Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Just 1 minute.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am reserving my right to object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I express my great admiration for what Senator Sarbanes has done in presenting to America such a meaningful piece of legislation to deal with one of the great scandals that has occurred in the history of our free enterprise system, and taking a step toward restoring the confidence of the public in the investment community. But as Senator Dorgan, I have an idea which, in fact, in one instance, is parallel to Senator Dorgan's; that is, I believe we need to be very clear that we are applying the same standards to corporations that have their corporate headquarters inside the United States as we do to corporations that take advantage of our capital markets and have chosen to locate or relocate their headquarters outside of the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will conclude my comments in short order.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, there are enough incentives to do that already in the Tax Code and otherwise. We should not be creating additional incentives for companies to run from their responsibilities within the United States. My specific----

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator. I want to bring to your attention an article from the Washington Post today. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I look forward to an opportunity to continue to outline the circumstances under which Olga would be disadvantaged if the plan being considered in the House today were to improvidently be adopted.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I commend my two colleagues for their eloquent statements. I commend the Presiding Officer for his great leadership on this effort to pass a prescription drug benefit this year. The most fundamental reform for our Nation's Medicare Program is its transformation from a program that has focused, since 1965, on dealing with people's needs after they were sick enough to go to the doctor or the hospital and to create a modern commitment to good health. Access to medications is an absolutely central part of that commitment to good health. Access to medications not only helps people live longer, happier, healthier lives, but it also will help Medicare save money. These truths are particularly important to the most vulnerable of our elderly, those who are too well off to qualify for Medicaid, the program for poor Americans, but are too poor to afford their medically necessary prescription drugs. There are approximately 10 million older Americans living on an annual income of $13,000 or less per year. Of that 10 million, 5.5 million have no prescription drug coverage because they do not qualify for Medicaid. These Americans face the tough choices of deciding whether they can afford their prescription drugs. One example of this is Mrs. Olga Butler of a beautiful community in central Florida, Avon Park. Mrs. Butler receives a monthly Social Security check of $672, which makes her barely over the income limit for Medicaid coverage. This means that the 67-year-old Olga has to pay for her own medications, sometimes having to make the choice among food, rent, and her prescriptions. Olga is on Lipitor and clonidine for her hypertension and high cholesterol. She pays $95 per month for Lipitor and $22 per month for clonidine. These prescription drugs not only improve the quality of Olga's life, but they are helpful in warding off a possible stroke or heart attack, for which she is at great risk. In addition to the personal devastation of having a stroke or a heart attack, these would cause significant additional costs to the Medicare Program. An average hospitalization for a typical stroke patient costs Medicare $7,127.59. Physicians' time, tests, and consultations will add, on average, another $1,600 cost to Medicare. This is an avoidable event. If Olga can continue to take her medications, chances are she will not have a stroke, she will not have a heart attack, and, if she is fortunate, she will not need further hospitalizations, nursing facility care, and rehabilitation services. This, of course, is expensive, but it is also avoidable. You might ask, why are you discussing this issue of the poor, but above Medicaid eligibility, elderly? Don't both competing prescription drug plans that have been offered for Medicare offer similar benefits to Olga Butler? The answer is, not quite. Under the House Republican plan, which I understand may be debated today and where I know there are considerable misgivings among Members on both sides of the aisle, maybe one of the reasons for those misgivings is the fact that, before Olga can receive any help with her drug costs, she must pass an assets test. An assets test? For the first time in the history of Medicare--for the first time since 1965--we are about to impose an assets test in order for a low- income Medicare beneficiary to be eligible for prescription drug assistance. What does this mean to Olga Butler? It means she must deplete her life's savings to less than $4,000, sell off her furniture and personal property that is worth more than $2,000, get rid of her burial fund if it exceeds $1,500, and sell her car, if it has a value of more than $4,500--all of these in order to qualify for low income assistance under the inadequate Republican proposal. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to complete my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 2652 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with for purposes of an introductory statement of approximately 5 minutes. At the conclusion, it is my intention to place the Senate back into quorum call.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when the Spanish explorers surveyed Florida in the early 16th century, this is what they saw: Massive pines, measuring two to three feet in diameter that climbed into the skies over 100 feet. This was the landscape of the Apalachicola National Forest. You could walk through the forest, especially early in the day as the morning fog was rising, look up and see these silent giants create a dense canopy overhead. Some likened the forest's natural beauty to a cathedral of trees. The sheer enormity of these tall stately trees was magnified by the close cut landscape of wiregrass on the forest floor. This pattern of tall stately trees and lawn like underbrush, as the first Spanish explorers described this impressive habitat, was common throughout the southeast of North America--over 90 million acres of pines and wiregrass. Today, all but a fraction of these acres of the longleaf pine ecosystem have been destroyed or altered. The forest character has been transformed by thick palmetto and other growth from that which was encountered by Florida's earliest settlers. Why? Because of fires, or more precisely--the absence or containment of fires to protect businesses and their property. Natural fires created by thunderstorms are part of nature's cycle. The longleaf pines and wiregrass have natural qualities which allowed them to survive the fires while other plant life perished. The result is dramatically depicted in this painting by Jacksonville, FL artist Jim Draper who captures the landscape as it once looked and how it looks in limited areas today. I bring to the intention of my colleagues the landscape painting by Mr. Draper of the area to be affected by the adoption of the legislation by allowing us to bring into public ownership outholdings which represent a potential threat through the possibility that they might cause resistance to the necessary controlled fires which are necessary in order to maintain this small piece of what had been 90 million acres of the southeastern United States. It is an important part of our Nation's natural history, which we have the opportunity to take a step to protect for future generations during this session of Congress. The painting is of one of those areas in the Apalachicola National Forest in the eastern section of the Florida Panhandle. It is known as Post Office Bay and retains the heritage of the American southeast of the pre-Columbian era. Like its predecessors, this special part of the Apalachicola is preserved due to fires, now both natural and prescribed. But those fires are now threatened by man. Private inholdings adjacent to Post Office Bay are being considered for sale as small acreage second homes and vacation sites. Should this occur, managed fires would likely encounter serious resistance from the new owners and the fires required to sustain this vestige of America's natural history would be ended. The 564,000 acre Apalachicola National Forest has a unique opportunity to acquire the remainder of a 2,560 acre inholding within the forest. As of last month, 1,180 acres of this property has been acquired through a land swap. Now we need to finish the job, to permanently protect Post Office Bay. The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 will do just that. The United States Forest Service has been left with several noncontiguous parcels of land in Okaloosa County, further west in Florida's Panhandle--that it must manage because former portions of the Choctowahatchee National Forest were returned to the Forest Service by the Department of Defense. These parcels are high in value, some have potential buyers, and several are encumbered with urban structures, such baseball fields and the county fairgrounds. Our legislation will allow the Forest Service to sell these parcels and purchase the remainder of the Apalachicola inholdings and other sensitive lands with the proceeds. The land sale would have several benefits. This legislation will make it easier for nature and man to continue its cleansing process by fire without endangering private land or its occupants. By connecting the lands of the longleaf pine ecosystem, the regular course of natural fires can resume safely, optimizing Mother Nature's method of keeping this area beautiful. Also, by allowing the regular cycle of fire to resume freely, the regeneration process will continue. Ultimately, the forest would be more easily and effectively managed. The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 is a sensible way for the Apalachicola National Forest to acquire these vast and important inholdings and preserve a natural treasure. It will aid in expanding the 3 million acres of longleaf pine that now cover the Southeastern United States. This measure has the support of the Forest Service, and I urge my colleagues to support it was well.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Howard Forman and Anup Patel of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the balance of today.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when the Spanish explorers surveyed Florida in the early 16th century, this is what they saw: Massive pines, measuring two to three feet in diameter that climbed into the skies over 100 feet. This was the landscape of the Apalachicola National Forest. You could walk through the forest, especially early in the day as the morning fog was rising, look up and see these silent giants create a dense canopy overhead. Some likened the forest's natural beauty to a cathedral of trees. The sheer enormity of these tall stately trees was magnified by the close cut landscape of wiregrass on the forest floor. This pattern of tall stately trees and lawn like underbrush, as the first Spanish explorers described this impressive habitat, was common throughout the southeast of North America--over 90 million acres of pines and wiregrass. Today, all but a fraction of these acres of the longleaf pine ecosystem have been destroyed or altered. The forest character has been transformed by thick palmetto and other growth from that which was encountered by Florida's earliest settlers. Why? Because of fires, or more precisely--the absence or containment of fires to protect businesses and their property. Natural fires created by thunderstorms are part of nature's cycle. The longleaf pines and wiregrass have natural qualities which allowed them to survive the fires while other plant life perished. The result is dramatically depicted in this painting by Jacksonville, FL artist Jim Draper who captures the landscape as it once looked and how it looks in limited areas today. I bring to the intention of my colleagues the landscape painting by Mr. Draper of the area to be affected by the adoption of the legislation by allowing us to bring into public ownership outholdings which represent a potential threat through the possibility that they might cause resistance to the necessary controlled fires which are necessary in order to maintain this small piece of what had been 90 million acres of the southeastern United States. It is an important part of our Nation's natural history, which we have the opportunity to take a step to protect for future generations during this session of Congress. The painting is of one of those areas in the Apalachicola National Forest in the eastern section of the Florida Panhandle. It is known as Post Office Bay and retains the heritage of the American southeast of the pre-Columbian era. Like its predecessors, this special part of the Apalachicola is preserved due to fires, now both natural and prescribed. But those fires are now threatened by man. Private inholdings adjacent to Post Office Bay are being considered for sale as small acreage second homes and vacation sites. Should this occur, managed fires would likely encounter serious resistance from the new owners and the fires required to sustain this vestige of America's natural history would be ended. The 564,000 acre Apalachicola National Forest has a unique opportunity to acquire the remainder of a 2,560 acre inholding within the forest. As of last month, 1,180 acres of this property has been acquired through a land swap. Now we need to finish the job, to permanently protect Post Office Bay. The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 will do just that. The United States Forest Service has been left with several noncontiguous parcels of land in Okaloosa County, further west in Florida's Panhandle--that it must manage because former portions of the Choctowahatchee National Forest were returned to the Forest Service by the Department of Defense. These parcels are high in value, some have potential buyers, and several are encumbered with urban structures, such baseball fields and the county fairgrounds. Our legislation will allow the Forest Service to sell these parcels and purchase the remainder of the Apalachicola inholdings and other sensitive lands with the proceeds. The land sale would have several benefits. This legislation will make it easier for nature and man to continue its cleansing process by fire without endangering private land or its occupants. By connecting the lands of the longleaf pine ecosystem, the regular course of natural fires can resume safely, optimizing Mother Nature's method of keeping this area beautiful. Also, by allowing the regular cycle of fire to resume freely, the regeneration process will continue. Ultimately, the forest would be more easily and effectively managed. The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 is a sensible way for the Apalachicola National Forest to acquire these vast and important inholdings and preserve a natural treasure. It will aid in expanding the 3 million acres of longleaf pine that now cover the Southeastern United States. This measure has the support of the Forest Service, and I urge my colleagues to support it was well.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since its creation in 1965, the Medicare Program has helped millions of the Nation's elderly and disabled when they were in desperate need, after they had become sick enough to require a physician's assistance or hospitalization. Thirty-seven years after its creation, it is time for change. A prescription drug benefit is the most fundamental reform we can make to the Medicare Program. Why? If we want to truly reform Medicare, we must change its basic approach from one that is oriented toward intervention after sickness to one that focuses on maintaining wellness and the highest quality of life. This prevention approach will require in almost every instance a significant use of prescription drugs. An example of how the use of prescription drugs has changed medicine was made by Dr. Howard Forman, a congressional fellow in my office, who is a doctor and professor at the Yale Medical School. Dr. Forman remarked to me that none of his students had ever seen ulcer surgery. Why? Because we now give patients prescription drugs to care for this ailment which previously was dealt with through surgery. This is just one of many examples of where modern medicine has fundamentally been altered by prescription drugs; notably, by improving the quality of people's lives, ending the need for many surgeries and long recovery periods. A side benefit of this change would be that the cost to the Medicare Program could be lowered by utilizing these expensive but less expensive prescription procedures as opposed to traditional surgery. The prescription drug legislation I am sponsoring, with my friends, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, would improve the Medicare Program and give seniors a real, a meaningful, a sustainable drug benefit. With a $25 monthly premium, no deductible, and a simple copayment of $10 for generic drugs, $40 for medically necessary, standard brand name drugs, and $60 for other brand name drugs, and a maximum of $4,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, our plan would give seniors the universal, affordable, accessible, and comprehensive drug coverage which they want and need. Our plan would help 80-year-old Freda Moss of Tampa, FL. She has no prescription drug coverage. Today, she pays nearly $8,000 a year for the drugs she needs to keep her healthy. This does not include a new prescription for Actos, an oral diabetes drug that costs $143.68 every month. Freda has not had this prescription filled because it is so expensive. Under the Graham-Miller-Kennedy plan, she would pay just over $2,900--saving $5,100 each year. Under the House Republican plan, Freda's drug costs would be at least $4,220 a year. Why would the House plan cost Freda $1,320 more per year? There are many reasons, including a higher monthly premium and a $250 deductible. But the single biggest reason is the ``donut.'' What is the donut, Mr. President? We are all familiar with donuts. They are round; they taste good; often, they have powdered sugar on them; they are tasty at the edges. But when you get into the middle, there is nothing there. That describes the benefit structure of the House Republican plan. Let's look at how this plan would have affected Freda and her husband, Coleman. After having paid a $250 annual deductible, Freda and her husband would pay 20 percent of the cost of each specific prescription up to $1,000. From $1,001 to $2,000, she would pay 50 percent of each prescription. And then she hits the hole in the donut. Freda is on her own until she reaches the catastrophic limit of $4,900 in total drug costs. While she is struggling through this hole in the middle of the donut, she would be responsible for continuing to pay her monthly premiums of about $34, for which she would receive nothing, no benefit. Mr. President, there is no comparable donut in private health care plans. The kind of plan which probably covered Freda and Coleman before she came on to Medicare did not have this approach; it has, as we do, continuous protection. One of the things our older citizens want is certainty and security. Our plan gives them that. The House Republican plan converts them into guinea pigs, experimenting with untested health care policies and a ``gotcha'' of an unexpected hole in the middle of their benefit--a hole which runs from $2,001 all the way to $4,900 of expenditures. We are not going to make 39 million senior Americans into laboratory experiments. Under our plan, Freda would pay no deductible, receiving coverage from her first prescription. She would pay a simple copay for each prescription. There are no donut holes. Instead of gaps, we give American seniors a plan that mirrors the copay system that they had in their working lives. Mr. President, as my colleague, Senator Miller, says with such conviction and passion: This is the year for action, not just talk, on prescription drugs. I don't want to go back to Tampa, FL, and tell Freda we had a very strong debate about this issue. I want to tell Freda she can start going to the drugstore and from her first prescription begin to get real assistance. We all will come to the floor this week, and in the following weeks, to remind our colleagues about the importance of passing a prescription drug benefit before the August recess, and to have that benefit in law before the end of this session of Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, along with my colleagues, Senators, Miller and Kennedy, I am very pleased to announce the introduction of the Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act of 2002. A prescription drug benefit is the most fundamental shift we can make in the health care of older Americans. Adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare will represent a 180 degree turn, a change in the focus of how we deliver health care to our Nation's seniors. Quite simply, including prescription drugs will transform Medicare from a sickness program to a wellness program. Failure to provide a prescription drug benefit will continue to confine millions of elderly Americans to a system that is antiquated, one that only looks backward, not forward. The sponsors of this legislation do not buy the conventional wisdom that nothing significant can be enacted in an election year. We are committed to meeting our goal this year: passage of a universal, comprehensive, and affordable prescription drug benefit. To be sure, there are questions in this debate which still remain. But, the most important question, ``will our drug benefit meet seniors' needs?'', can be answered with a resounding ``YES.'' The voluntary benefit we are offering to all seniors is very simple, no gimmicks, gotchas or ``gaps'' to fall into. With our benefit, ``what you see is what you get.'' Seniors will know exactly what they will pay, and exactly what they will get: the monthly premium is $25, no matter where a person lives; all beneficiaries get assistance from the very first prescription of the year. For the first two years, seniors will pay $10 for each generic prescription, and no more than $40 for all medically-necessary brand- name medicines. All other drugs would cost no more than $60. After two years, the co-pay will be indexed to the increase in prescription drug prices. Seniors who either pay $4,000 out of their own pocket or have a third party contribute towards this $4,000 spending level would pay no more. Seniors with very low incomes, below 135 percent of poverty, would pay no premiums. Seniors with incomes between 135 and 150 percent of the poverty level would pay reduced premiums. And no senior will be faced with a burdensome ``asset test'' that could deny them the very drugs they need. This kind of certainty, and this kind of help, is what beneficiaries need. Take, for example a 68-year-old man with two conditions very common among the elderly, congestive heart failure and diabetes, and no drug coverage. He would have to spend over $5,100 annually for a typical medication regimen. Under our plan, this gentleman would get the medicines he needs to stay healthy, and would save nearly $3,300. In addition to being affordable, comprehensive, and universally available to all of America's seniors, we need a drug benefit that will be attractive to beneficiaries. Why? Because voluntary participation of all seniors will ensure that we will have a program that is sustainable for the long run. A program that attracts only the sickest beneficiaries is doomed to fail. The Congressional Budget Office has evaluated our plan and has stated that it does not leave a single Medicare beneficiary without access to drug coverage. How does this bill achieve this goal? By following the principle that the drug benefit should track the prescription drug benefits that seniors have been accustomed to in their working years. We have an attractive benefit with an affordable premium and a catastrophic provision that is an insurance policy for all elderly, in particular, for those seniors who are healthy right now, but who may face health problems later in life. We have modeled our bill after what works for most Americans right now. Our benefit includes tiered copayments, and we use as our delivery system the private sector model in place today in every part of the country. Addition of a prescription drug benefit will be the largest expansion of the Medicare program since it was initiated in 1965. This fact challenges Congress to be sure that we get it right. In light of the scope of the changes we are making, we are suggesting that, after seven years, Congress should examine how well the benefit is working and to make whatever modifications are necessary and appropriate. Not only will we learn about how our delivery system has worked, but we can discover that access to prescription drugs will save Medicare money. How? By doctors prescribing medications instead of performing costly medical procedures. A physician on my staff recently told me that his students had never seen an ulcer operation. Why? Because prescription drugs have ended the need for this surgery. Improving Medicare by including a prescription drug benefit is a serious and critical undertaking, and deserves our most serious efforts. We all know that our seniors cannot afford to wait out another election cycle. I am pleased to announce that the American Association of Retired Persons, America Federation of State and County Municipal Employees, the National Council on the Aging, Families USA, the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association support our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. With their help, we can get this done this year.

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to thank Senators Miller and Kennedy for their leadership and commitment to this issue, and urge all of our colleagues to join us in ensuring passage of this critical legislation this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to thank Senators Miller and Kennedy for their leadership and commitment to this issue, and urge all of our colleagues to join us in ensuring passage of this critical legislation this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, along with my colleagues, Senators, Miller and Kennedy, I am very pleased to announce the introduction of the Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act of 2002. A prescription drug benefit is the most fundamental shift we can make in the health care of older Americans. Adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare will represent a 180 degree turn, a change in the focus of how we deliver health care to our Nation's seniors. Quite simply, including prescription drugs will transform Medicare from a sickness program to a wellness program. Failure to provide a prescription drug benefit will continue to confine millions of elderly Americans to a system that is antiquated, one that only looks backward, not forward. The sponsors of this legislation do not buy the conventional wisdom that nothing significant can be enacted in an election year. We are committed to meeting our goal this year: passage of a universal, comprehensive, and affordable prescription drug benefit. To be sure, there are questions in this debate which still remain. But, the most important question, ``will our drug benefit meet seniors' needs?'', can be answered with a resounding ``YES.'' The voluntary benefit we are offering to all seniors is very simple, no gimmicks, gotchas or ``gaps'' to fall into. With our benefit, ``what you see is what you get.'' Seniors will know exactly what they will pay, and exactly what they will get: the monthly premium is $25, no matter where a person lives; all beneficiaries get assistance from the very first prescription of the year. For the first two years, seniors will pay $10 for each generic prescription, and no more than $40 for all medically-necessary brand- name medicines. All other drugs would cost no more than $60. After two years, the co-pay will be indexed to the increase in prescription drug prices. Seniors who either pay $4,000 out of their own pocket or have a third party contribute towards this $4,000 spending level would pay no more. Seniors with very low incomes, below 135 percent of poverty, would pay no premiums. Seniors with incomes between 135 and 150 percent of the poverty level would pay reduced premiums. And no senior will be faced with a burdensome ``asset test'' that could deny them the very drugs they need. This kind of certainty, and this kind of help, is what beneficiaries need. Take, for example a 68-year-old man with two conditions very common among the elderly, congestive heart failure and diabetes, and no drug coverage. He would have to spend over $5,100 annually for a typical medication regimen. Under our plan, this gentleman would get the medicines he needs to stay healthy, and would save nearly $3,300. In addition to being affordable, comprehensive, and universally available to all of America's seniors, we need a drug benefit that will be attractive to beneficiaries. Why? Because voluntary participation of all seniors will ensure that we will have a program that is sustainable for the long run. A program that attracts only the sickest beneficiaries is doomed to fail. The Congressional Budget Office has evaluated our plan and has stated that it does not leave a single Medicare beneficiary without access to drug coverage. How does this bill achieve this goal? By following the principle that the drug benefit should track the prescription drug benefits that seniors have been accustomed to in their working years. We have an attractive benefit with an affordable premium and a catastrophic provision that is an insurance policy for all elderly, in particular, for those seniors who are healthy right now, but who may face health problems later in life. We have modeled our bill after what works for most Americans right now. Our benefit includes tiered copayments, and we use as our delivery system the private sector model in place today in every part of the country. Addition of a prescription drug benefit will be the largest expansion of the Medicare program since it was initiated in 1965. This fact challenges Congress to be sure that we get it right. In light of the scope of the changes we are making, we are suggesting that, after seven years, Congress should examine how well the benefit is working and to make whatever modifications are necessary and appropriate. Not only will we learn about how our delivery system has worked, but we can discover that access to prescription drugs will save Medicare money. How? By doctors prescribing medications instead of performing costly medical procedures. A physician on my staff recently told me that his students had never seen an ulcer operation. Why? Because prescription drugs have ended the need for this surgery. Improving Medicare by including a prescription drug benefit is a serious and critical undertaking, and deserves our most serious efforts. We all know that our seniors cannot afford to wait out another election cycle. I am pleased to announce that the American Association of Retired Persons, America Federation of State and County Municipal Employees, the National Council on the Aging, Families USA, the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association support our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. With their help, we can get this done this year.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise, along with 21 of my colleagues, to submit a resolution commending the country and the people of Colombia on continuing the tradition of democracy, with a plurality freely and fairly voting for President-elect Alvaro Uribe Velez and Vice President-elect Francisco Santos Calderon on May 26, 2002. In Colombia, the evil hand of terror and suffering and fear and death has been an everyday reality for too long. In 2000, over 44 percent of the worldwide incidents of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and United States interests were in the country of Colombia. These attacks pose a threat to Colombia, the stability of Latin America, the security of the Western Hemisphere, and the direct and indirect security of many United States citizens, businesses, and interests. Yet, despite the constant threat and reality of violence in Colombia, the citizens and government of Colombia carried out democratic elections, deemed by international standards to be free, fair and the express will of the Colombian people. As Latin America's oldest democracy, the legacy of leaders elected by the people continues. We desire to work closely with both President-elect Uribe and Vice President-elect Santos to reach our common goals of continued democracy, stability, peace, and the elimination of drugs, terrorism and corruption from our countries and our hemisphere. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution and the great democracy of Colombia.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object for purposes of inquiry.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Nicolette Weaver, an intern in my office, during the remainder of today's session.