Its purpose was to revitalize this precious ecosystem. The goal was simple. We wanted to turn back time. We wanted the Everglades to look and function more as they had at the end of the 19th century than they did in 1983. In 1983, restoring the natural health and function of this precious system seemed to be a distant dream. But after 17 years of bipartisan progress in the context of a strong Federal-State partnership, we now stand on the brink of this dream becoming a reality. I will speak for a moment about this unprecedented Federal-State partnership. I often compare this unique partnership to a marriage. If both partners respect each other and pledge to work through any challenges together, if they are willing to grow together, the marriage will be strong and successful. Today, we are again celebrating the strength of that marriage. This legislation contains several provisions which were born out of the respect that sustains this marriage. It offers assurances to both the Federal and the State governments on the use and distribution of water in the Everglades ecosystem. It requires that State government pay half the costs of construction. It requires the Federal Government to pay half the costs of operation and maintenance. Everglades restoration cannot work unless the executive branch, Congress, and State government move forward together. The legislation before us today accomplishes that goal. The legislation before us today represents not only unprecedented compromise and partnership but also unprecedented complexity. Just as the Panama Canal, which this Congress authorized almost a hundred years ago, was the first of its kind, so is Everglades restoration. It is the largest, most complex environmental restoration project not only in the history of the United States of America but in the history of the world. The lessons we will learn here will be exported to other projects throughout America and throughout the world. I trust that today the Senate will make the right choice. Today will be the day the Senate has an opportunity to make a bipartisan commitment to an Everglades restoration plan that reflects a true partnership between the State and Federal governments. If we accomplish the historic goal of restoring America's Everglades, then today will be one of the most precious memories of our children and grandchildren. 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. Today is the day we have an opportunity to leave a glimpse of America's Everglades as they were when we first found them for future generations--beautiful, serene, a river of grass. Madam President, we have commended a number of people who have worked hard to bring us to this day. I want to take this opportunity to commend members of the individual and committee staffs in the Senate who have played an immeasurable role in the success we will soon celebrate. Many people have worked with Senator Smith, and I want to particularly recognize Chelsea Henderson, Tom Gibson, and Stephanie Daigle for their work on behalf of the American Everglades. With Senator Baucus, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Peter Washburn. With Senator Mack, I thank C.K. Lee. And from my office, I thank Catherine Cyr, who has done work of negotiation that would do the most experienced diplomat honor. So it is my hope we will grasp the opportunity that is before us and commence a long adventure--as long an adventure as is required to overturn 120 years of attempts to convert the Everglades into the common, so that we can leave to our children and grandchildren an American Everglades which salutes the highest standards of the words ``unique,'' ``special,'' and ``unprecedented.'' Those are the words that properly describe this marvelous system of nature. Thank you. Exhibit 1 Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, August 21, 2000. Hon. Robert Smith, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We strongly support your bill. S. 2797, ``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act,'' and recommend its passage by the Senate and House of Representatives as soon as possible. If enacted, this bill will help achieve the bipartisan goal of re storing a national treasure, America's Everglades. S. 2797 is the product of hard work and negotiation among the Administration, the State of Florida and your Committee. Indeed, the proposed manager's amendment reflects full agreement between the Administration and the State of Florida on the bill. Accordingly, with adoption of the manager's amendment, we will recommend that the President sign the bill. The bill represents a highly effective approach for meeting essential restoration objectives while recognizing other issues important to the citizens of Florida. We commend you, along with Senators Max Baucus, Bob Graham and Connie Mack, for your leadership and commitment to making Everglades legislation a top priority. We stand ready to do all we can to secure passage their year. Sincerely, Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior. Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Department of the Army.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to Senator Smith for the great leadership he has provided to the Environment and Public Works Committee in many areas but especially for what he has done for the Florida Everglades, America's Everglades. Senator Smith, shortly after he assumed the chairmanship of the committee, after the untimely death of our friend and colleague Senator Chafee, made one of his first acts as chairman of the committee coming to the American Everglades. He did not just come. He absorbed the American Everglades through a series of briefings, field visits, and then concluded with a very long hearing before the annual Everglades Conference. At that hearing, Senator Smith gave a forum to all the diverse points of view as to what should be appropriate national policy as it relates to America's Everglades. He gave comfort to the people there that these decisions were going to be made in a rational, thoughtful manner. That contributed immeasurably to the bringing together of all of those groups behind the plan which is before us today. I take this opportunity to thank the Presiding Officer's neighbor from New Hampshire for the tremendous leadership he has given. Earlier today I was listening to National Public Radio where there was some grousing about the fact that bipartisanship seems to be a lost component of the congressional process. It is not lost on the Senator from New Hampshire because he has displayed it at its very best. On behalf of Senator Mack, I express our appreciation for that fact. The legislation before us today represents an unprecedented compromise by national and State environmental groups, agriculture and industry. These diverse interests are united in support of the Everglades restoration bill, title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is the legislation we will have the opportunity to pass through the Senate today. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be printed in the Record. This letter carries with it the names of many of the groups just listed by Chairman Smith.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for the past 2 weeks, my colleagues have heard me speak regarding the need to add a prescription medication benefit to Medicare. I indicated that in my judgment the most fundamental reform for Medicare is to shift it from a program which, since its inception, has focused on illness and accident--that is, providing services after one becomes sick enough, generally, to go into the hospital or has suffered an accident that requires treatment and hospitalization--and move to a system that also emphasizes prevention; that is, to maintain the highest state of good health and not wait until the state of good health has been destroyed. If we are to adopt that fundamental shift, it will necessitate that Medicare provide a prescription drug benefit. Why? Because virtually every regimen that is prescribed to stabilize a condition or reverse a condition involves prescription drugs. So a fundamental component of reforming Medicare is to provide prescription drugs. I have also spoken about the skyrocketing drug prices which are now affecting virtually all of our older citizens. Today, in my fifth and final statement in this series, I want our colleagues to hear from real people, the people who are affected by the decisions we are about to make. These stories remind us that we have little time to waste. Unfortunately, some of the voices I am going to present are probably going to be too far gone in their need for prescription drugs and in their personal circumstances to benefit by a program which, under the most optimistic timetable, would not commence until October 1, 2002 and, under other proposals, would be even 2 years beyond that in terms of being available through the Medicare program as a universal benefit. While we are arguing as to whether to put a prescription medication benefit into effect and start the clock running towards the time when it will actually be available, people are breaking bones. They are going blind. While we are debating which party would benefit from the passage of a prescription drug program this year, people are in pain. This is not a hyperbole. This is not rhetoric. This is reality for hundreds of thousands of seniors from every State and from every political persuasion. This is a 911 call. If we fail to pass a prescription drug benefit this session, if we fail to start the clock running towards the time when this benefit will be available to all Medicare beneficiaries, we will have ignored their pleas for help. I appreciate being provided with a few moments to share some of these voices of pain. I am also painfully aware that the stories I am going to tell are not unique. They are common. They have become near cliches here in Washington. I would wager that every one of us has a constituent who has written us about splitting pills to make prescriptions last longer. My guess is that every Member of this Chamber has heard from someone who has to make that difficult choice between food or prescription drugs. And we hear from doctors handing out free samples of medicine whenever they can get them and begging for help on behalf of their patients. We get letters describing situations as ``desperate'' and from numerous people who tell us they are at wits' end. The tragedy is that we have been telling these stories for so long they are beginning to sound like nothing more than 30-second TV clips. The fault is ours for failing to act. These are not 30-second sound bits. These are real stories of our friends, our neighbors, in many cases our parents and grandparents. Someday they could be all of us. These are people such as Nancy Francis of Daytona Beach, FL. Ms. Francis used to be able to get the medication she needs through Medicaid as a medically indigent older person. Then the Government did her a great favor. It raised her monthly Social Security check. Because of that raise, she is now too rich by all of $6.78 a month, to qualify for Medicaid. This $6.78 leaves her fully dependent upon Medicare for health care financing. Medicare is a good system with a gaping hole. It does not cover prescription drugs. Medicaid, the program for the medically indigent, paid for nine prescriptions Ms. Francis takes in order to stay active and well. Medicare pays for none. Ms. Francis can put every penny of that $6.78 a month towards her prescriptions and it won't make a dent. So for some months, Ms. Francis just doesn't buy any prescription drugs. Then she waits and hopes she will be able to stay alive long enough for help to arrive. Then there is Mary Skidmore of New Port Richey, FL. Mrs. Skidmore worked for 20 years renting fishing boats. Her late husband worked on the railroad. Now she thinks she may have to get another job. Mrs. Skidmore is 87 years old. She has two artificial knees. No one, she says, will hire her. She needs a job to pay for a new hearing aid. Without a hearing aid, she cannot hear sermons at her church on Sunday. But with $300 a month in prescription medication bills, a hearing aid is a luxury that Mrs. Skidmore cannot afford. She takes medication for her heart, cholesterol, bones, and blood pressure. Giving up this medicine is not an option. It is, in her words, ``what keeps me going.'' Mrs. Skidmore's medication bills have even kept her from marrying her boyfriend. He has enough to pay for the utilities in the home they share, but not much else. If she marries him, she will lose her former husband's railroad pension--a pension that she counts on to survive. Marsaille Gilmore of Williston, FL, is a little bit luckier. Between Social Security and a little bit of income from investments, she and her husband can usually pay for the $300 to $400 per month she spends on prescription medication. Sometimes they even have a little left over to go out to dinner--but not to the movies. Mrs. Gilmore says the movies are too expensive. Some months, the Gilmores are not so lucky. Recently, their truck broke down. It is now in the shop, and things are stretched pretty tight. Sometimes things are so tight that the Gilmores think about going to Mexico to stock up for half the price on the very same medications they now buy in Williston. Remember Elaine Kett? I told her story last week. Elaine is 77 years old. She spends nearly half her income on medication. This chart indicates the number of prescription drugs which Mrs. Kett fills every month. The total is $837.78 a month or $10,053.36 a year. That figure is almost exactly half of Mrs. Kett's total annual income. Her prescriptions are helping to keep her alive. How ironic then that in her plea for help she writes that the cost of medication is ``killing her.'' It is the very thing she depends upon for life; it is the source of her quality of life. Dorothy Bokish is in a similar trap. She pays $188 in rent each month and $162 for her prescription drugs. That leaves her with $238 a month for food, heat, air-conditioning, and gas. It doesn't leave much for her to buy gifts for her grandchildren or to take herself to an occasional show. I shudder to think what would happen should something go wrong--or, if I may say, more wrong--for Mrs. Bokish. What would she have to give up if her water heater broke or a storm knocked out a window in her home? What does she have left to give up? What some seniors are considering giving up is unconscionable. A central Florida man told his family, which is helping to buy his medication so his wife can afford to continue to take hers, he is considering giving up his medication so that his wife can live. If he does so, he will certainly die. Another Florida senior has gone through two grueling heart surgeries and has been prescribed medication to stave off a third. But he can't afford to fill the prescription. He says he thinks sometimes he would rather die than go through surgery again. He says that sometimes the struggle to survive is just too much. I am profoundly embarrassed when I tell these stories. I am embarrassed that in these times of unprecedented prosperity as a nation, we have not come together to find some way to ease this pain. These seniors and countless others wait and wait and wait. There are those who now say we have to wait until another election to even begin the process of providing meaningful prescription drug coverage. Many of them won't be able to wait until the next month, much less until another extended period of indecision here. The time to act is now. This is quite literally a matter of life and death. It is also quite literally a challenge to our Nation's basic sense of decency and values. It is my hope that before this session of the Congress concludes, we will have responded to the highest values of our American tradition. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. That happens to be the size of the Everglades system. This project encompasses the Everglades system, an integrated environmental system, the totality of which creates the environments that sustain all of these great Federal investments.

Mr. GRAHAM. No.

Mr. GRAHAM. From Orlando to the tip of Florida would be approximately 35 to 40 percent.

Mr. GRAHAM. The source of pollution is largely from a previously authorized Federal project; two, the nature of the cleanup in Florida is not of the type that surrounds the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I repeat what I said before. The purpose of these water reuse facilities, as I indicated earlier, and the nature of these reuse facilities is one of the areas on which we are going to be doing some preliminary experimentation and demonstration before committing to what the ultimate formula will be. The purpose of these is to take water which has been polluted in large part because of the Federal projects that have been in place since it was authorized in 1948 and to clean that water to a point that it will no longer serve to damage the important Federal investment. As an example, in the middle of the Everglades there will be a variety of what are called stormwater treatment areas constructed. These are not mechanical, but biological methods of cleaning the water that comes off the middle part of the Everglades so that when it gets down into the area of Everglades National Park, it will meet the standards that will avoid the water-causing adverse effects in the park. At the present time, the injection of inappropriate water quality into Everglades National Park has contributed substantially to a dramatic fall in the natural wildlife, fisheries, and fauna of Everglades National Park, and it has contributed to the development of extensive exotic, nonnatural plants in the area. The purpose of these water reuse and treatment areas--most of which are not the kind of sewage treatment plants we think about with concrete in place where water comes and is mechanically treated and then discharged--is to deal with natural water flow systems--not from municipal areas; they are largely going to be biological and not mechanical. And the purpose of all of this is to achieve a level of water quality, the principal beneficiary of which will be these Federal landowners.

Mr. GRAHAM. I am glad to yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and chairman of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who has given outstanding leadership to this entire legislation, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and has been a particularly thoughtful student of the Everglades restoration. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Virginia. To put what we are about in some context, we are talking about a unique partnership between a State and the Federal Government for the protection of one of the world's treasures. The Florida Everglades has been designated by the United Nations as a world heritage site, one of the few places on the planet that has been designated such because of its unique features, features that have a global importance. Everglades National Park, which is just a small portion of the overall Everglades system, is the second largest national park in the continental United States. This restoration program will be the most significant and the most expensive environmental restoration project ever attempted anywhere in the world. This is going to be a world laboratory for how we will restore damaged environmental systems, both within the United States and elsewhere on the globe. This has been a bipartisan effort. It has been an effort that has now been underway for the better part of three decades --bipartisan in the sense that it has been supported by Republican Presidents and Governors, Congresses, and State legislatures; and Democratic Presidents, Governors, Congresses, and State legislatures. It is a proposal that is much in the nature of a marriage. It is a relationship in which both partners must respect each other, pledge to work through their challenges together, and, thus, build a strong and sustaining relationship. The legislation before us today offers a balance between the partners of that marriage. It requires the State to pay 50 percent of the construction cost of this project. It requires the State to pay 50 percent of the $7.8 billion, which is the estimated cost of construction of this project over the next 30 to 40 years. It requires the Federal Government to pay 50 percent of the operation and maintenance costs of the project as it is completed. Cost sharing for operation and maintenance represents a responsible action by the Federal Government to protect the Federal taxpayers' investment in the restoration of the Everglades. Why is this a responsible action? It is a responsible action and is also a recognition of a reality which differentiates this project from other Federal public works projects; that the major beneficiary of this project is the natural system, and the natural system is owned in large part by the Federal Government. To repeat, the principal beneficiary of this project will be enormous Federal land tracts in the affected area. Thus, the Federal Government has an ongoing interest; and we suggest, as does the committee of jurisdiction, the administration, and the State of Florida, that that large Federal investment and responsibility warrants an ongoing Federal-State shared role in the operation and maintenance of the project once it is completed. Some of the projects that are in this plan, such as the wastewater reuse projects, which have some of the highest estimated cost of operation and maintenance, are included primarily for the benefit of Biscayne National Park, Florida Bay, a significant part of Everglades National Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. The perspective that I share is not mine alone or not parochially Florida's alone. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters on this topic be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. The first letter is signed by a broad coalition of national environmental groups, including the National Audubon Society, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, as well as environmental groups within Florida. This letter states: In addition, approval of the [Warner] amendment would . . . severely jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades Restoration legislation this year. . . . The second letter is from a broad coalition of agricultural and industrial representatives. It states: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is primarily a plan to restore and protect Federal properties. It also states: The coalition of Florida agriculture, water utilities, and homebuilders is convinced that without Federal participation in the costs of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation activities associated with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Everglades restoration will never be implemented. My colleague, Senator Mack, will soon be inserting into the Record a letter from Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush, which will state, in part: Not only is this partnership formula fiscally and politically prudent, it is also critical to maintaining the diverse and broad-based support that the bill before you has earned. Mr. President, you and others in this body may ask why there is near unanimous agreement that operation and maintenance costs must be a shared cost of this project. What is it that differentiates this project from other public works projects? Let me suggest the following. First, to quote from the bill itself: The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region. Let me read a portion of that again: The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem. . . . What is that system that we are about to protect and preserve? It is essentially a Federal system. First, it is an enormous marine sanctuary that runs from the lower part of the Florida peninsula to some 150 miles to the Dry Tortugas, an area with the only living corral reef area in the continental United States. It is also four units of the National Park System: The Everglades National Park, which I indicated earlier is the second largest national park in the continental United States; Biscayne National Park; the Dry Tortugas National Park; and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. Those great Federal ownership areas are going to be primary beneficiaries of the restoration of the Everglades; finally, 16 national wildlife refuges in the area that will be affected by the Everglades restoration, from those at the upper edges of the Everglades system to those throughout the Florida Keys. Once constructed, this project will be operating, in large part, for the benefit of the natural system, which is in Federal ownership. As the primary beneficiary of this project, the Federal Government should have a continued interest and financial role in seeing that its goals are achieved through appropriate implementation. Once the Federal Government is a full and equal partner in the cost of operating this project, it will also be able to assure that the project continues to be operated for the benefit of the natural system in Federal ownership. Without this participation in operation and maintenance, the Federal Government would be, in effect, abdicating its responsibility to the American taxpayers to protect the investment which they are going to make in restoration of the Everglades, which they have already made in the acquisition of these enormous Federal interests. Another important fact, in reviewing Senator Warner's proposal, is the cost-sharing for the Everglades restoration project. I did not hear this very significant fact mentioned by any of the three previous speakers. The traditional Federal public works project is financed 65 percent by the Federal Government, 35 percent by the local sponsor, whoever that might be. There are several and significant environmental and ecosystem restoration projects which contain that very cost sharing in the bill that we have before us, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I draw your attention to page 118, line 7: A project for environmental restoration at Upper Newport Bay Harbor in California; 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor. On page 121, line 23, there is a project for ecosystem restoration at Wolf River in Memphis, TN; 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor. On page 122, line 3, there is a project for environmental restoration at Jackson Hole, WY, 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor. I point out these examples in this very bill that is before us today, not because they are unusual but because in fact they are the norm. Sixty-five percent is the normal share that the Federal Government pays for a project in the Water Resources Development Act. But for this project, one of the largest projects of its type in our Nation's history, the State of Florida is paying 50 percent--not 35 percent, but 50 percent--of the cost of construction. To my knowledge--and I ask the proponents of this amendment if they have information to the contrary--I know of no other local sponsor for an environmental restoration project who is paying 50 percent of the cost of the project.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would appreciate the opportunity to complete my remarks, and then I would like to respond specifically to the statement relative to the nature of the projects, the Federal purposes that they will play, and the appropriateness of the overall arrangement of a 50-percent State share in construction and then a 50- percent Federal share in operation and maintenance.

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring section of this legislation with my colleagues from Florida and New Hampshire. This is one of the most critical aspects of this legislation which builds in a feedback loop for the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management District and ultimately, the Congress, to incorporate new information into Plan authorization, design and execution. I would encourage the Corps, under the authority and appropriations provided for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP], to coordinate with appropriately qualified outside institutions, both nationally and internationally, to conduct independent scientific assessments and monitoring as part of the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. I also believe that one of the most important elements of Everglades restoration will be technology transfer to other ecosystems. I recommend that the Corps continue its partnerships with appropriately qualified outside institutions, both nationally and internationally, to distribute lessons-learned from this experience.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will return to discuss the specific issue of municipal water. Let me complete the arithmetic of the analysis I was doing. On an annual basis, the difference between the State of Florida contributing 50 percent as opposed to the norm of 35 percent is approximately a $35-million-a-year savings during the construction period of this project, some 30 to 40 years, for the Federal Government. If the Federal Government were to take that $35-million-a- year savings and invest it, even at a conservative rate of interest of 5 percent, over the period of this project, that would produce a total of approximately $1.8 billion. That is the savings plus the interest earned on those savings to the Federal Government. That $1.8 billion would pay the cost of operation and maintenance of this project to approximately the year 2050. We are, for the first half century of the 21st century, going to be saving the Federal Government an enormous amount of money by the State paying at the rate of 50 percent rather than 35 percent, and those funds will go substantially towards meeting these ongoing operation and maintenance costs that the Federal Government will share on a 50-50 basis. The amendment Senator Warner has offered fails to recognize any of these distinct characteristics, the nature of the Federal interest to be protected, the continuing interest of the Federal Government in how its capital investment is implemented, and, finally, the fact that because of a much more generous and forthcoming State share of the construction cost, the Federal Government is saved substantial funds. The Senator from Virginia raised the question that there are other projects. He specifically talked about wastewater projects. There are no wastewater projects in here. There are wastewater reuse projects which are one of the areas being done precisely to protect Federal interests. They are not wastewater systems that are going to be serving a local municipality. They are wastewater systems to purify the water before it goes into the Biscayne Bay National Park and before it goes into the Florida Bay component of the Everglades National Park or before it goes into the National Marine Sanctuary in the Florida Keys. This is not a wastewater treatment system that a municipality would have. These are systems to protect the quality of water in order to protect the quality of the Federal investment. As I said earlier, these are some of the most expensive of the operation and maintenance costs this project will generate. The amendment fails to reflect the fact that this is a marriage, a marriage between the State and Federal Government, and that that marriage is necessary to assure the plan's success, a true union where each partner respects the other and makes a commitment as equals. Everglades restoration won't work unless the executive branch, Congress, and the State government move forward hand in hand. We are about to make one of the most important decisions that this Congress will make. Obviously, it is a project that has enormous personal interest to me because of my personal long association with the Everglades and my deep appreciation of the qualities it represents. But this will be an opportunity for the Congress to commit itself to one of the great ventures in terms of environmental restoration and protection in our Nation's history. It is a project that I suggest Members of Congress will look back upon later in their lives and careers with pride that they were part of this effort. It is a project in which we are asking that there be a long-term commitment with the State of Florida. On the concerns that were expressed about the possibility that additional changes might be called for, or additional costs incurred, I underscore, every one of those costs is going to be shared on a 50-50 basis. So we have a partner in this project who is going to be just as concerned about achieving the result and doing so in the most cost-effective way as we share those concerns. So this is legislation which is truly historic. It is legislation which will lead us down the path toward Everglades restoration--a goal which our Nation has shared for many decades, a goal in which we can play an important role today in seeing that it becomes reality. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit No. 1 1000 Friends of Florida, Audubon of Florida, Center for Marine Conservation, The Everglades Foundation, The Everglades Trust, National Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, September 19, 2000. Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Max Baucus, Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Kimbriel Dean be allowed on the floor for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, these immigrants are long-time employees of small businesses and other businesses in virtually every State. They are workers who do some of the toughest, hardest jobs in America. What affects them affects all of us, especially the businesses and the consumers who rely on their dedication, energy, and commitment to achieving the American dream. I urge all my colleagues to work with us and assure that this vital, long overdue legislation, legislation that is in the best American traditions of fairness and justice, becomes law and becomes law this year. Exhibit 1 EWIC Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Washington, DC, September 8, 2000. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) is a coalition of businesses, trade associations, and other organizations from across the industry spectrum concerned with the shortage of both semi-skilled and unskilled (``essential worker'') labor. While all sectors of the economy have benefited from the extended period of economic growth, one significant impediment to continued growth is the shortage of essential workers. With unemployment rates in some areas approaching zero and despite continuing vigorous and successful welfare- to-work, school-to-work, and other recruitment efforts, some businesses are now finding themselves with no applicants of any kind for numerous job openings. There simply are not enough workers in the U.S. to meet the demand of our strong economy, and we must recognize that foreign workers are part of the answer. Furthermore, in this tight labor market, it can be devastating when a business loses employees because they are found to be in the U.S. illegally. Many of these workers have been in this country for years: paying taxes and building lives. EWIC supports measures that will allow them to remain productive members of our society. We believe there are several steps Congress can take not to help stabilize the current workforce: Update the registry date. As has done in the past, the registry date should be moved forward, this time from 1972 to 1986. This would allow undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S. for many years to remain here permanently. Restore Section 245(i). A provision of immigration law, Section 245(i), allowed eligible people living here to pay a $1,000 fee and adjust their status in this country. Since Section 245(i) was grandfathered in 1998, INS backlogs have skyrocketed, families have been separated, businesses have lost valuable employees, and eligible people must leave the country (often for years) in order to adjust. Pass the Central American and Haitian Adjustment Act. Refugees from certain Central American and Caribbean countries currently are eligible to become permanent residents. However, current law does not help others in similar circumstances. Congress needs to act to ensure that refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras have the same opportunity to become permanent residents. We are also enclosing our reform agenda which includes our number one priority: allowing employers facing worker shortages greater access to the global labor market. EWIC's members employ many immigrants and support immigration reforms that unite families and help stabilize the current U.S. workforce. We look forward to working with you to pass all of these important measures. Sincerely, Essential Worker Immigration Coalition. Essential Worker Immigration Coalition Members American Health Care Association, American Hotel & Motel Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Meat Institute, American Road & Transportation Builders Association, American Nursery & Landscape Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, The Brickman Group, Ltd., Building Service Contractors Association International, Carlson Hotels Worldwide and Radisson, Carlson Hotels Worldwide and TGI Friday's, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Harborside Healthcare Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand. International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, International Mass Retail Association, Manufactured Housing Institute, Nath Companies, National Association for Home Care, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, National Restaurant Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Tooling & Machining Association, National School Transportation Association, Outdoor Amusement Business Association, Resort Recreation & Tourism Management, US Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are debating the motion to proceed to the legislation that would increase the number of visas for aliens who have certain technical skills that are deficient within the United States; that is, the H-1B visa bill. Several of us hope this bill can be expanded in order to deal with other pressing issues of immigration to provide not only for those who are desirous of working in the high- tech industry--the high-tech industry which needs their services--but also that we can redress some of the injustices which have seeped into our immigration law. So I am, today, rising to discuss those elements of unfairness that we hope can be considered under the title of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. The focus of this legislation is, as the title of the act says, fairness. We all learned some fundamental lessons in grammar school. One of those is what is fair and what is not fair. It is fair for a teacher to punish two noisy schoolchildren who have broken the rules in the classroom by keeping both of them inside during the recess period. We may, in our own childhood, have been subjected to that kind of sanction. But if the teacher decides to let one child go out and play but keeps the other in, that wouldn't be fair. In other words, one of the aspects of fairness is treating people who are in the same circumstances in the same way. We are here today trying to achieve that type of fairness because, in 1996, we passed an immigration law that went too far. It violated that rule of treating people in the same circumstances in the same way. It was also unfair because it applied retroactively. People who had played by the rules, who were doing all the things that they thought this society wanted them to do in order to become a part of our society, suddenly found that all those steps were for naught, and they were about to be subjected to deportation. Making laws retroactive is almost always bad public policy. It is changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is what we have done, but this is our opportunity to correct it. A little history: Central American and Haitian immigrants came to the United States, particularly in the 1980s, and were welcomed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. They were fleeing civil wars or violent upheavals in their repressive governments. They followed every rule. Over the past 10 or 15 years, they set down roots. They raised families; they bought homes, started small businesses. Then, with the passage of the 1996 immigration bill, they suddenly became deportable. They could be forced to return to their countries, the very countries they fled. They were being forced to do so based on no actions of their own but, rather, a change in the rules enacted here in Congress. Congress was quick to recognize some of the overreaching of the 1996 immigration law because 1 year later, in 1997, and then 2 years later, in 1998, Congress took steps to correct this injustice for some people--mainly Nicaraguans, Cubans, and some Haitians. In 1997, with bipartisan support, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, often called NACARA. In 1998, with bipartisan support, we passed the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act. In 2000, with the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, we can complete the process and correct injustices for all who face similar circumstances. One part of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, the part that we refer to as ``NACARA Parity,'' would have a tremendous impact on Central American and Haitian nationals. Many of the Central American and Haitian beneficiaries of this legislation reside in my State of Florida. I know them well. They are small business owners; they are educators; they are volunteers. They are raising families who are contributing to our State. These residents are a vibrant and crucial part of our community. Many have made Florida their home for 15 or 20 years or more. It is patently unfair to uproot these families after they have sunk such deep roots into our communities. I had the honor of participating in a hearing held recently in Miami when we originally introduced the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act. At that hearing we heard some stories, stories of adults and children; stories of people like Louisiana Micleese and Nestela Robergeau. It deeply affected the whole audience in attendance at the hearing. I spoke at the hearing and told the story of a Miami resident, Alexandra Charles, who witnessed the brutal killing of her mother by military personnel in Haiti. Alexandra couldn't come to the hearing when I spoke on her behalf because she was working at one of the two jobs she is holding down in order to pay her way through the Miami Dade Community College. This young adult, who had grown up in Florida, was in danger of being deported to what, for her, was, for all intents and purposes, a foreign country. Congress did the right thing and passed legislation to protect her. But we did not protect others. There are other elements of this legislation, the Latino fairness legislation. It is legislation which will update the registry which has not been updated in many years. That is the registry of who is currently in the United States, who has been living here as a law- abiding person and can apply for some legal status in the United States, and also a restoration of the 245(i) program, which is pro- business, pro-family, and common sense. I will not speak at length on those other two provisions in this legislation because I know there are colleagues who will follow me who desire to do so. But I want to make one point that is common to all three components of this legislation: The ``NICARA Parity'' provision, the registry update, and the restoration of the 245(i) program. Many business organizations see this legislation, the three components, not only as humanitarian and fair but one that makes economic sense. I would like to submit for the Record a letter of support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations. I ask unanimous consent a letter dated September 8 of this year from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for the past 3 days I have been discussing the need to reform Medicare and the fundamental reform of shifting Medicare from being a program that focuses on sickness and dealing with disease and the consequences of accidents after they happen, to a health care system that focuses on wellness and maintaining the highest possible quality of life. I pointed out that an essential ingredient of any wellness strategy is prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are a modality in virtually every form of therapy which is designed to reverse disease conditions or to manage those conditions. Yesterday, I talked about the fact that the prescription drug benefit for senior Americans should be provided through the Medicare program. It is the program which the seniors themselves have indicated over and over that they believe in, they trust, they have confidence in, and that they would like it to be the program through which this additional benefit would be added to all the other benefits that are available through Medicare. They would also like prescription drugs to be available through Medicare. In the context of the discussion of our colleague from California, I must point out that while the seniors are saying they want to have a prescription drug benefit administered through Medicare, the Governors of the States are saying they do not want to have the responsibility for administering a prescription drug benefit; it is not our job nor should it be our financial responsibility to be involved in prescription drugs for a group of Americans who have since 1965 been covered by a national program and not a State-by-State program. I would like to talk about the issue of cost and which alternative before us has the best opportunity to serve not only the interests of the 39 million seniors but all Americans in terms of injecting some control over an out-of-control, spiraling increase in the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Let me use as an illustration what has happened to a constituent of mine, Mrs. Elaine Kett. Mrs. Kett is a 77-year-old widow from Vero Beach, FL. She lives on a fixed income of approximately $20,000 a year, which means that her income is above the level that would provide benefits for her under the kind of plan that my Teutonic cousin from Texas has indicated he would support. Like many of my constituents, Mrs. Kett sent me a list of all the prescription drugs that her physician has indicated are medically necessary for her wellness and quality of life. These are the lists of Mrs. Elaine Kett's drugs. As you will see when you add up all the costs of the drugs which she used in 1999, the total cost was $10,053.36. Mrs. Kett has already said her income is $20,000 a year. Fifty cents out of every dollar of Mrs. Kett's income was consumed in paying for the prescription drugs necessary for her life, wellness, and quality. In her letter, Mrs. Kett writes: This is killing me because my income is just a bit more than double the cost of these drugs. Then she adds a postscript. P.S.--Someone said these are the golden years, only the gold is going into someone else's pocket. There are millions of Americans just like Mrs. Kett. Passing a real prescription drug benefit to cover Mrs. Kett and all Medicare beneficiaries should be a priority for this session of the Congress. Today, we will examine one of the key reasons why so many seniors are unable to purchase the medications which their physicians have said are medically necessary. The reason is cost. Prescription drug prices are growing so quickly that seniors and, I would argue, most Americans cannot keep up. In July, Families USA released a report that concluded: The growing reliance on prescription drugs by the elderly and the mounting costs of those drugs is a crisis for America's senior citizens. The elderly already pay a significant portion of prescription drugs expenditures out of their pockets. Today, many seniors are without any prescription drug coverage. The traditional ways in which seniors have been covered for prescription drugs--which have included employers who provided those benefits to their retirees through the Medicaid program if they were medically indigent or through Medigap policies if they could afford the often exorbitant costs, and through HMOs which provided prescription drugs as a benefit--are constricting in terms of who they will cover and what they will cover. So every week, more seniors are placed in the position of either having to cover their entire prescription drug costs or a larger proportion of that cost. Today, almost one out of three seniors lacks any prescription drug coverage. Over 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries lack coverage at some point during any given year. For those fortunate enough to have prescription drug coverage, the coverage is diminishing. Thus, unless seniors are assured of prescription drug coverage through Medicare, many will find that needed medications are unavailable. If it is true that the lack of prescription drug coverage has reached a crisis level for seniors, then why have we not yet enacted a real, affordable, and comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare? The answer, I suspect, includes the fact that the pharmaceutical companies may have erected an effective blockade to the enactment of a prescription drug benefit through Medicare. In fact, the watchdog group, ``Public Citizen,'' reports that drug companies spent $83.6 million in lobbying costs this year alone. I would suspect from looking at the television ads run by the industry that much of those moneys have been spent on lobbying efforts against the passage of a universal, affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit. Why do the pharmaceutical companies cringe at a Medicare prescription drug proposal? It is because they know the power of the marketplace. As long as 39 million senior Americans have to deal, one by one, and as long as almost one-third of those have to deal without any assistance from any other source in the purchase of their prescription drugs, the market will not function. There is no effective purchaser-seller relationship. What we do know is that when there is an effective market, prices can be restrained. We know it through the Veterans' Administration, which is able to purchase the exact same prescription drugs Mrs. Kett has been purchasing, but at substantially lower prices because they are using the power of a large purchaser for the benefit of American veterans. State Medicaid programs know this because they are using the power of their large purchases for the benefit of the million medically indigent within their States. HMOs know the power of the marketplace because they purchase their prescription drugs on a wholesale basis and then share those benefits with HMO beneficiaries. With or without the support of the pharmaceutical companies, we must seek relief for seniors who are the victims of this crisis. The cost of prescription drugs is skyrocketing. We owe it to our seniors to examine the reasons and then to act. In 1999, the prices of the 50 prescription drugs most used by older Americans increased 2 to 3 times the rate of overall inflation. In 1 year, the 50 most used prescription drugs by American seniors increased by 2 to 3 times the rate of overall inflation. The numbers speak for themselves: Lorazepam, used to treat conditions including anxiety, convulsions, and Parkinson's disease, rose by 409 percent, 27 times the rate of inflation, from January 1994 through January 2000. Imdur, a drug used to treat angina, rose eight times the rate of inflation. And Lanoxin, used to treat congestive heart failure, rose at six times the rate of inflation. Not only are the prices of drugs escalating at a rapid pace in the United States, but prices charged to Americans are also flat out incomprehensible. We have all heard that prices of prescription drugs in other countries--including our neighbors, Canada and Mexico--are generally substantially lower than prices in the United States. The heartburn medicine Prilosec, the world's best seller, the largest selling prescription drug, costs $3.30 per pill in the United States. What is the price in Canada? One dollar and forty-seven cents. The allergy drug Claritin costs almost $2 a pill in the United States. What does it cost elsewhere? Forty-one cents in Great Britain and 48 cents in Australia. We are talking about exactly the same drug produced by the same manufacturer. A constituent from Springhill, FL, called my office yesterday demanding to know why drug prices are so much lower in Mexico and Canada than they are in his hometown. I can't answer that question. Frankly, I don't think anyone can answer that question. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have been the top-ranked U.S. industry for profits as a percentage of revenue throughout the past decade. After-tax profits for the pharmaceutical industry average 17 percent of sales. By way of comparison, the average for all industries was 5 percent. The effective tax rate for the pharmaceutical industry is 16 percent. The effective tax rate for all manufacturing companies is 23 percent; 31 percent for wholesale and retail trade, financial services, and insurance and real estate, and an average of 27 percent for all industry. While millions of seniors are sacrificing their last dollar, as is Mrs. Kett, to pay for medication, the pharmaceutical manufacturers are taking in higher profits than any other industry in the United States of America. Money does not take precedence over health. Profits cannot be the top priority when public health is compromised. We have that responsibility as the representative of those Americans to take action. One of the things we ought to do in addition to adding prescription drugs as a part of Medicaid is to assure public access to true drug prices as opposed to the mythic average wholesale price. This would be one step to encourage accountability among drug manufacturers. Rapidly escalating prices and inequitable prices across borders warrant an investigation and consideration of prescription drug costs containment. I submit that by having Medicare as a new force in the marketplace, not through regulation or cost control but by using the principles of Adam Smith in a capitalist society, that with an effective purchaser of drugs for our 39 million seniors, we can see a substantial reduction in the price of pharmaceuticals for them, and all Americans will indirectly benefit. As public servants, we have a fundamental responsibility to protect all of our citizens. We all recognize that millions of seniors in America are struggling to pay for prescription drugs, so it seems clear our goal in the Senate should be to assure that our prescription drug benefit for seniors and people with disabilities is included in Medicare. Our proposal is that Medicare would utilize an intermediary referred to as a ``pharmacy benefit manager.'' There would be two or more of these managers in each region of the country. They would be the ones responsible for negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies and then passing on those benefits to the ultimate senior user. We cannot achieve these kinds of benefits through the fractured plan that relies upon private insurance. We cannot assure these benefits by a plan which is fractured through 50 States. We can only assure to our seniors the benefits of effective control by the marketplace if we place this plan within the Medicare program. I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks and look forward to a further discussion of prescription drug prices that we face in this Nation.

Mr. GRAHAM

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