Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, Senators DeWine, McCain, Miller, Thompson, Sessions, Rockefeller, Bayh, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, and Allard, I rise today to offer an amendment to provide the Department of Defense the authority necessary to support Colombia's war against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities. September 11 served as a horrible moment in history--a moment that revealed the evils, the hatred, and the degree to which those who wish to do us harm are prepared to go. Unfortunately, this reality is not limited to North America. It is not limited to the Middle East or to central Asia. It is a global phenomenon. The United States, at home and around the world, must do better with our intelligence, law enforcement, and foreign policy efforts. We must do more as well to work with our allies. In Latin America, the evil hand of terror has been an everyday reality for too long, a fact which I believe most Americans of the United States will find stunning, but not to Americans who live in other parts of the Western Hemisphere. In the year 2000, over 44 percent of all of the worldwide incidents of terrorism against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests were committed in one country. That country was Colombia. Three groups that were responsible for these atrocities are all on the U.S. Department of State's list of foreign terrorist organizations. These attacks pose a threat to the democratic institutions of Colombia, to the stability of Latin America, and to the security of the Western Hemisphere. The Taliban and al-Qaida networks derived much of their funds from the illegal narcotics trade--heroin, primarily. But the linkage is no more pervasive anywhere in the world between illegal narcotics and terrorism than it is in Colombia where former guerrillas have evolved into drug trafficking terrorists. That is why a large number of our colleagues and I are offering this amendment that would allow the Department of Defense to use its appropriated funds to provide additional equipment, training, and intelligence to Colombia to combat both narcotics trafficking and terrorism. Current law allows the U.S. equipment and funds from the Department of Defense to be used solely for counterdrug operations. In Colombia, the reality is that the line between narcotics and terrorism is extremely thin. It is virtually mythical. The House of Representatives has already passed an authorization bill as part of the legislation that we consider this evening, and these authorities to expand the use of defense funds to combat the twin evils of narcotics and terrorism are provided in the House bill; these authorities are being aggressively sought by the President of the United States. The administration seeks more explicit legal authority to support ``Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities.'' This provides greater flexibility to counter the threat from groups using narcotics trafficking to fund both terrorist and criminal activities. I assure our colleagues that I am not proposing any changes to previous requirements in human rights, certifications, and limits on personnel--civilian and military. And in no way am I suggesting the Department of Defense deploy U.S. troops to a combat role. The Government of Colombia, both under its current President, President Pastrana, and under its newly elected President, Alvaro Uribe, has stated its intention to carry the war to the terrorist drug traffickers. What we are being asked to do is to allow equipment that has been procured in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Defense to be used in both wars, terrorism and narcotics. These counterterrorism efforts will not hurt our counternarcotics program. In fact, they will be of great assistance to our counternarcotics program. The Department of Defense has assured me that it remains committed to a robust counternarcotics program in Colombia, and it will bear that in mind as the details are developed regarding the use of defense-funded equipment, training, and intelligence for counterterrorist missions. I am also pleased, despite the rampant violence in Colombia on May 26 of this year, that the citizens and Government of Colombia carried out democratic elections which were deemed by international standards and observers to be free, fair, and the expression of the will of the Colombian people. When the United States first authorized Plan Colombia in 2000, we made a commitment. The commitment was to help our Colombian neighbors in their long struggle against the drug trade and the violence it causes. Anything less than that would not only be a violation of our promise to be good neighbors but a neglected front on the war against terrorism. I ask my colleagues to support Colombia, an important democratic and hemispheric ally by supporting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

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.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Initial Scope of the Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2002, being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXXVI, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I am submitting for publication in the Congressional Record a supplement to the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Intelligence for purposes of the joint inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001, being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the funding for the U.S. Coast Guard aviation programs in the pending supplemental appropriations bill. On February 20, I spent a day at Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater in St. Petersburg, Florida. I observed first hand some very impressive Coast Guard aviation operations, but also several helicopters that were inoperative due to problems associated with a shortage of spare parts. I am pleased that the pending supplemental will help restore adequate funding for the Coast Guard aviation program, including spare parts, and get these aircraft flying and operational again soon. The Coast Guard needs this assistance to cover their basic operational expenses. According to the Coast Guard, the first supplemental this year provided funding to operate seven additional aircraft (4 HU-25 Falcon jets and 3 HH-65 helicopters) and provided a 15 percent increase in flight hours. The pending supplemental contains approximately $22 million to continue to operate the entire aviation fleet for the remainder of the fiscal year, with an adequate inventory levels of repair parts. I am also pleased that the Coast Guard reports that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request contains the necessary recurring funding to support the additional aircraft and flight hours brought on by fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding, as well as continues to resolve the Service's aviation parts shortfalls. I do recognize that some of the HH-60 helicopter problems that I saw in February are due to aging aircraft issues that affect the entire U.S. H-60 fleet, including those owned by the Department of Defense, and are not just the Coast Guard specific issues. As one of the nation's first lines of defense in stemming the flow of illicit drugs and illegal immigration into the United States, it is imperative that the U.S. Coast Guard be appropriated the resources that they require to carry out their critical missions on behalf of the American people. And we must remain committed to ensuring that our Coast Guard has adequate resources not just now, but well into the future. The U.S. Coast Guard is important to Florida and important to the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support for the Coast Guard's supplemental funding for fiscal year 2002 as well as for their annual appropriations in fiscal year 2003.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the health and healthcare of one of the most fragile groups within our Medicare population. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act of 2002 would improve access to quality healthcare for frail, elderly Medicare beneficiaries living in nursing homes or the community. Approximately 6 million of these individuals are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage, so-called ``dual eligibles.'' These ``dual eligibles'' deserve our greatest attention. They are vulnerable financially as well as medically. Typically, these older Americans suffer from the chronic health conditions compounded by complex social and acute care needs. Further, even with the best of intentions, their healthcare delivery is often limited by a health system that is fragmented and poorly coordinated. Despite 28 percent of Medicare spending going toward their care, the system fails at delivering optimal coordinated health services. While we have looked for success in our current Medicare+Choice plans, we find a system that is in need of serious restructuring and development. On the other hand, a small number of health plans already specialize in providing the quality coordinated care that this vulnerable group needs. These plans are truly a Medicare+Choice success story, however, limited through their demonstration status and relative small number. They have documented an improvement in care delivery as well as health outcomes while actually reducing overall medical costs! These plans currently serve 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries, most of whom are institutionalized. How does this work? Through facilitating the physicians, nurses, and other health professionals to work together toward a common goal: better quality of life and health. By emphasizing preventive and primary care as much as acute and tertiary care, these care-givers look as much at getting through a crisis as they do at preventing the next adverse health event. This leads to fewer urgent and emergent healthcare visits, decreased need for skilled nursing facility placements, and shorter and fewer hospitalizations. Anyone who has visited an elder in the hospital knows that the cost of this care, however great, is small compared to the unsettling nature of the event itself. Avoiding both is a win! While the improvement in healthcare delivery and costs are important, these plans can point to genuine improvements in health and quality of life. The quality of life toward the end of the lifespan should be no less important than it is when we are younger. Communication and involvement of the beneficiary's family, when possible, also leads to greater peace of mind and less anxiety for all. Evercare, an affiliate of the United Health Group, has participated in the demonstration project since 1995. In that time they have developed considerable experience and great success. They have reduced inpatient hospitalizations, patient mortality and improved clinical indicators of quality. All the while, they have also consistently achieved a 95% satisfaction rate among family members. In this demonstration project, Evercare has increased the vaccination rate for pneumonia to \2/3\ from less than half for most nursing home residents. Flu vaccine is delivered to 20 percent more patients than in the standard care system, and over 90 percent of the residents have had documented discussions around their future care, compared with less than 40 percent among general nursing home residents. The time and effort spent on this demonstration project by Evercare and others has given us the necessary information to move forward and offer such care to the much larger group of seniors that might benefit. However, these plans are continuing to face substantial hurdles to becoming permanent M+C options and expanding services to more beneficiaries. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act of 2002 provides improved access to these plans by removing the barriers and allowing plans to specialize in serving dual eligible, institutionalized, and other frail beneficiaries. This bill will allow a special ``Medicare+Choice'' program designation in order to allow plans to target enrollment to the frail elderly and concentrate care on this vulnerable population. The bill includes specific quality assurance and reporting requirements to ensure that these programs continue their success in improving health and healthcare. While we seek more and better means of improving service for our Medicare beneficiaries, we should not lose sight of some of the small success. Leveraging the success of the demonstration group. This piece of legislation will enable these programs to grow and mature, without additional cost. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators being permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this evening I rise to discuss one of the most serious issues as America prepares to defend itself against terrorism, and that is the vulnerability which is represented by our 361 seaports and the thousands of cargo containers which each day flow through those seaports to all America. On December 20, 2001, over 5 months ago, the Senate unanimously passed a comprehensive seaport security bill. This came after a 2-year effort by Senators Hollings and McCain and myself. Despite the new security threats that served as the catalyst for passage of this bill last December, I am concerned that as of this evening the House has yet to pass companion legislation. While we await House of Representatives action, there have been published reports that 25 Islamic extremists, since March, have stowed away in cargo containers and entered this country. Those entries were gained in, as reported, four U.S. ports: Long Beach, CA, Savannah, GA, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, FL. These extremists, in some instances, disguised themselves as stevedores and disembarked into the communities on which those ships had called. I consider these reports to be credible. I see this as one of the most recent and disturbing examples of the vulnerabilities that exist at our Nation's seaports. September 11 was a tragic, horrific day. As a result, we restructured our aviation security to prevent another attack. We still have the opportunity to be responsible and to protect our seaports before they are attacked. Thus far, we have failed to do so. Today, the U.S. Customs Service agents inspect less than 3 percent of the 16,000 cargo containers that arrive on U.S. shores from nations which are not contiguous with the United States every day. If the bill passed by the Senate had been signed into law and implemented before these 25 so described extremists attempted to enter this country in a cargo container, we might have seen a different outcome. Under our legislation, advanced reporting requirements would help Customs electronically receive vital information on ships before they arrived at a U.S. port. This means that information on ships and contents, passengers, and crew members who were suspect could be reviewed before the ship arrived. With new funding of over $700 million, local ports would be able to upgrade security infrastructure. The Customs Service would have more inspectors and agents, as well as new screening and detection equipment. This would fortify our frontline defense against those who would attempt to breach our shores. Ports would be better prepared for a security breach because they would be required to have a comprehensive security plan that would meet minimum security guidelines. Currently, we have no Federal security guidelines or security requirements. A new maritime security force would have been established under the legislation which the Senate passed over 5 months ago. This effort would bring together those trained in antiterrorism, drug interdiction, navigation assistance, and facilitating responses to security threats. Keeping our Nation's seaports secure is an important job not just for Americans who live in one of the communities served by our 361 commercial ports but everywhere in between. Citizens who live inland are as vulnerable to security breaches as those who live near seaports. Containers from ships being transferred to railway cars and long-haul trucks that travel throughout cities and towns represent the potential shell which would surround a weapon of mass destruction. A container is filled allegedly with legitimate cargo at a distant site. There might be contained in that legitimate cargo a biological, a chemical or, God forbid, a nuclear device. That device would then be connected to a global positioning device which would allow for constant monitoring of where that specific container was located. That weapon of mass destruction would also be equipped with a standoff detonation capability so when the global positioning device indicated that the container was at the most dangerous place where the greatest damage would be done to our country, it could be ignited. While we cannot expect to screen every marine container entering into the United States, we need to provide some expectation of inspection, and some level of deterrence, to dissuade smugglers from using a very efficient U.S. intermodal system. I am encouraged by the news today that Congressman Don Young of Alaska and other concerned members of the House of Representatives have agreed that seaport security legislation will be on the House agenda after the Memorial Day recess. I urge the House to not only expeditiously enact this legislation, but work with me and my colleagues in the Senate to expedite the conference committee to resolve any differences that may exist, and quickly send it to the President, who is anxious to sign this into law. By working rapidly, we can provide greater security for our citizens at America's open front door--our nation's seaports.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the health and healthcare of one of the most fragile groups within our Medicare population. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act of 2002 would improve access to quality healthcare for frail, elderly Medicare beneficiaries living in nursing homes or the community. Approximately 6 million of these individuals are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage, so-called ``dual eligibles.'' These ``dual eligibles'' deserve our greatest attention. They are vulnerable financially as well as medically. Typically, these older Americans suffer from the chronic health conditions compounded by complex social and acute care needs. Further, even with the best of intentions, their healthcare delivery is often limited by a health system that is fragmented and poorly coordinated. Despite 28 percent of Medicare spending going toward their care, the system fails at delivering optimal coordinated health services. While we have looked for success in our current Medicare+Choice plans, we find a system that is in need of serious restructuring and development. On the other hand, a small number of health plans already specialize in providing the quality coordinated care that this vulnerable group needs. These plans are truly a Medicare+Choice success story, however, limited through their demonstration status and relative small number. They have documented an improvement in care delivery as well as health outcomes while actually reducing overall medical costs! These plans currently serve 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries, most of whom are institutionalized. How does this work? Through facilitating the physicians, nurses, and other health professionals to work together toward a common goal: better quality of life and health. By emphasizing preventive and primary care as much as acute and tertiary care, these care-givers look as much at getting through a crisis as they do at preventing the next adverse health event. This leads to fewer urgent and emergent healthcare visits, decreased need for skilled nursing facility placements, and shorter and fewer hospitalizations. Anyone who has visited an elder in the hospital knows that the cost of this care, however great, is small compared to the unsettling nature of the event itself. Avoiding both is a win! While the improvement in healthcare delivery and costs are important, these plans can point to genuine improvements in health and quality of life. The quality of life toward the end of the lifespan should be no less important than it is when we are younger. Communication and involvement of the beneficiary's family, when possible, also leads to greater peace of mind and less anxiety for all. Evercare, an affiliate of the United Health Group, has participated in the demonstration project since 1995. In that time they have developed considerable experience and great success. They have reduced inpatient hospitalizations, patient mortality and improved clinical indicators of quality. All the while, they have also consistently achieved a 95% satisfaction rate among family members. In this demonstration project, Evercare has increased the vaccination rate for pneumonia to \2/3\ from less than half for most nursing home residents. Flu vaccine is delivered to 20 percent more patients than in the standard care system, and over 90 percent of the residents have had documented discussions around their future care, compared with less than 40 percent among general nursing home residents. The time and effort spent on this demonstration project by Evercare and others has given us the necessary information to move forward and offer such care to the much larger group of seniors that might benefit. However, these plans are continuing to face substantial hurdles to becoming permanent M+C options and expanding services to more beneficiaries. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act of 2002 provides improved access to these plans by removing the barriers and allowing plans to specialize in serving dual eligible, institutionalized, and other frail beneficiaries. This bill will allow a special ``Medicare+Choice'' program designation in order to allow plans to target enrollment to the frail elderly and concentrate care on this vulnerable population. The bill includes specific quality assurance and reporting requirements to ensure that these programs continue their success in improving health and healthcare. While we seek more and better means of improving service for our Medicare beneficiaries, we should not lose sight of some of the small success. Leveraging the success of the demonstration group. This piece of legislation will enable these programs to grow and mature, without additional cost. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I am very pleased to join this afternoon with my colleague, Senator Nelson, in offering this amendment to the trade legislation. I am a strong supporter of expanded trade. I believe in the principle that if the world trades with each other, it will not only give us greater assurance that competition will be in commercial areas, not in military areas, it also gives to the world the opportunity to get the best quality and priced products that are available. I believe in competition and that the United States will, in the future, as it has in the past, fare very well if that competition is fair. Free trade does not mean trade with rules of anarchy. Free trade is associated with fair trade, trade that is under a rule of law that sets certain standards of behavior for the participants, whether they be nations or individual economic entities in that trade. Madam President, as you will recall, we spent a considerable amount of time last week debating what is known as the Dayton-Craig amendment. That amendment, offered by our distinguished colleagues from Minnesota and Idaho--one a Democrat, one a Republican--essentially said this: That while we were granting, with the Trade Promotion Act, broad authorities to the President to negotiate, and we were giving to the President our future right to amend those negotiated agreements by accepting the fact that whatever is negotiated we could either provide a green light of ``yes'' or a red light of ``no,'' but we could not offer a yellow light of ``caution'' or ``modification,'' but that we were going to exclude certain items. We voted, therefore, for the Dayton-Craig amendment, which said that from that general policy of providing the President broad negotiating authority, we were going to exclude certain items and require that they be brought back to the Congress for a vote on those items, specifically without the protection of fast track. First, what was it that we protected? We said if our negotiators were to negotiate and alter the basic laws that this Nation has developed over the years, which give us greater assurance that trade will not only be free but fair, those matters would require specific and individual congressional approval. The first provision was the antidumping provision. Antidumping is where a specific commercial entity is alleged to be trading in a product at a price which is below that company's cost of production in the country in which it produced the product. So that whether it is an agricultural product or an industrial product, America is not going to become the ultimate target for predatory marketing practices, where an entity that has a product of which it cannot otherwise dispose dumps it on the United States market at a price below what it cost them to produce, therefore threatening the survival of American enterprises which have to sell their product at least at what it cost them to produce or they will be out of business and their workers will be out of jobs. That does not seem to be an unreasonable provision. The second provision that the Dayton-Craig amendment gave special treatment to was countervailing duties. What is that? Those are directed at nations which have practices that subsidize a particular product, so that when it is sold, it is effectively sold at less than what should have been the cost of production. That is where a government provides special benefits that distort the competitive marketplace. Those are the two areas that were protected from fast track by the Dayton-Craig amendment. Those were adopted by the Senate by a substantial majority. We have done this because we recognize the importance of protecting the international marketplace of commerce from these trade practices which could be so distorting and which would defeat one of the basic principles of free trade which is that you encourage competition on a level playing field and whoever can prevail on that is the victor. This tilts the playing field toward one company or one country because of practices that distort that level playing field. The amendment that Senator Nelson and I are offering today is the implementation of the objective of the Dayton-Craig amendment. Dayton- Craig intends to assure us that we will continue unless the Congress-- and I think it is unlikely--would vote to eliminate our current laws against dumping and against providing government subsidization at below the cost of production--but assuming that those basic principles of fair trade prevail, what our amendment says is that the reduction in tariffs that are provided under the Trade Promotion Act ``shall not apply to a product that is'' at that time ``the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order . . . unless''--and the Senator from Texas, my good friend whom I respect and refer to as my Teutonic cousin, did not mention the provision--``unless the agreement''--that is, the trade agreement which purports to change the tariff on a particular product--``provides that as a term, condition, or qualification of the tariff concession, the tariff reduction will not be implemented before the date that is 1 year after the date of termination or revocation of such antidumping or countervailing duty order with respect to all exporters of such product.'' Under our amendment, our negotiators would be authorized to negotiate tariff concessions, but at the same time they would have to negotiate appropriate conditions or qualifications that would assure to the United States that those concessions would not be implemented until 1 year after that country or that company has met the requirement to rid itself of the antidumping or anticountervailing duty provision, which means that they had stopped the predatory practices that had disrupted the level playing field of international commerce. I do not find that to be a radical or extreme position. If you believe we should have these methods of enforcing fair trade, antidumping and countervailing duties, then certainly you have to believe we should have the means of protecting ourselves against a country which has violated those laws, is under a sanction for that violation, and is now trying to get tariff concessions to increase their ability to act in a predatory way against the United States. This issue should not be partisan. It should not be regional. It should not be a provision which divides the Senate, in my judgment, particularly based on the vote we took last week on Dayton-Craig. It ought to be a unifying amendment. This issue has been a unifying issue in our State of Florida. I will submit for the Record a letter which was sent today by our State Governor, Jeb Bush, to both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. I will submit it for the Record, but let me read in part: I fully recognize the importance of supporting free but fair trade for all concerned. However, Florida's citrus industry has been forced to compete for years with countries that implement unfair trade practices, forcing the industry into financial decline. I support legislation that would require trade negotiators to take into consideration agriculture products that have been subject to antidumping or countervailing duty orders before negotiations begin. I believe this is a very important amendment, if we are dedicated to the principle of providing our President the capability to negotiate to expand trade in the United States. But we have reserved for the Congress the right to review specifically any changes that are made in that process that relate to our ability to enforce fair trade. And now with this amendment, we would give real teeth to that sanction by saying, having preserved our ability to maintain a level playing field of fair trade through the ability to impose countervailing duties against a nation or antidumping orders against a particular commercial entity, now we can give strength to that by saying, if you are under those sanctions, either one, you would not be eligible for tariff concessions until you had purged yourself for 1 year of those predatory practices. I believe we should send a very strong signal to our trade partners that if they are willing to play by the basic rules of fair international commerce, we are prepared to open our markets even further to them. But until they are willing to do so, until they are willing to give up their previous practices that have distorted that international market, they will have to pay the price of those actions in the form of their noneligibility to receive any tariff concessions from the negotiations by our President which will be eventually submitted to this Congress for its up-or-down vote.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I joined President Bush and the Cuban-American community in Miami to observe the 100th anniversary of Cuba's independence from Spain. This is a bittersweet celebration because Cubans today are not free. Centuries ago, when Spaniards first arrived on Cuban shores, they marveled at the breathtaking beauty of the island and recognized the importance of its geographical location. It is no wonder why this island became known as the ``Pearl of the Antilles.'' After years of Spanish control, Cuban patriots such as Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, Maximo Gomez, Antonio Maceo, and Jose Marti, gave unselfishly of themselves to ensure that Cuba would become free and independent. But it was not until May 20, 1902, that Cuba's first sovereign government was established and Tomas Estrada Palma became Cuba's first President. As the years passed, Cuba prospered and was recognized around the world for its many educational, cultural and financial accomplishments. Regrettably, many of these advances came to a halt with the arrival of Fidel Castro's revolution. Sadly, this regime is notorious for its repression and tyranny, and its human rights record has been so deplorable that the United Nations Human Rights Commission continues to condemn the Cuban government year after year. On this day, when all Cubans should be celebrating the many accomplishments of the past 100 years, you cannot help but wonder how many more achievements could have been attained in a free, democratic and prosperous Cuba. Today, I want to take the opportunity to recognize the many contributions of our Cuban-American friends whose hard work and sacrifices have added so much to our nation. At the same time, we cannot forget those brave individuals in Cuba who are at risk for promoting democracy and human rights in their homeland. Here in America, we look forward to the day when Cubans are able to speak freely without fear of retribution and when democratic reforms will replace the only remaining dictatorship in our hemisphere. Viva Cuba Libre!

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Senator Lugar for their excellent work on the farm bill before us today. I am pleased to recognize that this legislation expands and improves many of the conservation programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farmers are the best conservationists in the world and this farm bill gives them more tools to be even better stewards of the environment. I would like to engage Chairman Harkin and Senator Lugar in a colloquy to elaborate a bit on the very good language in the Statement of Managers that calls upon the Secretary of Agriculture to work with appropriate State and Federal officials to use USDA conservation programs to supplement the work of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as it is implemented in the South Florida Ecosystem. Our success in restoring the Everglades depends a great deal on the health of Lake Okeechobee and the systems which feed into that great lake, such as the Kissimmee River and its chain of lakes. It is my understanding that the direction in the Statement of Managers is intended to use conservation programs to enhance the health of those ecosystems as well. Am I correct in my interpretation of that very good language?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the distinguished Chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for their work on the farm bill and the assistance it will render to restore the Everglades. For instance, work in areas such as the Kissimmee River system will serve, among other things, to enhance the natural storage of water necessary for restoration further south in the system. Implementing the type of conservation practices included in these Department of Agriculture programs in areas such as the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee can improve restoration efforts substantially. I look forward to working with Secretary of Agriculture Veneman, and other State and Federal officials to utilize these programs in a coordinated and effective manner. wild fish

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we debate this amendment expressing our Nation's support for Israel, we must recognize the unique relationship that exists between our two nations. Israel has been the starting point of United States foreign policy in the Middle East since 1948, when the United States under President Harry S Truman became the first country to formally recognize the state of Israel. Good relations with Israel are of vital importance to the United States' interests in the Middle East. It is the only democracy in the region and a reliable ally of America. This bond is even deeper. Israel is a nation that we mirror--in our culture and in our historical values. It is essential that we continue to work with Israel on advancement of these commonalities. Our relationship with Israel is reminiscent of the American role in the French Revolution, which at the time many considered a foolish position. Although America was a new and small nation on the other side of the Atlantic, we empathized with the French aspirations for liberty and equality. To understand our motivation, we should look at the words of Thomas Jefferson. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights'' he wrote, enshrining in the Declaration of Independence the concept of all men being created equal. To Jefferson and all the signers of the Constitution, the quest for equality at that time was to be pursued not just within America, but throughout the world. America's role in the French Revolution was an extension of the liberty and freedom that we stood for, exercised through our foreign policy. Today, this same concept applies to our foreign policy and contributes to our special relationship with Israel. As an ally and friend of the state of Israel, America provides the Jewish state $3 billion a year in military and economic support--the largest amount of direct aid provided to any nation by the United States. Israel is also the beneficiary of a preferential trade relationship with the United States. The ability of the people of Israel and the region to lead normal lives has been shattered by acts of violence and terrorism. It is impossible to observe the tragic situation that has been dragging on over the past 18 months without recognizing that no one--Israelis, Palestinians, or any of their neighbors--is interested in continuing to live their lives this way. There is no doubt after September 11 that our Nation has a new understanding of the plight of our friends in Israel. There can be no question that the Middle East harbors a significant percentage of the world's terrorists, including many individuals who share the philosophy of those who attacked America. This is why we must support this amendment and stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Israel.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my strong support for the motion to proceed to the Andean Trade Preference Act. Since 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act has helped the countries of the Andean region--Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia--to more than double their exports to the United States, to nearly $2 billion in the year 2000. At the same time, exports from the United States into the Andean nations saw a 65-percent increase between 1991 and 1999. Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru have not only increased their exports, they have accomplished another important objective to them and to the United States; and that is, they are developing new, nontraditional sectors of their economy. They are developing legitimate commercial exports as alternatives to the illicit drug trade which has so bedeviled these countries in the recent past. This has been a huge benefit not only to the four countries of the Andean region but to the United States as well. Today, as an example, 85 percent of Colombia's cut flowers go by export to the U.S. market. In fact, these flowers alone account for 80 percent of the air freight between the United States and Colombia. In Peru, the asparagus industry has served as an example of what an alternative crop production can achieve--an alternative to illicit coca production. Asparagus, growing in Peru, now employs 40,000 people in a legal agricultural enterprise. In spite of this progress, regrettably, the ATPA expired last year on December 4, its 10th birthday. It is in the national interest of the United states of America, as well as the national interest of the four nations of the Andean region, that this Congress act now to restore and enhance this highly successful program. The House has already done so. In December of last year, it passed its version of Andean trade preference renewal and expansion. It is time for the Senate to do the same. Why is this legislation important? And why is it important now? I suggest three reasons: the grave consequences of inaction, the opportunity to strengthen the partnership between the United States and the Andean region, and as an important tool in our global war on terrorism. What are some of the consequences of inaction? The expiration of the ATPA is having an immediate and negative impact on the export industries that have blossomed under the benefits of this program, as well as industries that support this trade. In February of this year, 2 months after the ATPA had expired, I requested that the administration grant a deferral on the collection of those additional duties which came due as a result of the expiration of the ATPA. The President, in my judgment, agreed and used the administrative power to postpone the collection of those additional ATPA duties for 90 days with the expectation that Congress, during that period of time, would renew and extend ATPA. That period of deferral is almost over. The 90-day clock runs out on May 16. If we have not completed all the work needed to pass this legislation into law by then--including passage by the Senate, a potential conference committee with the House of Representatives to resolve what differences might exist, and final signing into law by the President--if we do not do all of those acts by May 16, the U.S. Customs Service will start sending out bills for duties which would then be due and payable. These bills will be steep for both importers and their customers. An example: Annual imports of flowers totaling $400 million from the region are liable for duties of up to 6.8 percent. Example: Annual imports of asparagus worth $50 million will get an additional 20- percent tariff. Example: Leather handbags and luggage imports of $20 million a year are subject to a 10-percent tariff. Example: Imports of precious metal jewelry, worth $140 million a year, will face up to 7- percent duties. I know the Presiding Officer is a caring man and probably--I would say no doubt--gave to his wife, maybe to his mother as well, beautiful flowers for Valentine's Day and is preparing to do the same for Mother's Day. Chances are great that those flowers he has and will provide to his loved ones came from an Andean country. And the risk of applying these additional tariffs to the two most significant days of the year for the sale of flesh cut flowers, Valentine's Day and Mother's Day, representing 50 percent of the total cut flower imports, will be enormous. Because of the temporary extension of ATPA, only the tariff duties have been deferred. Growers will still be responsible if the renewed ATPA fails to become law by May 16, only 4 days after Mother's Day. On top of that, if you send those flowers for Mother's Day, they will probably cost you about $6 more just because we have allowed ATPA to lapse. With the proven, positive economic returns of the current ATPA, we must not only renew these trade benefits; the time has come to expand them. The Andean landscape was noticeably changed in the year 2000 with the passage of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. That legislation provided the Caribbean nations significant new trade benefits, essentially parity with the benefits which Mexico has received under the North American Free Trade Agreement Act. But in helping the Caribbean Basin, we have inadvertently hurt the Andean region. The Andean apparel industry is tiny in comparison to the apparel industry in Mexico and the CBI countries. Of these three preferential trade arrangements in the Western Hemisphere, NAFTA accounts for approximately 55 percent of U.S. apparel imports. CBI has a 41-percent share. The Andean Trade Preference Act countries provide only 4 percent. Despite its small share of our imports, the U.S. market is the recipient of over 90 percent of the Andean countries' apparel exports, so it is a small percentage of our imports of apparel from the Western Hemisphere. But our market is an extremely significant economic opportunity for these four countries. If Congress does not level the playing field between ATPA and the Caribbean Basin, the potential job loss is tremendous. Colombia alone stands to lose up to 100,000 jobs in just the apparel sector. As I will indicate later, there are already early indications of a significant relocation of the apparel assembly industry from the Andean trade area to CBI or Mexico because of the some 8- to 10-percent competitive advantage which Mexico and the Caribbean now have over the Andean region as it relates to the export of finished apparel products. U.S. imports of apparel from Colombia in 2001 were down 18 percent over the year 2000. Total apparel exports to the United States from the Andean region were down over 11 percent for the same timeframe. As a result, U.S. exports of cut pants to be assembled into apparel in the Andean countries was also down but down by an average of over 33 percent. This reduction in exports, which support the apparel industry, illustrates how the lack of trade benefits clearly hurts both the United States and the Andean countries. We must create a business climate that can provide Andean citizens an alternative to illegal industries. Promoting legitimate economic development rather than leaving these countries at a competitive disadvantage with their near hemispheric neighbors, especially in highly mobile industries such as apparel, is a critical goal of this ATPA legislation. If we are successful in our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia alone, it is estimated that there will be a quarter of a million people out of work. A quarter of a million people in Colombia earn their living in the elicit drug trade. It is our national policy and goal to try to eliminate that elicit drug trade. As part of that strategy, we have a role to play in developing legal alternative jobs for those people who we hope will lose their jobs in coca production and trafficking. It is ironic that at the same time we are asking the region to eliminate an illegal industry that contributes almost 5 percent of its gross domestic product, we have created an environment which makes it more difficult for those same countries to retain legitimate industries. It is imperative that we correct that inequality now and send a strong signal with a renewed and expanded Andean Trade Preference Act. I have been talking about some of the immediate and microconsequences of inaction by the Senate. There are macroconsequences as well. As you can see in the chart I have brought, the Andean region is bordered on the north by Venezuela and on the south by Argentina. Venezuela, as evidenced by events in recent days, is facing an increasingly volatile and unstable political future. To the south, in Argentina, the economic situation is still reeling. Without active U.S. involvement in the region, the Andean nations could share the same fate as their northern and southern neighbors. Our Andean neighbors are trying desperately to keep their houses from catching fire. But the houses on both ends of the block are already in flames. The ATPA duty preferences expired, and the Andean countries are fighting that fire with water through buckets. We need a renewed and expanded ATPA to give them a big firetruck with a steady and reliable stream. We are sending exactly the wrong signal to our neighbors if we do not take active steps at this pivotal time. The second reason this is important is the building of partnerships between the United States and the Andean region. While the clock is ticking on Congress to act on ATPA legislation, there is another clock ticking in the Andean region and the Western Hemisphere, including the United States, in the area of apparel production. For now, many of the largest apparel assembly countries in Asia have been at a comparative advantage in the production of apparel. As an example, these two golf shirts, sold by the same company, same label, same color, would be considered identical. There is a difference. If you look inside the one, you will see that it was made in Nicaragua; the other was made in China. Other than that, they are identical. One other area in which they are different--they both sell for approximately $20--is the shirt that is made in Nicaragua costs 10 percent more to produce than the shirt made in China. The shirt made in Nicaragua started as cotton grown in a U.S. field. That cotton was then made into the material from which this shirt was made. That material was then sent to Nicaragua, where it was assembled into this golf shirt. This shirt from China was made from Chinese cotton, converted into textile in a Chinese textile factory, and then assembled by Chinese workers. That is a significant part of the reason, even though this had to come halfway around the world; whereas the one from Nicaragua only a few hundred miles, and the shirt from China costs 10 percent less to produce than did the shirt from Nicaragua. How has this imbalance been maintained? It has been maintained because the United States, as part of what is called the Multifiber Agreement, sets an annual limit on how much product of a particular apparel can be exported into the United States. As an example, under current agreements, China is limited to exporting 2.374 million dozen golf shirts to the United States per year. That restriction on the amount of product that can be exported to the United States is a significant reason the partnership of the United States growing the raw material, converting it into clothing material, then shipping that to a Caribbean, Mexican, or Andean assembly factory for final conversion into the wearable product has been able to sustain itself. In the year 2005, the Multifiber Agreement goes out of effect. In the next 3 years, the apparel industry in the Western Hemisphere must get substantially more efficient in order to compete with China and the other major Asian producers, which will likewise come out from under the restrictions of the Multifiber Agreement in 2005. Failure to become much more efficient, in my judgment, puts the whole partnership of U.S. agriculture, U.S. textile, and Caribbean, Mexican, or Andean assembly in serious jeopardy. The assembly operations in this hemisphere, under our law--including the law we are now considering extending--must use U.S. fabric and yarn, buy U.S.-made sewing machines and equipment, and use U.S.-grown cotton and other fabric materials. If these industries do not become more efficient in the Andean region, the Caribbean, and Mexico, they will lose out in global competition to Asia. Then, American raw materials and equipment, and some 40,000 to 50,000 Americans who are involved in producing the material that goes into these garments that are assembled within the hemisphere will all be completely out of the picture. With the enhancement of the Caribbean Basin Initiative in 2000, fabric exports to Caribbean nations from America, or assembly of apparel items, rose 170 percent since 1999. Last year, the United States exported $3 billion in cut parts to Caribbean nations, which supported some 60,000 jobs in the United States, 40,000 to 50,000 of which were in the textile industry. This increase in cut parts exports came despite an overall decline in U.S. exports of finished apparel from CBI countries. What this all means is apparel manufacturers are substituting U.S. fabric and yarn for foreign inputs, proving that the partnership between the U.S. textile and yarn producers and the Caribbean assembly operators is working. That is the same result we hope to achieve in the Andean region. If we can make importing our fabrics more affordable, based on trade benefits and reduced tariffs, then American jobs will be saved. But passing trade preference legislation is only part of the equation for making the apparel sector more efficient within our hemisphere. There must also be comprehensive implementation of both the letter of the law and the spirit behind it. Legislation expanding CBI in 2000 was a good example. Congress expanded the trade benefits for apparel assembled in the region from U.S. yarn and fabric. But there are still many more hurdles to clear before the region will be an efficient manufacturer of apparel--efficient in terms of our ability to compete with Asian manufacturers. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans has taken the lead in coordinating the administration's long-term implementation of the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Last year, the Department of Commerce canvassed its overseas post in the Caribbean to identify other problems that are holding the countries back from more efficient production. The Department's exports identified issues such as poor transportation systems, high energy costs, unreliable energy supply, and the unpredictable business climate as obstacles to greater efficiency in the Caribbean assembly industry. This year, the Department of Commerce has assembled an initiative to begin tackling some of these problems. When we pass Andean trade preference enhancement--and I am very optimistic that we will--there must be a similar effort to assure that not only are the trade benefits implemented but the region, as a whole, is prepared to meet the challenges of the sharply increased competition it will face in the post-2005 world. The third and final reason I think this is important--and important now--is the role that this legislation will play in our effort to combat narcotics and counterterrorism. The ATPA is more than just good trade policy. The ATPA is a key tool in fighting our Nation's war against terrorism. Recently, the Director of the CIA, Mr. George Tenet, came before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, of which I am privileged to be the Chair, and said Latin America is ``becoming increasingly volatile as the potential for instability there grows.'' One reason he cited was the sluggish, oftentimes downward spiraling economy in Latin America. What was the other reason? Terrorism. Some of the worst terror and violence in the world is happening in the Western Hemisphere. In Latin America, the evil hand of terror has become an everyday reality for too many. In Colombia, for example, paramilitary forces linked to the drug trade have instilled fear through random kidnappings and bombings. A statistic which I think would stun most citizens of the United States is this: In the year 2000, of all the worldwide incidents of terrorist attacks against United States citizens and United States interests, over 44 percent of those worldwide terrorist attacks against Americans occurred in a single country, Colombia. Today in Colombia there is no substantial difference between one who is a drug trafficker and one who is a terrorist. Recent events, such as the indictment in a United States court of four members of the primary terrorist organization in Colombia, known by the name of FARC, on drug charges, confirm this trend. In the early days in the Andean region the drug traffickers who were providing cocaine were highly centralized. They had a chief executive officer. They were vertically integrated. That started with growing of the coca in the fields to financing its distribution in the United States and other demand countries. We made a major effort--we the civilized world, with the United States playing a key role--to take down these highly centralized drug organizations, particularly the Medellin and the Cali cartels. After a long period of significant investment and loss of life, we, the Colombians, and the international community were successful. We thought that by taking the head off the drug cartel snake, we would kill the rest of the body. In fact, what we found in the late 1990s was these decapitated snakes were beginning to reconstitute themselves, and they were moving away from the large corporate model towards a more entrepreneurial model; where they used to have vertically integrated parts of the drug chain, now they have multiple, small drug traffickers for each phase of the process, from growing in the field to transporting, to the financing of the drug trade. For a period of time, these new entrepreneurial drug traffickers found themselves at risk because they did not have the security blanket that the old centralized system had provided. So they turned to the modern economic guerrillas, the Al Capones of Colombia, and made a pact. The pact was: We will pay you well if you will provide us security so we can continue to conduct our illicit drug activities. For awhile, that was the deal, but then the Scarfaces figured out: We are providing the capability of these drug traffickers to do their business, but they are making a lot more money in drug trafficking than we are in providing the security for the drug traffickers. So why do we not become drug traffickers ourselves? And they did. By the end of the 1990s, the drug trade, particularly in Colombia, had been largely taken over by the former ideological guerrillas who had become the Al Capones and now were becoming drug traffickers. The motives of those who commit violent acts throughout the world are variant, but one thread is predominant in nations plagued by terrorists: An economy unable to provide hope or a legitimate means for the people to earn a living. In Colombia, this condition is fed by the illegal businesses that are the root of violence: Drug cultivation and smuggling. The recent escalation of tensions in Colombia magnifies the urgency of America's involvement in helping to sustain South America's oldest democracy, Colombia. At the same time, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia are also vulnerable to the surge of the illicit narcotics trade as they have developed alternative business programs. Fifteen years ago, most of the cocaine in the region was grown in Peru and Bolivia and then transported to Colombia for processing. Those levels have been dramatically reduced, in large part because local farmers have been encouraged, in significant part through U.S. programs, to make the transition from illegal cocaine to a legal agricultural crop. With this continued commitment, our neighbors will have incentives to develop both legitimate economic alternatives to the production of drugs and real avenues to end the violence that plagues so much of our hemisphere. If we are serious about halting the flow of illegal drugs to the United States, if we are committed to contributing to the stabilization of our nearest neighbors in the hemisphere, and if we are steadfast in our war against terrorism, then the United States must act now to both extend and expand these portrayed benefits, important for us and important for the four countries of the Andean region. Time is short for the people of our regions who stand to lose should we fail to pass this legislation. The time is now. The days between now and when the crisis occurs on May 16 are few. I urge my colleagues to expeditiously move to the passage of this legislation, to the resolution of differences, and to accept the invitation to attend a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden and then to see that the roses of hope will begin to bloom again in the backyards and fields of our neighbors in the Andean region. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a congressional fellow in my office, Ms. Tiffany Smith, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment is not about the underlying provision, but I think it is worthwhile for the Members to understand what the underlying provision would do. The current tax law, consistent with generally accepted accounting procedures, provides that when royalty payments are made by oil and gas producers to the landowner during a period when there is no oil or gas production, during a suspension period, that those costs must be capitalized, and then they can be recovered when there is actual oil and gas production. That is both the accounting and tax law today. We are about to split the two and say that for tax purposes they can be expensed within a 2-year period. If that sounds a little bit like some of the things that Enron was doing on its books, the answer is it is a lot like what Enron was doing on its books. But the fundamental issue is, without examination, we are about to ask the Social Security trust fund to pay for the additional cost of this preferential depreciation treatment. I believe, if this is a worthy provision, it is worthy that somebody come up with an offset so that we decide who pays for it, not our children and grandchildren, by depletion of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I do object to the statement just made that this amendment provides that we will either come into balance by reducing spending or increasing revenue.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to bring up No. 3372.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I was going to close on the amendment before we take up the tabling motion.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to take up first amendment No. 3372.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation at this time?