Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for 15 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Lieberman, Durbin, Landrieu, and Clinton, to introduce the Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001; legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and violence associated with MDMA, a club drug commonly known as Ecstasy. Ecstasy has become the ``feel good'' drug of choice among many of our young people, and drug pushers are marketing it as a ``friendly'' drug to mostly teenagers and young adults. Last year I sponsored and Congress passed legislation which drew attention to the dangers of Ecstasy and strengthened the penalties attached to trafficking in Ecstasy and other ``club drugs.'' Since then, Ecstasy use and trafficking continue to grow at epidemic proportions, and there are many accounts of deaths and permanent damage to the health of those who use Ecstasy. The U.S. Customs Service continues to report large increases in Ecstasy seizures, over 9 million pills were seized by Customs last year, a dramatic rise from the 400,000 seized in 1997. According to the United States Customs Service, in Fiscal Year 2001, two individual seizures affected by Customs Inspectors in Miami, FL totaled approximately 422,000 ecstasy tablets. These two seizures alone exceeded the entire amount of ecstasy seized by the Customs Service in all of Fiscal Year 1997. The Deputy Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, Dr. Donald Vereen, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., recently said that ``Ecstasy is one of the most problematic drugs that has emerged in recent years.'' The National Drug Intelligence Center, in its most recent publication ``Threat Assessment 2001,'' has noted that ``no drug in the Other Dangerous Drugs Category represents a more immediate threat than MDMA'' or Ecstasy. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's Year 2000 Annual Report on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of Ecstasy is on the rise in the United States, particularly among teenagers and young professionals. My State of Florida has been particularly hard hit by this plague, but so have the States of many of my colleagues here. Ecstasy is customarily sold and consumed at ``raves,'' which are semi-clandestine, all-night parties and concerts. Numerous data also reflect the increasing availability of ecstasy in metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In the most recent release of Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-year 2000, which featured MDMA and club drugs, it was reported that the sale and use of club drugs have expanded from raves and nightclubs to high schools, streets, neighborhoods and other open venues. Not only has the use of Ecstasy exploded, more than doubling among 12th graders in the last two years, but it has also spread well beyond its origin as a party drug for affluent white suburban teenagers to virtually every ethnic and class group, and from big cities like New York and Los Angeles to rural Vermont and South Dakota. And now, this year, law enforcement officials say they are seeing another worrisome development, increasingly violent turf wars among Ecstasy dealers, and some of those dealers are our young people. Homicides linked to Ecstasy dealing have occurred in recent months in Norfolk, VA; Elgin, IL, near Chicago; and in Valley Stream, NY. Police suspect Ecstasy in other murders in the suburbs, of Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, and violence is being linked to Israeli drug dealers in Los Angeles and to organized crime in New York City. Ecstasy is also becoming widely available on the Internet. Last year, a man arrested in Orlando, FL, had been selling Ecstasy to customers in New York. The lucrative nature of Ecstasy encourages its importation. Production costs are as low as two to twenty-five cents per dose while retail prices in the U.S. range from twenty dollars to $45 per dose. Manufactured mostly in Europe, in nations such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain where pill presses are not controlled as they are in the U.S., ecstasy has erased all of the old routes law enforcement has mapped out for the smuggling of traditional drugs. And now the trade is being promoted by organized criminal elements, both from abroad and here. Although Israeli and Russian groups dominate MDMA smuggling, the involvement of domestic groups appears to be increasing. Criminal groups based in Chicago, Phoenix, Texas, and Florida have reportedly secured their own sources of supply in Europe. Young Americans are being lulled into a belief that ecstasy, and other designer drugs are ``safe'' ways to get high, escape reality, and enhance intimacy in personal relationships. The drug traffickers make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth. I want to be perfectly clear in stating that ecstasy is an extremely dangerous drug. In my State alone, between July and December of last year, there were 25 deaths in which MDMA or a variant were listed as a cause of death, and there were another 25 deaths where MDMA was present in the toxicology, although not actually listed as the cause of death. This drug is a definite killer. The ``Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001'' renews and enhances our commitment toward fighting the proliferation and trafficking of Ecstasy and other club drugs. It builds on last year's Ecstasy Anti- Proliferation Act of 2000 and provides legislation to assist the Federal and local organizations that are fighting to stop this potentially life-threatening drug. This legislation will allot funding for programs that will educate law enforcement officials and young people and will assist community-based anti-drug efforts. To that end, this bill amends Section 506B(c) of title V of the Public Health Service Act, by adding that priority of funding should be given to communities that have taken measures to combat club drug trafficking and use, to include passing ordinances and increasing law enforcement on Ecstasy. The bill also provides money for the National Institute on Drug Abuse to conduct research and evaluate the effects that MDMA or Ecstasy has on an individual's health. And, because there is a fear that the lack of current drug tests ability to screen for Ecstasy may encourage Ecstasy use over other drugs, the bill directs ONDCP to commission a test for Ecstasy that meets the standards of and can be used in the Federal Workplace. Through this campaign, our hope is that Ecstasy will soon go the way of crack, which saw a dramatic reduction in the quantities present on our streets after information of its unpredictable impurities and side effects were made known to a wide audience. By using this educational effort we hope to avoid future deaths and ruined lives. The Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2000 can only help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. Customs is working hard to stem the flow of Ecstasy into our country. As legislators we have a responsibility to stop the proliferation of this potentially life threatening drug. The Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001 will assist the Federal and local agencies charged to fight drug abuse by raising the public profile on the substance-abuse challenge posed by the increasing availability and use of Ecstasy and by focusing on the serious danger it presents to our youth. We urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Lieberman, Durbin, Landrieu, and Clinton, to introduce the Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001; legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and violence associated with MDMA, a club drug commonly known as Ecstasy. Ecstasy has become the ``feel good'' drug of choice among many of our young people, and drug pushers are marketing it as a ``friendly'' drug to mostly teenagers and young adults. Last year I sponsored and Congress passed legislation which drew attention to the dangers of Ecstasy and strengthened the penalties attached to trafficking in Ecstasy and other ``club drugs.'' Since then, Ecstasy use and trafficking continue to grow at epidemic proportions, and there are many accounts of deaths and permanent damage to the health of those who use Ecstasy. The U.S. Customs Service continues to report large increases in Ecstasy seizures, over 9 million pills were seized by Customs last year, a dramatic rise from the 400,000 seized in 1997. According to the United States Customs Service, in Fiscal Year 2001, two individual seizures affected by Customs Inspectors in Miami, FL totaled approximately 422,000 ecstasy tablets. These two seizures alone exceeded the entire amount of ecstasy seized by the Customs Service in all of Fiscal Year 1997. The Deputy Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, Dr. Donald Vereen, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., recently said that ``Ecstasy is one of the most problematic drugs that has emerged in recent years.'' The National Drug Intelligence Center, in its most recent publication ``Threat Assessment 2001,'' has noted that ``no drug in the Other Dangerous Drugs Category represents a more immediate threat than MDMA'' or Ecstasy. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's Year 2000 Annual Report on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of Ecstasy is on the rise in the United States, particularly among teenagers and young professionals. My State of Florida has been particularly hard hit by this plague, but so have the States of many of my colleagues here. Ecstasy is customarily sold and consumed at ``raves,'' which are semi-clandestine, all-night parties and concerts. Numerous data also reflect the increasing availability of ecstasy in metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In the most recent release of Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-year 2000, which featured MDMA and club drugs, it was reported that the sale and use of club drugs have expanded from raves and nightclubs to high schools, streets, neighborhoods and other open venues. Not only has the use of Ecstasy exploded, more than doubling among 12th graders in the last two years, but it has also spread well beyond its origin as a party drug for affluent white suburban teenagers to virtually every ethnic and class group, and from big cities like New York and Los Angeles to rural Vermont and South Dakota. And now, this year, law enforcement officials say they are seeing another worrisome development, increasingly violent turf wars among Ecstasy dealers, and some of those dealers are our young people. Homicides linked to Ecstasy dealing have occurred in recent months in Norfolk, VA; Elgin, IL, near Chicago; and in Valley Stream, NY. Police suspect Ecstasy in other murders in the suburbs, of Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, and violence is being linked to Israeli drug dealers in Los Angeles and to organized crime in New York City. Ecstasy is also becoming widely available on the Internet. Last year, a man arrested in Orlando, FL, had been selling Ecstasy to customers in New York. The lucrative nature of Ecstasy encourages its importation. Production costs are as low as two to twenty-five cents per dose while retail prices in the U.S. range from twenty dollars to $45 per dose. Manufactured mostly in Europe, in nations such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain where pill presses are not controlled as they are in the U.S., ecstasy has erased all of the old routes law enforcement has mapped out for the smuggling of traditional drugs. And now the trade is being promoted by organized criminal elements, both from abroad and here. Although Israeli and Russian groups dominate MDMA smuggling, the involvement of domestic groups appears to be increasing. Criminal groups based in Chicago, Phoenix, Texas, and Florida have reportedly secured their own sources of supply in Europe. Young Americans are being lulled into a belief that ecstasy, and other designer drugs are ``safe'' ways to get high, escape reality, and enhance intimacy in personal relationships. The drug traffickers make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth. I want to be perfectly clear in stating that ecstasy is an extremely dangerous drug. In my State alone, between July and December of last year, there were 25 deaths in which MDMA or a variant were listed as a cause of death, and there were another 25 deaths where MDMA was present in the toxicology, although not actually listed as the cause of death. This drug is a definite killer. The ``Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001'' renews and enhances our commitment toward fighting the proliferation and trafficking of Ecstasy and other club drugs. It builds on last year's Ecstasy Anti- Proliferation Act of 2000 and provides legislation to assist the Federal and local organizations that are fighting to stop this potentially life-threatening drug. This legislation will allot funding for programs that will educate law enforcement officials and young people and will assist community-based anti-drug efforts. To that end, this bill amends Section 506B(c) of title V of the Public Health Service Act, by adding that priority of funding should be given to communities that have taken measures to combat club drug trafficking and use, to include passing ordinances and increasing law enforcement on Ecstasy. The bill also provides money for the National Institute on Drug Abuse to conduct research and evaluate the effects that MDMA or Ecstasy has on an individual's health. And, because there is a fear that the lack of current drug tests ability to screen for Ecstasy may encourage Ecstasy use over other drugs, the bill directs ONDCP to commission a test for Ecstasy that meets the standards of and can be used in the Federal Workplace. Through this campaign, our hope is that Ecstasy will soon go the way of crack, which saw a dramatic reduction in the quantities present on our streets after information of its unpredictable impurities and side effects were made known to a wide audience. By using this educational effort we hope to avoid future deaths and ruined lives. The Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2000 can only help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. Customs is working hard to stem the flow of Ecstasy into our country. As legislators we have a responsibility to stop the proliferation of this potentially life threatening drug. The Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001 will assist the Federal and local agencies charged to fight drug abuse by raising the public profile on the substance-abuse challenge posed by the increasing availability and use of Ecstasy and by focusing on the serious danger it presents to our youth. We urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at a time in my personal life when I am feeling the pain of the loss of a family member, I reflect upon the 1 year which has passed since the loss of a member of our Senate family, Paul Coverdell. As frequently happens in politics, I first met Paul as an adversary. A good friend of mine, who came to the Senate at the same time I did in 1986, Senator Wyche Fowler, had become embroiled in an unusual runoff election in the fall of 1992. Georgia had a provision, which I understand has subsequently been revised, that unless a candidate received an absolute majority in the general election in November, then there was a runoff between the two highest candidates. Senator Fowler had narrowly failed to get the majority vote and was in a runoff with Paul Coverdell. A number of colleagues went to Georgia to help Senator Fowler in his campaign. It was in those circumstances that I first met Paul. There has always been somewhat of a special tension between Georgia and Florida, going back at least to the Revolutionary War, where Florida remained loyal to George III and provided troops to fight against the rebels from Georgia who were supporting the new revolutionary government that was to become the United States of America. More recently, in the 1930s, the then-Governor of Georgia came to Jacksonville to give a speech about how good things were in Georgia in the middle of the Depression. At the end of the speech, one of the Jacksonville members of the audience asked Governor Talmadge: If things are going so well in Georgia, why is it that so many Georgians are moving to Florida? To which the Governor's response was: We like it; every time it happens, it raises the IQ level of both States. So that describes the nature of the special relationship between our States, which continues now with the close friendships that exist between Senator Nelson and myself and Senator Cleland and our newest colleague, Senator Zell Miller, as it did with Senator Coverdell. I came to know Paul as a friend in his too short Senate career. In every sense of the word, Paul Coverdell was a gentleman. He was a man who had strong personal views and a wide array of characteristics to put those views into effect. But he always did so with a graciousness and a politeness and a respect for others. Paul Coverdell was a man who cared about using Government as a means to improve the lives of the people that he represented and the people of the United States of America. As has been previously indicated, education was his passion. I personally had the opportunity to work with Senator Coverdell on a number of education issues, including how to make higher education more affordable, by providing a means through which families could begin to prepare to finance the cost of college, and to provide school districts with a wider array of means by which they could finance school construction. Those are examples of the creativity that Paul brought to his senatorial service. Paul Coverdell was a strong Republican. As indicated, he came to the Georgia Legislature when they were few in number. He helped build the Republican Party in that State. But he always operated with a clear understanding of the importance that if you were to build sustaining public support for your idea, it would emerge from the roots of bipartisanship. So he reached out across the aisle to explain, advocate, and bring to his causes Members of both political parties. Paul Coverdell has been and will be missed but he leaves a proud legacy, a legacy added to today with the naming of a portion of the Internal Revenue Code, for which he was particularly responsible, in his honor, as well as the naming of the Peace Corps offices in his honor. These are appropriate recognition of a proud and distinguished public career, which we, on the 1-year anniversary of his being taken from us, recognize and honor. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, as we offer this amendment to help assure that America will have a policy of energy that is also a policy for our economic future and for the protection of important environmental treasures. Let us clearly understand what the amendment we offer will do. It will provide for a short, 6-month delay, in the leasing of property in the area that is known as lease sale 181. This short delay, 6 months from the time the bill is enacted, will allow time to make some important decisions before we are committed to an option that may not be in the best interests of our Nation. This is also an issue, while it is today in the context of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the exact same issues which I will speak about are relevant to other areas of the country which share a similar concern, whether or not it is on the Atlantic coast. I heard this weekend of concerns off the northeast coast regarding a proposal for drilling in areas that have been very significant parts of the American tradition and history of commercial fishing for hundreds of years. We know our friends who live in the area of the Great Lakes are concerned about proposals for drilling in Lake Huron and Lake Superior--again, areas that have in the past been off limits for drilling. California is another area that has expressed concern about the proposals for drilling under the rules as they currently exist. While this may be characterized as a Gulf of Mexico issue, or even more specifically a Florida issue, it raises important implications for the Nation. Let me discuss two of those issues which I believe justify the 6-month delay we are requesting through this amendment. First, the current laws that govern Outer Continental Shelf drilling in my judgment are imbalanced. They do not give proper consideration to other factors in addition to energy production, factors such as economic and environmental needs. We are all aware that America has needs for increased energy production. We are not insensitive to that. But we also are not myopic, that that is the only issue America needs to take in the balance in making these judgments. We believe balanced legislation on Outer Continental Shelf drilling would include the other factors that might be affected by that drilling. Let me give, as an example, what is happening today as a result of our law. A number of years ago, leases were granted in these areas that are within 40 miles of the coast of Florida. Those are depicted on this map in the light pink and blue. The blue area is what is called Destin Dome. It is an area that is approximately 35 miles south of Pensacola. That lease has been outstanding for a number of years but was dormant. Then a few years ago the owner of that lease, the Chevron Oil Company, made an application for a drilling permit, to start production on that property. What was discovered was that basic environmental analysis, which in my judgment should have preceded the lease being granted in the first place, had not been done and it was deferred until the drilling permit was requested. As an example of those basic studies, one of them is the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act is administered in a joint program between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the various coastal States affected. The result of that analysis of the Coastal Zone Management Act was a determination by the State of Florida that it was a violation of the act and of the management plan, which had been approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce, to drill on this Destin Dome. That has now precipitated a series of litigation and administrative actions which have drawn this process out for many years. In my judgment, the lesson of Destin Dome is let's do the environmental surveys before we grant the lease, before we create the expectations that a lease carries with it, before people apply for the permit to drill, so we have satisfied ourselves on environmental, economic, and the other considerations that this is a property which will be appropriate to drill should a lease be granted. One of the things we could do, during this 6 months of deferral, would be to do an analysis of our current law to see if it is appropriately representing the wide range of interests that should be considered. We know we are going to be doing a major energy bill sometime in the next few months. Our Republican leader has indicated he thinks that will be on the Senate floor sometime this fall. I know the chairman of the Energy Committee is driving a schedule that would have it considered in committee this month. So we are not talking about long delays. We are talking about legislation that is viable at this moment and would be the appropriate means by which to raise these issues as to whether our current laws are adequate to represent the range of interests. The second point I would make, that in my opinion justifies the 6- months delay which the House of Representatives has voted by an overwhelming margin, is the very fact of these existing leases outstanding. If we were looking at a map, not a current map but a map as recent as the early 1990s, we would also have seen lots of these little pink squares in this area adjacent to the Florida Keys. What happened there was that there was great concern about the potential adverse effects on one of the most fragile environmental areas in the world, the Florida Keys and their adjacent coral reefs. The President, George Herbert Walker Bush, announced that in his judgment that danger should be eliminated by the Federal Government reacquiring those leases in the vicinity of the Florida Keys. Over a period of less than 10 years, an aggressive program of reacquisition of those leases has, in fact, eliminated those leases. I believe today we should be entering into negotiation during the administration of George W. Bush to do the same thing in the northern Gulf of Mexico, to eliminate those inappropriate leases that have been granted in years past, that now threaten the beaches of the Panhandle of Florida. Again, the 6-months delay would give us the opportunity, would give us the time to undertake exactly that type of analysis. This idea is an idea which has been long under consideration. When some of the initial proposals were being made for lease site 181, our former colleague and then Governor of Florida, the now deceased Governor Lawton Chiles, wrote a letter, on October 28, 1996, to the Director of the Minerals Management Service about lease site 181. In that letter, Governor Chiles made this statement: A remaining concern, however, is the potential for development of the existing leases in the eastern gulf. I am still quite concerned about the dangers the State's pristine coastline faces from production activities on these leases offshore Northwest Florida. Governor Chiles was talking about this cluster of leases in the Florida Panhandle section of the north Gulf of Mexico. While the final program represents a tremendous victory for Florida, I know the victory will not be complete until there are no existing leases off our coast. This letter is now almost 5 years old and no progress has yet been made towards achieving that goal of eliminating those leases off the coast of Florida. This 6-month period should be a time in which we start the serious negotiations with the current administration of President Bush that proved to be so effective in the administration of his father in eliminating a similar cluster of oil and gas leases in the area of the Florida Keys. This is not 6 months which would be frittered away. This is 6 months in which we can reexamine the fundamental law that currently governs the leasing of Outer Continental Shelf lands for oil and gas production, to assure that appropriate environmental studies are done before the leases are granted, not after the leases are granted, precipitating the kind of contentious litigation and administrative procedures we have been dealing with as it relates to Destin Dome. It would also give us 6 months in which we could commence the serious negotiations with the current administration, as was the case in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the administration of the previous President leading to the elimination of the oil and gas leases in the southern Gulf of Mexico. I believe our request is fair; that it is reasonable; that it has a specific purpose to be accomplished by the brief delay. It is the same amendment that the House of Representatives has already adopted by an overwhelming margin. It is one which I commend to my colleagues in the Senate, not only as it relates to the specific very fragile environmental area of our Nation but also for the precedent that was set in terms of establishing appropriate laws for the future and a reexamination of possibly ill-considered decisions in the past, such as granting these leases in appropriate areas which would be beneficial to all Americans. I urge adoption of the amendment. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleagues to introduce the Medicare Reform Act of 2001. Today we are in the midst of a major health-care debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. This crucial bill should be the beginning, not end, of reform in the health care system. Now we need to take this momentum and turn to Medicare reform. Reform is not a word to be tossed around lightly. When we bat around the term Medicare reform, this is what we need to be talking about, ideas that go to the very heart of the existing Medicare program and reform it. The Medicare Reform Act offers such ideas. It keeps what is best about Medicare intact. Under this bill the program will remain, as it has always been, reliable and affordable. But the Medicare Reform Act also does just what it says. It reforms the program to reflect new realities both scientific and economic, that the program's creators could not possibly have planned for in 1965. One of these realities is that prescription drugs are a crucial part of any modern health care regime. In fact it is unthinkable that prescription drugs would be excluded if Medicare were created today. The Medicare Reform Act offers a benefit that, like the existing Medicare program, is both affordable and available for all seniors, regardless of income. The benefit also harnesses the power of today's competitive health care marketplace to keep costs down and offer seniors choices. Perhaps most importantly, the benefit offered by the Medicare Reform Act has no gaps, no caps and no gimmicks. This is our line-in-the-sand. Other plans being discussed have major gaps. Let's look at one: the bill the House Republicans passed last year offers seniors a benefit of a scant $1,050-a year. Once they hit that cap, coverage stops. It picks up again only if the beneficiary spends $6,000 a year. Imagine this scenario: An 85-year-old woman pays her monthly prescription drug premium. For the first 6 months of the year, she goes to the drugstore each month to pick up her cholesterol medication and pays $25. But then she comes to the 7th month, and has hit her benefit cap. Now she has to pay $50 for the same prescription. She's still paying her premium, but she's getting no benefit. Under this benefit, Medicare says ``Sorry. Can't help. Come see me if you have a catastrophe.'' I call plans like this donuts, substance around the edges, giant hole in the middle. I also call them pointless. Who needs insurance you can't be sure of? No caps, no gaps, no gimmicks. That is set in stone. What is not set is stone is the exact level of the coinsurance or deductible. We're going to be listening to seniors as we move toward a markup, and if we hear they would prefer a lower premium in exchange for higher cost- sharing, we can turn those dials, as long as it's within the parameter of $300 billion. In structure, the Medicare Reform Act represents a true compromise. It takes the best ideas of all engaged in this issue. One school of thought has been that the private sector is best equipped to offer an affordable prescription drug benefit. We agree, up to a point. We do not believe that private insurers should assume all of the risk for this benefit. We do not believe this because private insurers have told us they want no part of this type of system. And we know that we can pass all the laws we want, but we can't make private companies take on Medicare patients. Rather than foreign the private sector to attempt to do something they do not want to do, we take advantage of the fact that we already have an efficient, workable mechanism in place. That mechanism is the pharmacy benefit manager of PBM. These businesses operate successfully today in every ZIP code of the country. They are in a perfect position to manage the Medicare prescription drug benefit--and to offer seniors a choice. The Medicare Reform Act would allow multiple PBMs in each geographic region to administer, manage and deliver the prescription drug benefit. They would be allowed to use all of the methods they use currently in the private sector to provide benefits economically, including the use of formularies, preferred pharmacy networks, and generic drug substitution. Additionally, PBMs would be allowed to use mechanisms to encourage beneficiaries to select cost-effective drugs, including the use of disease management and therapeutic interchange programs. Beneficiareis in every part of the country would have access to coverage provided by PBMs that would not assume full insurance risk for drug costs. In this way, adverse selection and inappropriate incentives would be avoided. However, to ensure that PBMs pursue and are held accountable for high quality beneficiary services, improved health outcomes, and managing costs, we require PBMs to put a substantial portion of their management fees at risk for their performance. Performance goals would include price discounts and generic substitution rates, timely action with regard to appeals, sustained pharmacy network access and notifications to avoid adverse drug reactions. Although all PBMs would be required to offer the standard benefit at a minimum, payments received on the basis of their performance could be used to reduce beneficiary cost-sharing or to waive the deductible for generic drugs. Requiring PBMs to share risk provides a middle ground between proposals that have included no risk being assumed by the private sector, and proposals that have required the assumption of insurance and selection risk for the cost of drugs. This arrangement would bring us the benefits of private sector competition without the instabilities that would be associated with a full risk-bearing model. It would take advantage of the fact that the private sector has provided an efficient, workable, stable system for the delivery of prescription drugs, and the management of drug costs, and would allow beneficiaries to choose between multiple vendors. Prescription drugs are not all that is missing from Medicare. We live in a world of near miracles. We can stop disease in its track. We can keep a health problem from becoming a health crisis. We can make the lives our seniors better. We can make their bodies stronger. We have the technology. It's time to let our seniors have it as well. The ``Medicare Reform Act'' would shift the focus of Medicare from simply treating illness to promoting wellness. Several proven-effective preventive benefits, like cholesterol screening and smoking cessation counseling, would be added to package. These benefits could save lives. We also provide a new process for changes to the preventive benefit package. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have sat through hours-long discussions on coverage of screening for colorectal cancer. I've heard debated the relative benefits of barium x-rays v. colonscopies in minute details. I'm not qualified to make these decisions. A new ``fast-track'' process would move members of Congress out of the picture of making decisions about the clinical and scientific merits of different benefits, and move the doctors and scientists in. The Medicare Reform Act is not just about adding benefits. It's also about changing the way we do business. We've looked to the private sector for lessons on how to run the fee- for-service program. We allow Medicare to use the same competitive tools insurance companies have in place to control costs. This will save the Medicare program money, in contrast to some other competition proposals. We've looked to the private sector and learned that to serve seniors and providers better, we need to make an investment in the program, and provide additional administrative funds. Our bill gives the agency responsible for these programs the money to truly serve their clients, our seniors. We've turned again to the medical and scientific experts. We've taken the decision about what Medicare should and shouldn't cover out of the hands of bureaucrats and given it to independent medical, clinical and scientific experts who have the skills to assess new technologies and procedures. We also need to prepare for the future. The Medicare program is in the best shape it has been in over a quarter century. But, the baby- boomers are going to be joining the program soon. We need to begin to fortify the program now, so that we are ready for them. Our bill takes modest steps in that direction by indexing the Part B deductible to inflation, and providing the Part B premium subsidy on a sliding scale basis. While I think we need to spend the lion's share of our efforts on reforming the part of the program with the lion's share of the beneficiaries, we also need to take a close look at the Medicare+Choice program. There are several different proposals on the table to replace the current payment system with one based on competitive bidding, and we face a lot of questions regarding which of the proposals would work best. In 1997, Senators Breaux and Mack proposed a Medicare Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project; the Project was included in the Balanced Budget Act. The purpose of the demonstration project was to test a new method of paying plans based on a competitive market approach. It has not yet been implemented. This demonstration project is exactly what we need to learn how to design and implement a competitive system. It is not sound to undertake a wholesale restructuring of the Medicare+Choice system without knowing what would, and would not, work. The ``Medicare Reform Act of 2001'' would lay the groundwork for a sound, workable, competitive system by moving forward with the Demonstration project in the state of Florida. Taken together these disparate pieces represent real reform. Before the recess, I hope we will have passed legislation to protect basic rights of managed-care patients. Then we need to pick up that ball and run with it. The time is now. The money is there. The plan exists. Our seniors are waiting.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleagues to introduce the Medicare Reform Act of 2001. Today we are in the midst of a major health-care debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. This crucial bill should be the beginning, not end, of reform in the health care system. Now we need to take this momentum and turn to Medicare reform. Reform is not a word to be tossed around lightly. When we bat around the term Medicare reform, this is what we need to be talking about, ideas that go to the very heart of the existing Medicare program and reform it. The Medicare Reform Act offers such ideas. It keeps what is best about Medicare intact. Under this bill the program will remain, as it has always been, reliable and affordable. But the Medicare Reform Act also does just what it says. It reforms the program to reflect new realities both scientific and economic, that the program's creators could not possibly have planned for in 1965. One of these realities is that prescription drugs are a crucial part of any modern health care regime. In fact it is unthinkable that prescription drugs would be excluded if Medicare were created today. The Medicare Reform Act offers a benefit that, like the existing Medicare program, is both affordable and available for all seniors, regardless of income. The benefit also harnesses the power of today's competitive health care marketplace to keep costs down and offer seniors choices. Perhaps most importantly, the benefit offered by the Medicare Reform Act has no gaps, no caps and no gimmicks. This is our line-in-the-sand. Other plans being discussed have major gaps. Let's look at one: the bill the House Republicans passed last year offers seniors a benefit of a scant $1,050-a year. Once they hit that cap, coverage stops. It picks up again only if the beneficiary spends $6,000 a year. Imagine this scenario: An 85-year-old woman pays her monthly prescription drug premium. For the first 6 months of the year, she goes to the drugstore each month to pick up her cholesterol medication and pays $25. But then she comes to the 7th month, and has hit her benefit cap. Now she has to pay $50 for the same prescription. She's still paying her premium, but she's getting no benefit. Under this benefit, Medicare says ``Sorry. Can't help. Come see me if you have a catastrophe.'' I call plans like this donuts, substance around the edges, giant hole in the middle. I also call them pointless. Who needs insurance you can't be sure of? No caps, no gaps, no gimmicks. That is set in stone. What is not set is stone is the exact level of the coinsurance or deductible. We're going to be listening to seniors as we move toward a markup, and if we hear they would prefer a lower premium in exchange for higher cost- sharing, we can turn those dials, as long as it's within the parameter of $300 billion. In structure, the Medicare Reform Act represents a true compromise. It takes the best ideas of all engaged in this issue. One school of thought has been that the private sector is best equipped to offer an affordable prescription drug benefit. We agree, up to a point. We do not believe that private insurers should assume all of the risk for this benefit. We do not believe this because private insurers have told us they want no part of this type of system. And we know that we can pass all the laws we want, but we can't make private companies take on Medicare patients. Rather than foreign the private sector to attempt to do something they do not want to do, we take advantage of the fact that we already have an efficient, workable mechanism in place. That mechanism is the pharmacy benefit manager of PBM. These businesses operate successfully today in every ZIP code of the country. They are in a perfect position to manage the Medicare prescription drug benefit--and to offer seniors a choice. The Medicare Reform Act would allow multiple PBMs in each geographic region to administer, manage and deliver the prescription drug benefit. They would be allowed to use all of the methods they use currently in the private sector to provide benefits economically, including the use of formularies, preferred pharmacy networks, and generic drug substitution. Additionally, PBMs would be allowed to use mechanisms to encourage beneficiaries to select cost-effective drugs, including the use of disease management and therapeutic interchange programs. Beneficiareis in every part of the country would have access to coverage provided by PBMs that would not assume full insurance risk for drug costs. In this way, adverse selection and inappropriate incentives would be avoided. However, to ensure that PBMs pursue and are held accountable for high quality beneficiary services, improved health outcomes, and managing costs, we require PBMs to put a substantial portion of their management fees at risk for their performance. Performance goals would include price discounts and generic substitution rates, timely action with regard to appeals, sustained pharmacy network access and notifications to avoid adverse drug reactions. Although all PBMs would be required to offer the standard benefit at a minimum, payments received on the basis of their performance could be used to reduce beneficiary cost-sharing or to waive the deductible for generic drugs. Requiring PBMs to share risk provides a middle ground between proposals that have included no risk being assumed by the private sector, and proposals that have required the assumption of insurance and selection risk for the cost of drugs. This arrangement would bring us the benefits of private sector competition without the instabilities that would be associated with a full risk-bearing model. It would take advantage of the fact that the private sector has provided an efficient, workable, stable system for the delivery of prescription drugs, and the management of drug costs, and would allow beneficiaries to choose between multiple vendors. Prescription drugs are not all that is missing from Medicare. We live in a world of near miracles. We can stop disease in its track. We can keep a health problem from becoming a health crisis. We can make the lives our seniors better. We can make their bodies stronger. We have the technology. It's time to let our seniors have it as well. The ``Medicare Reform Act'' would shift the focus of Medicare from simply treating illness to promoting wellness. Several proven-effective preventive benefits, like cholesterol screening and smoking cessation counseling, would be added to package. These benefits could save lives. We also provide a new process for changes to the preventive benefit package. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have sat through hours-long discussions on coverage of screening for colorectal cancer. I've heard debated the relative benefits of barium x-rays v. colonscopies in minute details. I'm not qualified to make these decisions. A new ``fast-track'' process would move members of Congress out of the picture of making decisions about the clinical and scientific merits of different benefits, and move the doctors and scientists in. The Medicare Reform Act is not just about adding benefits. It's also about changing the way we do business. We've looked to the private sector for lessons on how to run the fee- for-service program. We allow Medicare to use the same competitive tools insurance companies have in place to control costs. This will save the Medicare program money, in contrast to some other competition proposals. We've looked to the private sector and learned that to serve seniors and providers better, we need to make an investment in the program, and provide additional administrative funds. Our bill gives the agency responsible for these programs the money to truly serve their clients, our seniors. We've turned again to the medical and scientific experts. We've taken the decision about what Medicare should and shouldn't cover out of the hands of bureaucrats and given it to independent medical, clinical and scientific experts who have the skills to assess new technologies and procedures. We also need to prepare for the future. The Medicare program is in the best shape it has been in over a quarter century. But, the baby- boomers are going to be joining the program soon. We need to begin to fortify the program now, so that we are ready for them. Our bill takes modest steps in that direction by indexing the Part B deductible to inflation, and providing the Part B premium subsidy on a sliding scale basis. While I think we need to spend the lion's share of our efforts on reforming the part of the program with the lion's share of the beneficiaries, we also need to take a close look at the Medicare+Choice program. There are several different proposals on the table to replace the current payment system with one based on competitive bidding, and we face a lot of questions regarding which of the proposals would work best. In 1997, Senators Breaux and Mack proposed a Medicare Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project; the Project was included in the Balanced Budget Act. The purpose of the demonstration project was to test a new method of paying plans based on a competitive market approach. It has not yet been implemented. This demonstration project is exactly what we need to learn how to design and implement a competitive system. It is not sound to undertake a wholesale restructuring of the Medicare+Choice system without knowing what would, and would not, work. The ``Medicare Reform Act of 2001'' would lay the groundwork for a sound, workable, competitive system by moving forward with the Demonstration project in the state of Florida. Taken together these disparate pieces represent real reform. Before the recess, I hope we will have passed legislation to protect basic rights of managed-care patients. Then we need to pick up that ball and run with it. The time is now. The money is there. The plan exists. Our seniors are waiting.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and our cosponsors to introduce the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. We have stepped forward because we believe that international trade is essential to increase opportunities for U.S. producers, to support U.S. jobs, and to provide economic opportunities for trading partners who need development. Last month the Administration release its 2001 International Trade Agenda, which outlined the President's principles for renewed trade promotion authority, TPA. At the same time, I was working with a group of pro-trade Democrats to identify our key priorities. What we discovered is that our two sets of principles had much in common. Over the last few weeks, Senator Murkowski and I have worked together to translate those two sets of principles into legislative language. The trade debate has been virtually deadlocked for years, with voices from the ``end zones'' taking center-stage. In our view, this bill represents the basic architecture of a bipartisan bill on what we believe is the ``50 yard line.'' We also look forward to the contribution that others will make before this bill is signed into law. The fact that we introduced this bill with bipartisan support is particularly significant because this is not just a set of ideas that happened to be popular with both Democrats and Republicans. This bill took real compromise on both sides. For my part, my contributions to this bill were based on the trade principles developed by New Democrats led by Cal Dooley in the House and several of my colleagues in the Senate. The New Democrat trade principles we released in May are fully incorporated into this bill. What we introduce today is not a trade agreement. Trade promotion authority is an authorization to the President to begin negotiations. Details of a trade bill will be developed through the process established by the grant of TPA. At the end of that process, Congress will review the result of those negotiations and grant approval or disapproval to the result. Trade promotion authority puts the will of Congress behind our trade negotiator, but it cannot and should not mandate a specific result from negotiations. We must leave it to our negotiators to reach the most favorable agreement they can. A trade promotion authority bill is a way for Congress to communicate its negotiating priorities. Some of the priorities we put forward in this bill include: negotiating objectives on labor and environment that receive the same priority as commercial negotiating objectives; a new negotiating objective on information technologies to reduce trade barriers on high technology products, enhance and facilitate barriers- free e-commerce, and provide the same rights and protections for the electronic delivery of products as are offered to products delivered physically; adoption of measures in trade agreements to ensure proper implementation, full compliance and appropriate enforcement mechanisms that are timely and transparent; and a stronger process for continuous Congressional involvement in the process before, during, and at the close of negotiations so that the will of Congress is fully expressed in the final agreement. I have been concerned by the views expressed by some Members that it may be better to delay consideration of TPA until next year. This would be a ``major league'' mistake. There is a real price to be paid for delay. One hundred years ago the U.S. took an isolationist position with respect to our economic relations with Latin America. The result of this was that the Nations of Latin America adopted European technical standards. This has been a handicap to the U.S. economic position in Latin America ever since. We now are in danger of repeating this mistake. The best way to avoid doing so is to negotiate and enter trade agreement with nations so that American standards become the norm and American businesses and workers can benefit. Nothing is likely to occur in the next 12 to 24 months that will make reaching a consensus on trade promotion authority more likely. In fact just the opposite is true. The best way to move forward is to put TPA in perspective. It seems the debate on this issue moves quickly to being a referendum on whether trade and globalization are good or bad. That, frankly, is not the question. We can't walk away from globalization and we can't shut the door to international commerce. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. What we can do is try to shape these economic forces and define a trade agenda that addresses our priorities. The real question is, ``can the United States have more influence in the trade arena with TPA or without it.'' I am convinced that we will give the President a stronger negotiating position, and get the country a better result, if we pass a grant of trade promotion authority as soon as possible. That is not to say that I advocate giving the President a blank check to cash as he pleases. It also does not mean that I believe in a ``free trade utopia'' either. I recognize there will be issues with our trading partners and that everyone doesn't always play by the rules. The way to address concerns with our trading partners is at the negotiating table. That makes it all the more important for us to have a strong negotiating position, and TPA is central to that. We encourage others to contribute specific suggestions to enhance the bill's ability to contribute to its principle objective of opening markets to U.S. goods, creating new and better jobs for Americans, and allowing the world to benefit from U.S. goods and services. Only 4 percent of the world's consumers live in the United States. If we want to sell our agriculture products, manufactured goods, and world-class services to the rest of the 96 percent around the world, we have to do it through trade. Trade promotion authority is the best way for the President to negotiate trade agreements that will open markets and improve standards of living at home and abroad.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and our cosponsors to introduce the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. We have stepped forward because we believe that international trade is essential to increase opportunities for U.S. producers, to support U.S. jobs, and to provide economic opportunities for trading partners who need development. Last month the Administration release its 2001 International Trade Agenda, which outlined the President's principles for renewed trade promotion authority, TPA. At the same time, I was working with a group of pro-trade Democrats to identify our key priorities. What we discovered is that our two sets of principles had much in common. Over the last few weeks, Senator Murkowski and I have worked together to translate those two sets of principles into legislative language. The trade debate has been virtually deadlocked for years, with voices from the ``end zones'' taking center-stage. In our view, this bill represents the basic architecture of a bipartisan bill on what we believe is the ``50 yard line.'' We also look forward to the contribution that others will make before this bill is signed into law. The fact that we introduced this bill with bipartisan support is particularly significant because this is not just a set of ideas that happened to be popular with both Democrats and Republicans. This bill took real compromise on both sides. For my part, my contributions to this bill were based on the trade principles developed by New Democrats led by Cal Dooley in the House and several of my colleagues in the Senate. The New Democrat trade principles we released in May are fully incorporated into this bill. What we introduce today is not a trade agreement. Trade promotion authority is an authorization to the President to begin negotiations. Details of a trade bill will be developed through the process established by the grant of TPA. At the end of that process, Congress will review the result of those negotiations and grant approval or disapproval to the result. Trade promotion authority puts the will of Congress behind our trade negotiator, but it cannot and should not mandate a specific result from negotiations. We must leave it to our negotiators to reach the most favorable agreement they can. A trade promotion authority bill is a way for Congress to communicate its negotiating priorities. Some of the priorities we put forward in this bill include: negotiating objectives on labor and environment that receive the same priority as commercial negotiating objectives; a new negotiating objective on information technologies to reduce trade barriers on high technology products, enhance and facilitate barriers- free e-commerce, and provide the same rights and protections for the electronic delivery of products as are offered to products delivered physically; adoption of measures in trade agreements to ensure proper implementation, full compliance and appropriate enforcement mechanisms that are timely and transparent; and a stronger process for continuous Congressional involvement in the process before, during, and at the close of negotiations so that the will of Congress is fully expressed in the final agreement. I have been concerned by the views expressed by some Members that it may be better to delay consideration of TPA until next year. This would be a ``major league'' mistake. There is a real price to be paid for delay. One hundred years ago the U.S. took an isolationist position with respect to our economic relations with Latin America. The result of this was that the Nations of Latin America adopted European technical standards. This has been a handicap to the U.S. economic position in Latin America ever since. We now are in danger of repeating this mistake. The best way to avoid doing so is to negotiate and enter trade agreement with nations so that American standards become the norm and American businesses and workers can benefit. Nothing is likely to occur in the next 12 to 24 months that will make reaching a consensus on trade promotion authority more likely. In fact just the opposite is true. The best way to move forward is to put TPA in perspective. It seems the debate on this issue moves quickly to being a referendum on whether trade and globalization are good or bad. That, frankly, is not the question. We can't walk away from globalization and we can't shut the door to international commerce. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. What we can do is try to shape these economic forces and define a trade agenda that addresses our priorities. The real question is, ``can the United States have more influence in the trade arena with TPA or without it.'' I am convinced that we will give the President a stronger negotiating position, and get the country a better result, if we pass a grant of trade promotion authority as soon as possible. That is not to say that I advocate giving the President a blank check to cash as he pleases. It also does not mean that I believe in a ``free trade utopia'' either. I recognize there will be issues with our trading partners and that everyone doesn't always play by the rules. The way to address concerns with our trading partners is at the negotiating table. That makes it all the more important for us to have a strong negotiating position, and TPA is central to that. We encourage others to contribute specific suggestions to enhance the bill's ability to contribute to its principle objective of opening markets to U.S. goods, creating new and better jobs for Americans, and allowing the world to benefit from U.S. goods and services. Only 4 percent of the world's consumers live in the United States. If we want to sell our agriculture products, manufactured goods, and world-class services to the rest of the 96 percent around the world, we have to do it through trade. Trade promotion authority is the best way for the President to negotiate trade agreements that will open markets and improve standards of living at home and abroad.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I commemorate World Refugee Day, a day designated for our country to celebrate the multiple contributions that immigrants have made to make America a richer, more perfect union. It is tragic that while immigrants continue to make the fabric of our Nation stronger, many immigrants continue to be barred from vital safety net services including access to health care. For the past several years there has been heated discussion regarding the number of uninsured in America. There are uninsured children in every State, county and community in America. States have sought to address this issue through programs such as Medicaid and the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Through these Federal-State programs, States have been able to insure millions of eligible children. There has been recent success in providing coverage for those families and children who have gone without health insurance. We were pleased by the new census date on the number of uninsured in America. The data shows that the number of Americans without health insurance fell from 44.3 million to 42.6 million in 1999. This is the first decline since 1987. And this is good news. In the last Presidential campaign, Vice President Gore and then- Governor Bush focused on the critical importance of insuring our nation's children and families. Today Congress is struggling with how best to cover the nations uninsured. The national press is writing article after article regarding outreach and enrollment of children in to the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program. These are laudable discussions, but there is a critical element that was missing in Presidential rhetoric, congressional deliberations and the media's stories. This ``missing piece'' is the regrettable fact that the current federal policy, denies public health insurance to legal immigrant children and pregnant women. While we are seeing declines in the overall level of uninsured in America, the fact is that the proportion of immigrant children who are uninsured remains extremely high. A report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, shows that in the last year, nearly half of low- income immigrant children in America had no health insurance coverage. Additionally, the percentage of low-income immigrant children in publicly-funded coverage--which was low even before enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law--has fallen substantially, Providing Medicaid and CHIP to legal immigrant children is critical in order to guarantee a healthy generation of children in America. We all know that if we are lucky enough to have health insurance, regular health care services, particularly preventive care, is critical for maintaining good health. Children who need these services should receive them, regardless of how long they have lived in this country. Pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status, want to make sure that their unborn children are growing and healthy. A child who is sick just wants to feel better. She does not understand that laws or her immigration status could prevent her from seeing a doctor. Legal immigrant children, regardless of their date of entry, should have the opportunity to be treated and cared for by a doctor. Access to early medical attention can often mean the difference between curing a minor illness and dealing with a serious, potentially life threatening, medical emergency. No parent in America should have to stand by and watch their child suffer unnecessarily through an illness. Five years is too long to wait. Moreover, all children should be able to see a pediatrician when they are well--to prevent problems before they start. For example, immunizations in the first few years of life are critical to keep children protected from terrible diseases and to protect those around them. And for pregnant women, prenatal care helps to ensure that their newborns will be born healthy, without the worries and costs that come with a sick or premature baby. Giving States the option to provide health insurance coverage to newly arrived legal immigrant children would help states in their efforts to enroll more low income children. States could simplify their child application and enrollment procedures by dispensing with complex immigrant eligibility determinations. In addition, outreach messages could be simplified, making it easier for community groups such as schools and churches to help enroll legal immigrant children. I believe that providing Medicaid and CHIP to legal immigrant children is critical in order to guarantee a healthy generation of children in America. To this end, I, along with my Senate and House colleagues, have introduced the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, 582 and H.R. 1143, to give States the option to provide health care coverage through Medicaid and CHIP. Legal immigrant children who came to this country after August 22, 1996 are no different than those who arrived before that date or kids who were born on American soil. Our children go to school together, study together and play together. On this World Refugee Day, I call upon the Congress and the President to work in earnest to eliminate the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996 as a cutoff date for allowing children to get health care. Let us treat the hard working people in our nation, regardless of their immigration status, with fairness and dignity.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, two of the concepts that I am pleased to have included in this legislation are the principles of ``diagnosis'' and ``partnership.'' I would like to thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg for their assistance in including this amendment in this legislation. I am also very happy to be joined by my colleague George Allen of Virginia as the lead Republican sponsor of this amendment. I can put a human face on this. I have done several workdays in schools facing this situation in throughout Florida. These workday experiences taught me that when students struggle to meet performance standards, there is not one uniform cause of failure. Because of that, there cannot be one uniform remedy to turn a school around. School ``A'' may need a revised curriculum, or better qualified teachers. While school ``B'', whose students are scoring at the exact same level as school ``A'' may need English-language tutors and eyesight screening for poor children who may not have had a vision test in their lives. Perhaps the single most important action a school or a school district, can take at the first sign that students are struggling is a thorough analysis of circumstances and conditions that are impacting student achievement. It's my belief that this analysis should not only encompass factors that are within the school walls, but outside the school walls, in the community, as well. Before we start applying remedies to a struggling school from a menu of options--let's take the first step and understand what the specific challenges this particular school faces are. It's common sense. I use an analogy of a physician: she must first diagnose the specific ailment, then she can prescribe the proper treatment. It's important that this same ``diagnosis'' step be included in each and every State education plan in America. This leads to part two: Encouraging partnerships. In the course of identifying the particular challenges facing a struggling public school, what happens if one or more of the factors impacting student performance are outside the school? What if one of the reasons that third graders are struggling to read is a very high percentage of adult illiteracy in the school district? What if one of the reasons 8th graders are failing at math turns out to be a high absenteeism rate because of safety concerns on the walk to school? Such a finding needs be made public--and the school, county, State and Federal Government, along with community-based groups, should be encouraged to creatively build appropriate partnerships. These partnerships can then get to work and try to mitigate outside- the-school concerns. My wife Adele brought to my attention a school in North Florida, Andrew Robinson Elementary in Jacksonville. Principal Erdine Johnson, of Andrew Robinson Elementary school, realized that many of her students could not do their best in the classroom because of a wide range of health concerns. Instead of just declaring that ``this was a `health' not an `education' issue'' the North Florida community sprung into action, and we have a success story today. In 1995, the University of Florida worked with Andrew Robinson to open a pediatric health center on-site. This pediatric center at Andrew Robinson offers services to the elementary school students, and provides health outreach to the community. The staff members at the Center are a vital link between a child's home environment and their ability to learn in the classroom. The Center works with parents on nutrition and wellness issues, and provides preventative screenings for the children. Children living in healthy environments are more ready to learn, and that has meant better test scores, and better lives. This is an example of what our amendment encourages--if a problem outside the schools is identified--we encourage creative community partnerships to help solve it. Several organizations have joined Senator Allen and me in support of our amendment. I would like to include for the Record a letter of support from Daniel Merenda, the President and CEO of the National Association of Partners in Education. He says, ``Many of the problems facing our students are not because of the schools. These problems are created by circumstances and conditions found beyond the school.'' Once the information is made public about specific concerns outside the school walls, Mr. Merenda predicts the creation of new partnerships and the strengthening of existing partnerships. I agree with his assessment. I also have a letter of support from the education organization Communities in Schools, headquartered in Senator Allen's state of Virginia. And the Points Of Light Foundation also endorses this amendment in a letter I would like to submit for the Record. I want to again thank Senator Allen for working with me on this issue, and offer thanks to my colleagues for accepting this amendment by voice vote.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize an outstanding Floridian, Mr. Herbert Saffir. Herb Saffir graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1940 with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. He served in the Army during World War II and worked as an engineer with federal agencies and private-sector firms in New York, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia before moving to South Florida in 1947. For the next 12 years he was an assistant county engineer for Miami-Dade County. In 1959, he started his own structural engineering firm, Herbert Saffir Consulting Engineers, in Coral Gables, FL. Herb Saffir is considered one of the foremost experts on engineering buildings to resist damage by high winds. His expertise was so integral in the formulating of the building codes in South Florida that he is known as the ``father of the Miami building code.'' Although this is a great achievement, Herb Saffir's accolades go even further. In 1972, Robert Simpson, former Director of the National Hurricane Center had difficulty describing to emergency management and disaster officials what kind of damage to expect from approaching hurricanes. It was determined that a scale was needed to give disaster officials an idea of what to expect from a storm. Herb Saffir was enlisted to work with Simpson on this project. Together they created the Saffir-Simpson Damage Potential Scale, which established the five categories of hurricane severity. The Saffir-Simpson Scale is still used today and is a vital tool to assess the possible destruction associated with an approaching hurricane. When Hurricane Andrew tore through Florida in August 1992, weather forecasters relayed information on the powerful storm to concerned citizens using the ratings system. But, Herb Saffir was not satisfied to just lend his name to the efforts to mitigate damage from Hurricane Andrew. He also lent a hand. Using his vast engineering knowledge and experience, Mr. Saffir was integral in the rebuilding of South Florida. He was recognized for his efforts with the Florida Engineering Society's Engineer of the Year Award in 1994. Mr. Saffir work continues to be recognized today. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently recognized Mr. Saffir for his research and development of wind-damage analysis on structures, and for the creation of the Saffir-Simpson Scale now used extensively by emergency management organizations as far away as Australia. In fact, the National Hurricane Center described Mr. Saffir as ``a national treasure.'' Herb Saffir is a remarkable American and a credit to the State of Florida. It brings me great joy to recognize his accomplishments today.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club once said, ``Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.'' As our society becomes increasingly removed from the natural world, this prescient statement rings ever more true. Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the opportunities that our national parks provide for us to reconnect with the magnificent natural heritage of our country. The number of visits to national parks is soaring, as is use of their diverse resources. While this is good news in many ways, it has created a peculiar problem. We are loving our parks to death. Today, I am joined by my colleague Senator Akaka to introduce the National Parks Stewardship Act of 2001. This legislation endeavors to address some of the most serious problems facing the national parks system today. First, the National Parks Stewardship Act ensures that activities in parks and on Federal lands adjacent to parks are compatible with the conservation and preservation of natural, cultural, and historical resources. This legislation also requires the proper preservation of historic documents, records, and artifacts, including resources in marine environments which may require specialized skills for their maintenance. The National Parks Stewardship Act also helps the Park Service plan for the future by studying visitation and demographic patterns and preparing for an increasingly diverse and growing population. Second, this legislation provides innovative financing tools to help fund operations and maintenance and to address the current maintenance backlog. Specifically, the National Parks Stewardship Act proposes a non-appropriated funds instrumentalities program and challenge cost share projects. In addition, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program would be permanently established with the requirement that certain percentages of the revenues generated remain available to the park at which they were collected. A system of signs would also be established to let park visitors know how recreation fees are spent and which projects have been completed as a result of this program. Finally, the National Parks Stewardship Act establishes a pilot program called Professionals for Parks. This program would enable the Park Service to recruit prospective employees who have completed graduate-level administration and business management programs. Furthermore, this legislation creates a student loan payment program to entice quality employees to bring their expertise to the Park Service. I believe that the Park Service and our national parks are beginning a new era. Visits to and enjoyment of our parks will continue to increase, and we must enable the Park Service to keep pace with this trend. We must encourage sound management of our parks and the vast natural and cultural resources they safeguard. We must also encourage opportunities for new ways to fund increasing operations and maintenance costs. Finally, we must encourage our national parks to represent a growing and increasingly diverse population. The National Stewardship Act starts us along that path.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am happy to support Senator Lieberman, Bayh, DeWine, and Landrieu's targeting amendment today. This initiative symbolizes what the New Democrats stand for. Targeting ESEA money to the children most in need has long been one of our top priorities. It is commonly assumed that title I is already targeted to poor children. In reality, 85 percent of all title I funds are allocated according to the basic grant formula that does not take concentration of poverty into account. The remaining 15 percent, which last year was $1.2 billion, was distributed amongst two-thirds of our Nation's schoolchildren. Under this plan, districts with 15 percent poverty received the same proportional benefit as districts with 90 percent poverty. That's why, the last time we reauthorized ESEA, we created the targeted grants formula. It was an effort to direct the scarce resources to the areas of highest poverty. We had good intentions, but bad follow-through. The targeted grants formula has never been funded. I know that changing a funding formula is a detailed and complicated endeavor--whether it is transportation dollars, the Older Americans Act, or title I. But we must make the difficult decisions--and in essence, get more for our dollars. The more we are able to concentrate our resources in areas most in need, the more we can close the achievement gap in our Nation. This amendment should be even less complicated than I have described above, because we do not seek to change the formula, we only ask that we follow the formula that we established in law. Some of the debate during this reauthorization has been about the role of the Federal Government in K-12 education. What should the Federal Government be doing in this area that is so predominately in the jurisdiction of State and local governments. My view is that the federal role is to level the playing field in our nation of such diversity. Every child should have an equal chance to have a solid public school foundation on which to build their life. The Federal Government-- although only supplying about 7 percent of the funding for K-12 education, should direct that money to those students most in need. Title I was created for the purpose of doing just that. This amendment, and the leadership of Senators Landrieu and Lieberman, get us closer to that level playing field. I am proud to join Senator DeWine and others, in supporting one of the Senate New Democrats' top priorities.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club once said, ``Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.'' As our society becomes increasingly removed from the natural world, this prescient statement rings ever more true. Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the opportunities that our national parks provide for us to reconnect with the magnificent natural heritage of our country. The number of visits to national parks is soaring, as is use of their diverse resources. While this is good news in many ways, it has created a peculiar problem. We are loving our parks to death. Today, I am joined by my colleague Senator Akaka to introduce the National Parks Stewardship Act of 2001. This legislation endeavors to address some of the most serious problems facing the national parks system today. First, the National Parks Stewardship Act ensures that activities in parks and on Federal lands adjacent to parks are compatible with the conservation and preservation of natural, cultural, and historical resources. This legislation also requires the proper preservation of historic documents, records, and artifacts, including resources in marine environments which may require specialized skills for their maintenance. The National Parks Stewardship Act also helps the Park Service plan for the future by studying visitation and demographic patterns and preparing for an increasingly diverse and growing population. Second, this legislation provides innovative financing tools to help fund operations and maintenance and to address the current maintenance backlog. Specifically, the National Parks Stewardship Act proposes a non-appropriated funds instrumentalities program and challenge cost share projects. In addition, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program would be permanently established with the requirement that certain percentages of the revenues generated remain available to the park at which they were collected. A system of signs would also be established to let park visitors know how recreation fees are spent and which projects have been completed as a result of this program. Finally, the National Parks Stewardship Act establishes a pilot program called Professionals for Parks. This program would enable the Park Service to recruit prospective employees who have completed graduate-level administration and business management programs. Furthermore, this legislation creates a student loan payment program to entice quality employees to bring their expertise to the Park Service. I believe that the Park Service and our national parks are beginning a new era. Visits to and enjoyment of our parks will continue to increase, and we must enable the Park Service to keep pace with this trend. We must encourage sound management of our parks and the vast natural and cultural resources they safeguard. We must also encourage opportunities for new ways to fund increasing operations and maintenance costs. Finally, we must encourage our national parks to represent a growing and increasingly diverse population. The National Stewardship Act starts us along that path.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Lugar, Bingaman, Chafee, Murray, Hollings, Rockefeller, Levin, Lincoln, and Corzine, to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act. For too long, the Medicare approach to health care has been wholly reactive. Benefits are designed to treat illness and disability once a recipient is already suffering. This approach is outdated. It is time for Medicare to become pro-active. It is time to focus on helping people to prevent disease in the first place so that they may live not just longer, but more fulfilling lives. The Medicare Wellness Act shifts the focus of Medicare, changing it from a program that simply treats illness to one that promotes wellness. For this reason, The Medicare Wellness Act has support from a broad range of groups, including the National Council on Aging, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Heart Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Currently, 70 percent of medical spending is the result of preventable illnesses, many of which occur in older adults. It does not have to be this way. Research shows that declines in health are not inevitable with age. In fact, many chronic diseases can be prevented by making lifestyle changes such as taking up an exercise program or quitting smoking. A healthier lifestyle adopted at any time during one's lifetime can increase active life expectancy and decrease disease and disability. The Medicare Wellness Act helps promote preventive health care among older Americans, first by adding to the list of Medicare benefits several services that we know to be effective in preventing disease. These benefits focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries, including: Screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, medical nutrition therapy services for cardiovascular patients, counseling for post-menopausal women, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded screening for osteoporosis, and screening for cholesterol. The addition of these new benefits represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recognized as the gold standard within the prevention community, and the Institute of Medicine. The benefits can help reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, cancer, osteoporosis, and heart disease. Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be led by an interagency group within the Department of Health and Human Services, which will look at existing preventive benefits and offer suggestions to make their use more widespread. This point is critical. The fact is that there are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer screening. But those services are seriously underutilized. A study published by Dartmouth University, The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999, found that only 28 percent of women age 65- 69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing figures. Additionally, the Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive applied research effort to investigate new methods of improving the health of Medicare beneficiaries and the management of chronic diseases. Further, our bill would establish a health education and risk appraisal program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression. This program will target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare beneficiaries and will strive to increase awareness among individuals of major risk factors that impact health, to change personal health habits, to improve health status, and ultimately to save the Medicare program money. In addition to new research on prevention among Medicare beneficiaries, the Medicare Wellness Act would require several reports to assess the overall scientific validity of the Medicare preventive benefits package. First, our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every three years on whether the Medicare program needs to change over time in order to ensure that Medicare benefits are appropriate for the population being served and is as comprehensive as private insurance plans offered. Currently, there is no regular assessment to ensure that Medicare is providing a healthcare package that is up-to-date with either the current needs of seniors or current scientific findings. Quite frankly, Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest of the health care world, we need to do better. A second study that our bill would require is one in which the institute of Medicine, IOM, would assess, every three years, the scientific validity of the entire Medicare preventive benefits package. The study will be presented to Congress in a manner that mirrors The Trade Act of 1974. The Institute of Medicine's recommendations would be presented to Congress in legislative form. Congress would then have 60 days to either accept or reject the recommendations. But Congress could not change the recommendations themselves. This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program allowing science to dictate the medical needs of seniors in America. In the aggregate, the Medicare Wellness Act represents the most comprehensive legislative proposal in the 107th Congress for the Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for beneficiaries. It represents sound health policy based on sound science. However, at a time when there is concern over the solvency of Medicare and concern that it won't be able to provide future seniors with the health care that they are promised, one may question whether it is wise to expand upon benefits already offered. And one is wise to do so. However, the issue of prevention is different. Benjamin Franklin was truly on the mark when he first said that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''. Offering preventive care under Medicare, or the ``ounce of prevention,'' will definitely cost the government money up front. However, this initial outlay of dollars will be returned in terms of costs saved in the long run by avoiding long-term, cost intensive treatments, or the ``pound of cure''. And, just as important, although unmeasurable, will be the enhanced quality of life for seniors. Prevention helps us all to live more healthy lives in the long run which translates into more productive and fulfilling lives as well. Today, many people continue to work beyond the age of 65 contributing to the workforce and the economy. However, they are only able to do so if their health allows. When considering the future of Medicare, the question really comes down to this. Is the value of improved quality of life for seniors and their ability to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives worth the expenditure? While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to our children and grandchildren. I encourage my colleagues to join us on this important bill and to work with us to ensure that the provisions of the bill are reflected in any Medicare reform legislation that is debated and voted on this year in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Lugar, Bingaman, Chafee, Murray, Hollings, Rockefeller, Levin, Lincoln, and Corzine, to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act. For too long, the Medicare approach to health care has been wholly reactive. Benefits are designed to treat illness and disability once a recipient is already suffering. This approach is outdated. It is time for Medicare to become pro-active. It is time to focus on helping people to prevent disease in the first place so that they may live not just longer, but more fulfilling lives. The Medicare Wellness Act shifts the focus of Medicare, changing it from a program that simply treats illness to one that promotes wellness. For this reason, The Medicare Wellness Act has support from a broad range of groups, including the National Council on Aging, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Heart Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Currently, 70 percent of medical spending is the result of preventable illnesses, many of which occur in older adults. It does not have to be this way. Research shows that declines in health are not inevitable with age. In fact, many chronic diseases can be prevented by making lifestyle changes such as taking up an exercise program or quitting smoking. A healthier lifestyle adopted at any time during one's lifetime can increase active life expectancy and decrease disease and disability. The Medicare Wellness Act helps promote preventive health care among older Americans, first by adding to the list of Medicare benefits several services that we know to be effective in preventing disease. These benefits focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries, including: Screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, medical nutrition therapy services for cardiovascular patients, counseling for post-menopausal women, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded screening for osteoporosis, and screening for cholesterol. The addition of these new benefits represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recognized as the gold standard within the prevention community, and the Institute of Medicine. The benefits can help reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, cancer, osteoporosis, and heart disease. Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be led by an interagency group within the Department of Health and Human Services, which will look at existing preventive benefits and offer suggestions to make their use more widespread. This point is critical. The fact is that there are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer screening. But those services are seriously underutilized. A study published by Dartmouth University, The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999, found that only 28 percent of women age 65- 69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing figures. Additionally, the Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive applied research effort to investigate new methods of improving the health of Medicare beneficiaries and the management of chronic diseases. Further, our bill would establish a health education and risk appraisal program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression. This program will target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare beneficiaries and will strive to increase awareness among individuals of major risk factors that impact health, to change personal health habits, to improve health status, and ultimately to save the Medicare program money. In addition to new research on prevention among Medicare beneficiaries, the Medicare Wellness Act would require several reports to assess the overall scientific validity of the Medicare preventive benefits package. First, our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every three years on whether the Medicare program needs to change over time in order to ensure that Medicare benefits are appropriate for the population being served and is as comprehensive as private insurance plans offered. Currently, there is no regular assessment to ensure that Medicare is providing a healthcare package that is up-to-date with either the current needs of seniors or current scientific findings. Quite frankly, Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest of the health care world, we need to do better. A second study that our bill would require is one in which the institute of Medicine, IOM, would assess, every three years, the scientific validity of the entire Medicare preventive benefits package. The study will be presented to Congress in a manner that mirrors The Trade Act of 1974. The Institute of Medicine's recommendations would be presented to Congress in legislative form. Congress would then have 60 days to either accept or reject the recommendations. But Congress could not change the recommendations themselves. This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program allowing science to dictate the medical needs of seniors in America. In the aggregate, the Medicare Wellness Act represents the most comprehensive legislative proposal in the 107th Congress for the Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for beneficiaries. It represents sound health policy based on sound science. However, at a time when there is concern over the solvency of Medicare and concern that it won't be able to provide future seniors with the health care that they are promised, one may question whether it is wise to expand upon benefits already offered. And one is wise to do so. However, the issue of prevention is different. Benjamin Franklin was truly on the mark when he first said that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''. Offering preventive care under Medicare, or the ``ounce of prevention,'' will definitely cost the government money up front. However, this initial outlay of dollars will be returned in terms of costs saved in the long run by avoiding long-term, cost intensive treatments, or the ``pound of cure''. And, just as important, although unmeasurable, will be the enhanced quality of life for seniors. Prevention helps us all to live more healthy lives in the long run which translates into more productive and fulfilling lives as well. Today, many people continue to work beyond the age of 65 contributing to the workforce and the economy. However, they are only able to do so if their health allows. When considering the future of Medicare, the question really comes down to this. Is the value of improved quality of life for seniors and their ability to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives worth the expenditure? While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to our children and grandchildren. I encourage my colleagues to join us on this important bill and to work with us to ensure that the provisions of the bill are reflected in any Medicare reform legislation that is debated and voted on this year in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Durbin, Inouye, Kerry, Leahy, Akaka, and Wellstone to introduce the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act of 2001. This legislation brings balance back to the legal system. It rights some of the wrongs of the 1996 immigration law. It restores fairness and justice to everyone in our country. As it stands today, the immigration laws violate those core American principles. The original aim of the 1996 immigration bill was to control illegal immigration. In practice, the law hurts legal permanent residents and others who entered, or wanted to enter, the United States legally. The 1996 laws, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, IIRAIRA, and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, AEDPA, mandated deportation of legal aliens for relatively insignificant crimes. For the most part, these are crimes for which they have already served their punishment. They have restricted access to legal counsel and virtually no recourse in the courts. This violates the tradition of our country. It also violates the essence of our legal system. Our constitution demands that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This fundamental right applies to all persons, regardless of their paperwork or where they were born. Our legal system should be about granting people their day at court, to provide a second chance, to keep the rules of the game fair. When we think about fairness, or lack of fairness, we should think about personal stories. John Gaul, formerly from Tampa, FL, has been punished twice for his mistakes. John was adopted from Thailand by his U.S. citizen parents when he was 4 years old. As a teenager, he was convicted of car theft and credit card fraud, two nonviolent offenses for which he served 20 months in jail. John does not remember Thailand. He does not speak Thai, nor does he know of relatives there. None of that mattered. John was deported to Thailand and may never be allowed to return to his parents in the United States. Was it fair to threaten Carolina Murry of Neptune Beach with deportation for voting, even though she never knew she was not a U.S. citizen? Carolina's father told her that she had become a U.S. citizen shortly after she moved with him from the Dominican Republic at the age of 3. Only in 1998, when she applied for a passport, did she learn that in fact she was not. In the process of becoming a citizen, INS officials asked her if she ever voted in a U.S. election. She replied she had, because she takes her civic duties seriously. As a consequence, INS not only denied her application but also told her that she faced criminal prosecution and deportation for voting illegally. Only after the case caught media attention and raised a lot of public protest did the charges get dropped. Would it be fair to separate Aarti Shahani, a U.S. citizen, from her father, a legal permanent resident in the United States since 1984? Her father, a small businessman, is facing deportation to India. As early as next week he will be transferred to INS detention following a State sentence relating to his failure to report taxable business earnings. Aarti has taken a leave from the University of Chicago to help support her family. She and her two U.S. citizen siblings continue to fight for their father's right to stay in the United States. They are fighting to keep the family together. Earlier this month, President Bush urged Congress to establish immigration laws that recognize the importance of families and that help to strengthen them. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act does exactly that. Right now, our immigration laws tear families apart. The laws are harsh and offer no chance for review or appeal. I strongly believe that criminals should be punished. They should repay their debt to society by incarcertaion, monetary restitution or other sanctions. But I also believe that everyone deserves a chance at a fresh start after the debts are paid. No one should be punished twice. The 1996 law went too far. It is time to eliminate retroactivity. It is time to restore a system that punishes legal residents in proportion to their crimes. It is time to restore discretion so immigration judges can evaluate cases individually and grant relief to those deserving. It is time to ensure legal residents are not needlessly jailed or imprisoned. We need legislation that lives up to our nation's legacy as a country of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act to grant everyone equal protection under the law.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Durbin, Inouye, Kerry, Leahy, Akaka, and Wellstone to introduce the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act of 2001. This legislation brings balance back to the legal system. It rights some of the wrongs of the 1996 immigration law. It restores fairness and justice to everyone in our country. As it stands today, the immigration laws violate those core American principles. The original aim of the 1996 immigration bill was to control illegal immigration. In practice, the law hurts legal permanent residents and others who entered, or wanted to enter, the United States legally. The 1996 laws, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, IIRAIRA, and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, AEDPA, mandated deportation of legal aliens for relatively insignificant crimes. For the most part, these are crimes for which they have already served their punishment. They have restricted access to legal counsel and virtually no recourse in the courts. This violates the tradition of our country. It also violates the essence of our legal system. Our constitution demands that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This fundamental right applies to all persons, regardless of their paperwork or where they were born. Our legal system should be about granting people their day at court, to provide a second chance, to keep the rules of the game fair. When we think about fairness, or lack of fairness, we should think about personal stories. John Gaul, formerly from Tampa, FL, has been punished twice for his mistakes. John was adopted from Thailand by his U.S. citizen parents when he was 4 years old. As a teenager, he was convicted of car theft and credit card fraud, two nonviolent offenses for which he served 20 months in jail. John does not remember Thailand. He does not speak Thai, nor does he know of relatives there. None of that mattered. John was deported to Thailand and may never be allowed to return to his parents in the United States. Was it fair to threaten Carolina Murry of Neptune Beach with deportation for voting, even though she never knew she was not a U.S. citizen? Carolina's father told her that she had become a U.S. citizen shortly after she moved with him from the Dominican Republic at the age of 3. Only in 1998, when she applied for a passport, did she learn that in fact she was not. In the process of becoming a citizen, INS officials asked her if she ever voted in a U.S. election. She replied she had, because she takes her civic duties seriously. As a consequence, INS not only denied her application but also told her that she faced criminal prosecution and deportation for voting illegally. Only after the case caught media attention and raised a lot of public protest did the charges get dropped. Would it be fair to separate Aarti Shahani, a U.S. citizen, from her father, a legal permanent resident in the United States since 1984? Her father, a small businessman, is facing deportation to India. As early as next week he will be transferred to INS detention following a State sentence relating to his failure to report taxable business earnings. Aarti has taken a leave from the University of Chicago to help support her family. She and her two U.S. citizen siblings continue to fight for their father's right to stay in the United States. They are fighting to keep the family together. Earlier this month, President Bush urged Congress to establish immigration laws that recognize the importance of families and that help to strengthen them. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act does exactly that. Right now, our immigration laws tear families apart. The laws are harsh and offer no chance for review or appeal. I strongly believe that criminals should be punished. They should repay their debt to society by incarcertaion, monetary restitution or other sanctions. But I also believe that everyone deserves a chance at a fresh start after the debts are paid. No one should be punished twice. The 1996 law went too far. It is time to eliminate retroactivity. It is time to restore a system that punishes legal residents in proportion to their crimes. It is time to restore discretion so immigration judges can evaluate cases individually and grant relief to those deserving. It is time to ensure legal residents are not needlessly jailed or imprisoned. We need legislation that lives up to our nation's legacy as a country of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act to grant everyone equal protection under the law.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, am I correct the second-degree amendment has failed?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I raise the point of order that the pending second-degree amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. GRAHAM. By virtue of the waiver of the point of order not having received 60 votes, is that correct?