Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask, in addition to the current unanimous consent request, that immediately after debate on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, we then turn to the debate on the amendment as offered by Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Torricelli of New Jersey.

Mr. GRAHAM. As I understand it, if this unanimous consent agreement is accepted relative to the farm bill, the Senator from Oregon would be first, the Senator from Arizona would be second, and then consideration of the Smith-Torricelli amendment would be third.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from New Jersey has certainly clarified some questions of uncertainty in my mind. I still have some policy comments I think bear on the question of whether, in the face of the actions of Fidel Castro relative to those who have used his country as a safe haven for murderers, airplane hijackers, and others, and as a continuing caldron for the support of terrorism in the western hemisphere throughout the world, it is in the United States' national interest to be providing financing for the food that he will control and distribute as he wishes to his people.

Mr. GRAHAM. Sad to say, we have out of the mouth of Fidel Castro and his minions the most current statement of his attitude toward terrorism and his attitude toward the United States, the Nation which now is being asked to provide U.S. financing for agricultural sales to Cuba. Would the Senator be surprised that when the tragedy of September 11 was made known to Fidel Castro, while he initially offered some words of support to the United States, he also urged United States policymakers to be calm and stated that the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the failed attack that ended up in the fields of western Pennsylvania were a consequence of the United States having applied ``terrorist methods'' for years? He is essentially saying that the United States and Osama bin Laden are mirror images of one another. Those were the statements on the day of the attack. Subsequent statements relative to the attack of September 11 have become even more hostile. A recent press report quoted Cuba's mission to the United Nations as describing the United States' response to the attacks as ``fascist and terrorist,'' so we not only are Osama bin Laden, we have now become Adolf Hitler, and that the United States was using the attack as an excuse to establish ``unrestricted tyranny over all people on Earth.'' Castro himself has said that the U.S. Government is run by extremists and hawks whose response to the attack could result in ``the killing of innocent people.'' Would the Senator believe that?

Mr. GRAHAM. And well they should be. The U.S. Office of Technical Assessment has included Cuba among the 17 countries in the world which are believed to possess biological weapons. As I believe the Senator said a few moments ago in his statement, the former deputy director of the Soviet Union's biological weapons program, Mr. Ken Alibek, revealed that the Soviet Union had been providing assistance to Castro and that Cuba now has one of the most sophisticated genetic engineering labs in the entire world. Was the Senator from New Jersey aware of that history of preparation for violence through terrorism?

Mr. GRAHAM. I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey is familiar with Charles Hill and Michael Finney?

Mr. GRAHAM. Maybe you might be further illuminated, and our colleagues informed, about these two people who are also part of that large pool of those who are fleeing American justice in Cuba. Mr. Hill and Mr. Finney are accused of murder and airplane hijacking. In 1971, the two were driving a car filled with guns and explosives from California to Louisiana in an operation for the militant Republic of New Afrika, a small organization that seeks a black separatist nation within the United States. As Hill and Finney crossed into New Mexico, they were stopped by a 28-year-old State trooper, Robert Rosenbloom. There was a standoff. Mr. Rosenbloom was tragically shot dead. Nineteen days later, the fugitives scrambled aboard a TWA plane in Albuquerque and hijacked a flight which was bound for Chicago. Interviewed in Havana last year by a U.S. journalist, Hill said when he arrived in Cuba he ``was accepted by Fidel Castro's government as a soldier of the people's revolution.'' Senator Torricelli, were you aware this is the kind of person but for the amendment you are proposing would continue to be harbored in Cuba and would be sheltered from U.S. justice, and for which the family of Robert Rosenbloom, shot dead, would receive no sense of finality in terms of the loss of their loved one?

Mr. GRAHAM. This is a testimonial to the wisdom and range of knowledge of our colleague from New Jersey. He has certainly earned all of those accolades, and the Senator from North Dakota has reinforced that. I appreciate the Senator yielding and for his response to the questions. As I indicated, it is my intention, at an appropriate time, to seek recognition to make a statement of policy relative to the ill wisdom of the United States under these circumstances providing financing for the sale of agricultural products to Fidel Castro that he can then use for whatever sources of intimidation and control he would put them to, as he has to so many other aspects of the life of the Cuban people over the last 40-plus years. So I thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding and for the thoughtfulness of his responses and the solid policy of his amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I would like to, if I could, continue to amplify the issue that my good friend and colleague from Florida has just discussed; and that is to attempt to put a human face on this issue which we are dealing with at the present time. The question is, under Senator Smith's amendment, should there be a requirement that Cuba reform itself so that it is no longer one of the seven nations in the world to be listed as a sponsor of state terrorism in order to get the benefit of U.S. financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, and now the amendment that is pending from the Senator from New Jersey, which would also require that there be a return to the United States of those fugitives from justice who have found sanctuary in Cuba? Who are some of these fugitives from justice? Let me just talk about three of them. First, Victor Manuel Gerena. Mr. Gerena is on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. He belongs to a Puerto Rican independence group, the FLAN. This group is responsible for numerous acts of terrorism, terrorism in the United States of America, including a 1975 bombing in New York City that killed 4 and injured 63. He is also sought in connection with the armed robbery of $7 million from a security company. How was he able to get himself in a position to rob a security company of $7 million? He got there because the Cuban Government aided Gerena and his group in preparing the robbery and allegedly funneled them $55,000 to pay for the operation. Does that sound a little eerily reminiscent of what was happening before September 11? Gerena and a part of the stolen $7 million were smuggled into Cuba by diplomats stationed at Cuba's Embassy in Mexico City. That is one of the fugitives from justice that we believe should be returned to face justice as a precondition of the United States providing financing for agricultural sales to Cuba. Let's talk about Charles Hill and Michael Finney.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. Senator Johnson, I appreciate your comments. My primary objective in pursuing country-of-origin legislation is to provide consumers with accurate information about where their produce is grown. My home State of Florida has required mandatory country-of- origin labeling of fresh fruits and vegetables for over 20 years, and Florida consumers have made it known that they appreciate the availability of this information. Many domestic products are already labeled for promotion purposes. Our proudly labeled ``Florida Oranges'' are a great example of a successful marketing tool. There are any number of ways to label produce, including price-look-up stickers, plastic attachments, paper wrapping, signs next to barrels of produce. Produce items are increasingly being branded as another method of labeling. In recognition of this fact, the labeling provision included in Senator Harkin's farm bill provides the flexibility to label items by any visible and practical means. That said, I understand retailers would prefer to receive their produce shipments with country-of-origin labels already affixed to each piece of produce. To some degree, growers and packers are already labeling their products, and retails are not required to provide further information if this in the case. Regarding those products that do not arrive at the grocery store already labeled, I encourage growers and shippers to continue to do this and to work with retailers to find the most efficient methods to provide accurate country-of-origin information and labeling. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that we should continue discussion with the industries impacted by this amendment, and I look forward to helping everyone identify the best methods to implement labeling legislation and ensure that consumers have ready access to country-of-origin information.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I am here this evening with a tinge of sadness. At midnight last night, one of the most important and successful efforts in the United States to build better relations with our neighbors in Latin America expired. After 10 years of successful service to the United States and the four countries of the Andean region--Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia--the Andean Trade Preference Act expired of its own accord last night, and the Congress has not allocated the time necessary for its extension. This landmark trade agreement, which was passed in 1991, has helped the United States and these four countries to develop legitimate, strong, expanding commercial ties, and it has contributed substantially to the goal of stabilizing the economies and political systems of these four countries by encouraging a diversification of their economies. To look backwards, in the last full year before the Andean Trade Preference Act was passed, the United States imported $12.7 billion from these four Andean countries, primarily in traditional agricultural commodities such as coffee and bananas. In the year 2000, the United States imported $28.5 billion from these countries--a 125-percent increase. Much of this increase was in new and frequently nontraditional areas of economic activity for these four countries. To mention one example, the cut-flower industry hardly existed in terms of its imports into the United States prior to the Andean Trade Preference Act. In 1991, the year before ATPA took effect, the United States imported $220 million in flowers from the four Andean countries. In the year 2000, the United States had more than doubled that amount to over $440 million worth in flowers. The flower industry is particularly important because it is a very strong job generator. I have been told that, on average, for every hectare of land that is committed to flower production in the Andean region, there are between 5 and 10 persons employed to work those flowers and to bring them into full blossom and ready to be exported not only to the United States but increasingly to the world. The United States has also been a significant direct beneficiary in that we have substantially increased our exports to the Andean region. Over the last 8 years, those exports have grown by 65 percent, to a total of $6.3 billion in 1999. As one visits the Andean region, they are struck by the prevalence of U.S. products--everything from the yellow diesel equipment, Caterpillar, to telecommunications equipment made in the United States. Given the clear value this program has had for the United States and our four neighbors in the Andean region, it is a sad commentary that after 10 years of success we have allowed this program to expire. It also ought to be a strong motivation for us to say we shall not conclude this session of Congress without extending this program and expanding the program so that it will yield even greater benefits to the United States and to our Andean neighbors. I filed legislation in the last Congress and again in this one which has that objective. I am pleased to report that the Senate Finance Committee, last week, reported favorably the legislation which will extend and expand the Andean Trade Preference Act. The House of Representatives has already adopted a similar piece of legislation. I hope in the next few days the Senate will do likewise, and we can move quickly to resolve differences between the two Houses and send this legislation on to the President to be signed. I also am very hopeful we will make this legislation retroactive to midnight of last night so there will not be a hiatus in the benefits which have been available for a decade. Why is all of this important to the United States beyond the amount of direct economic benefit? It is important to the United States because the United States has a stake in what happens in this region of the world--a region that is so close to us. If we are serious about halting the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, we must be concerned about the Andean region because over 80 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States, and an increasing proportion of the heroin that comes into the United States, comes from this region. If we are interested in building strong democratic capitalist institutions, we should be concerned about this region. Colombia has had one of the longest democracies in South America. It has been a role model to other countries in the hemisphere. But Colombia, as well as its neighbors, has faced unusually stressful and challenging situations over the last decade. The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a source of stability in a region which has frequently been in turmoil. If we are steadfast in our war against terrorism, then we must be concerned with what is happening in the Andean region. Some of the most violent terrorists in the world are in our own hemisphere. The guerrillas and drug traffickers who are waging war on civil society in Colombia are some of the most vicious in the world. What many Americans fail to recognize is that the largest single source of terrorist attacks against Americans in the world is in the country of Colombia. In the year 2000, over 40 percent of the incidents of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests were in the country of Colombia. Unfortunately, that violence in Colombia is spilling over to its neighbors, especially Ecuador. I am concerned that we have already taken a step back from our commitment which the Congress made just a year ago through Plan Colombia, a commitment that was to galvanize the international community with Colombia in a major effort at rolling back drug trafficking, guerrillas, and terrorism. One year later, we in the Senate, by a 22-percent margin, have cut the funding for the Andean Regional Initiative. I hope before we vote on the foreign operations conference report the negotiations between the Senate and the House will result in a significant restoration of those funds not only because the dollars are needed in order to accomplish their important objectives but also because of the symbol that those dollars represent in terms of our commitment to a long-term war against terrorism. The Senate must act rapidly on this legislation so the people of this region will have confidence in our reliability as a neighbor and partner and that they will have incentives to develop legitimate economic alternatives to the production of drugs and other illicit activity. It has been estimated that in Colombia alone, if we were to be fully successful in our efforts to rid that country of the scourge of drug production and trafficking, some 400,000 Colombians would be without a livelihood. It is important that we be a partner not only in the eradication of drugs but also in the provision of legitimate, lawful employment to replace those 400,000 illicit jobs. I would point to the fact that the legislation I hope we will soon be considering is not just a replication of that which passed in 1991. There have been significant changes in the political and economic landscape of the Andean region since that initial enactment. To mention one of the most significant of those changes was last year's passage by the Congress of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act of 2000. This was important to the Andean region because it changed the competitive playing field between the Andean region and the Caribbean Basin. The 2000 legislation--the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act--gave to the countries of Central America and the Caribbean, which participate in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, parity with the benefits that had earlier been offered to Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. The effect of this has been to change the competitive position between the Caribbean Basin and the Andean Trade Pact. In one of the most critical areas, which is apparel assembly, today most apparel in the Caribbean Basin will come into the United States duty-free, while the Andean region will still be paying, on average, a 14-percent duty for the same assembled items. There have been fears that that differential--zero from the Caribbean; 14 percent from the Andean region--could result in as much as 100,000 jobs lost in Colombia alone, lesser amounts in the other three Andean trade countries. That would go in exactly the opposite direction of what we should be doing in terms of encouraging more legitimate jobs in the region as an alternative to the licit jobs in the drug trade. We are seeing the effects of that 14-percent differential. In May and August of this year, imports of apparel from Andean trade countries declined 6 percent over the same period just a year ago. Through that same period, imports from the CBI countries have increased over $47 million. We are already beginning to see some relocation of industrial activity out of the Andean region into the Caribbean. I was the sponsor of the Caribbean Basin legislation in 2000 and have long been a supporter of our relations with that region of the world. We must not continue to help one region at the expense of the other. We must have a trade, economic, and foreign policy perspective that treats all of our neighbors with respect and equality. I would like to point out that there is not only a past and a future in the United States relationship with the Andean trade region, but there is also going to be a past, a present, and a future. That future is that it is critical that we prepare for the year 2005. What is the significance of the year 2005? The significance is that in the major area of job creation and promotion that we can influence in this region, which is primarily in the apparel assembly area, we are going to lose the protections we have had over the recent past. A little background: For much of the past several decades, there has been an international agreement called the multifiber agreement. That agreement has restricted the number of specific apparel items which any individual country can ship into the United States. Under that agreement, for instance, the country of China is limited as to the number of shirts and blouses and other items it can import. Those numbers are substantially below what its capacity to produce is. Because of that, the differential in the cost of production between Mexico and the Caribbean and the Andean region and the Far East has been kept within tolerable limits. The concern is that as soon as that multifiber agreement lapses, which will occur in the year 2005, there will be the potential that the United States will be swamped with apparel products from Asia with which our neighbors in Mexico and the Caribbean and the Andean region cannot compete. Therefore, the next few years are critical in our urgency of developing a more efficient and productive industry and a partnership between the U.S. textile capability, because virtually all of those assembled items are assembled from U.S.-grown fiber and U.S.-spun textiles, which are then assembled in either Mexico or the Caribbean or the Andean region. We must make that partnership of American textiles and near-neighbor assembly sufficiently efficient that it can survive in a post-2005 economic environment. We need to start that process as rapidly as possible in all areas. We have already done it with Mexico and the Caribbean. Now we must turn our attention to the Andean region. One final point: Our office is receiving calls from a wide variety of businesses, both in the United States and in Latin America, complaining that they will be subject to increased duties starting today, December 5. Many of these companies deal with perishable goods, including cut flowers and vegetables, that cannot be held for days or weeks while Congress deliberates. I would like to make it clear again that it is my intention and hope to work to assure that the current ATPA benefits will be retroactive from the date of enactment of any legislation to midnight of last night. That would mean that any duties collected in the coming days by the Customs Service would be refundable. We recognize that the confusion and inconvenience this situation will create will result in some dislocations and some abrasions between our country and these four good neighbors. I wish it could have been avoided. What we can do today is commit that we will make this period as short as possible and we will make it as painless as possible to all involved. The old cliche is ``trade, not aid.'' That is not a cliche but a truth that has worked in the Andean region to our benefit and to the benefit of our four neighboring countries. The United States has been a powerful beacon for open markets and strong free trade and a capitalist economic system as a fundamental foundation under democracies. Now it is our challenge to rebuild that foundation in a deeper and expanded form for our relationship with these four neighbors in the Andean region. I hope we will get about that business of foundation building as soon as possible.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President. Expiration of ATPA

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I along with Senator Lincoln am proud to sponsor this bill to allow members of the military service, Foreign Service, and employees serving on assignment abroad to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. This bill does not create a new tax benefit, it merely modifies current law to exclude the time living abroad when calculating the number of years the homeowner has lived in their primary residence. This bill will treat members of the military, foreign service officers and civilians living abroad fairly, by treating them like all other Americans. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one-time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for two of the five years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefited older Americans, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. The 1997 act corrected this flaw. Now, a taxpayer who sells his or her principal residence is not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale. Joint files are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief: One, they must own the home for at least two of the five years preceding the sale; and two, they must live in the home as their main home for at least two of the last five years. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility text unintentionally and unfairly prohibits men and women in the Armed Forces, Foreign Service, and U.S. employees working abroad from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. This was not the intent of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This bill remedies the inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that military members, Foreign Service members, and U.S. employees working abroad are not penalized by suspending the five-year determination period. The member is still required to own and live in the home for at least two years. This change was previously passed by Congress as part of the 1999 Taxpayer Relief and Refund Act, which was vetoed by President Clinton for unrelated reasons. The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership for U.S. members serving abroad which is bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual homeowners. Owning a home provides Americans with a sense of community and adds stability to our nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also generated valuable property taxes for our nation's communities. We cannot afford to discourage U.S. citizens from working and living abroad by penalizing them with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Enacting this remedy will grant equal and fair tax relief to those U.S. citizens working abroad. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I along with Senator Lincoln am proud to sponsor this bill to allow members of the military service, Foreign Service, and employees serving on assignment abroad to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. This bill does not create a new tax benefit, it merely modifies current law to exclude the time living abroad when calculating the number of years the homeowner has lived in their primary residence. This bill will treat members of the military, foreign service officers and civilians living abroad fairly, by treating them like all other Americans. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one-time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for two of the five years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefited older Americans, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. The 1997 act corrected this flaw. Now, a taxpayer who sells his or her principal residence is not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale. Joint files are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief: One, they must own the home for at least two of the five years preceding the sale; and two, they must live in the home as their main home for at least two of the last five years. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility text unintentionally and unfairly prohibits men and women in the Armed Forces, Foreign Service, and U.S. employees working abroad from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. This was not the intent of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This bill remedies the inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that military members, Foreign Service members, and U.S. employees working abroad are not penalized by suspending the five-year determination period. The member is still required to own and live in the home for at least two years. This change was previously passed by Congress as part of the 1999 Taxpayer Relief and Refund Act, which was vetoed by President Clinton for unrelated reasons. The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership for U.S. members serving abroad which is bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual homeowners. Owning a home provides Americans with a sense of community and adds stability to our nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also generated valuable property taxes for our nation's communities. We cannot afford to discourage U.S. citizens from working and living abroad by penalizing them with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Enacting this remedy will grant equal and fair tax relief to those U.S. citizens working abroad. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague Senator Hollings for the effort he made a few moments ago to secure the unanimous consent agreement to take up the legislation which passed out of his Commerce Committee, which he, as well as the ranking member, Senator McCain, and a number of other Members of the Senate, have cosponsored to strengthen the security in and around affected communities of our seaports. The question to me, with the denial of that motion for unanimous consent to take up this very critical legislation for Senate consideration, is: Are we committed to the proposition that the only time we will provide for security for the people of America is after we have been attacked? Will we wait until another equivalent of the use of hijacked airplanes to strike major icons of American commerce and security such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Will we wait until the equivalent of using the mail as a means of distributing anthrax? Will we wait until we are attacked on our railways, in our seaports, through the containers that cover virtually every community in America, before we respond to enhanced security of those areas? It would be a sad commentary if we were so brain dead we had to wait until we had the alarm of an actual use of one of those techniques before we began to be concerned about enhancing our security. I commend Senator Hollings for bringing this matter so forcefully before us, and I ask whoever it might have been who objected to bringing this matter up to reconsider. This is not controversial legislation as, for instance, the legislation that was discussed by our colleague from Montana. This is legislation which has the broadest bipartisan support--support in the executive branch as well as in the Congress--and it increases the understanding of the American people. In recent discussions concerning our security vulnerabilities, almost every discussion now includes seaports as one of those areas to which we need to be giving priority attention. I hope there will be some sober reconsideration of whether those who have objected wish to assume the responsibility that when we have a terrorist use of our seaports, or one of the many containers that come into our seaports every day, as the means of assaulting the people of America, they are prepared to accept the responsibility that they decided there was something politically or otherwise of higher priority than providing this preventive form of security for the American people. Let me supplement the very able remarks of my colleague from South Carolina with two observations about why this issue is so important and timely. First, unlike airports, which are a product of the 20th century, where there was a strong Federal Government involvement from the very beginning, seaports are a colonial institution. They grew up as a highly localized institution. The city of New York developed its port; the city of Boston, its port; the city of Charleston, its port, largely independent of each other. That tradition of a high degree of localism persists today. There are many benefits in ports being able to accommodate the particular economic and social circumstances of the community in which they happen to reside, but they have also created a major vulnerability. There are 361 seaports in the United States. The tendency for those who are involved in the illicit use of seaports is to find the seaport that has the weakest security and then use that as the basis of their operation. In my State of Florida we have 14 deepwater seaports. We have had a long and unfortunate history of persons who want to use seaports as the means of carrying out their criminal deeds by determining which of those 14 has the most lax security and then using that seaport for their evil deeds. I suggest the same thing is likely to happen with terrorists. While we respect the tradition of localism in our seaports, we also need to have a strengthened Federal role, as the Senator from South Carolina has described, including consistency in security standards port to port so we will not be creating these pockets of soft vulnerability for criminal and terrorist activity. Second, some of our colleagues from the interior of the country might think this is an issue that does not affect them: If I don't have a seaport in my State--unlike the Presiding Officer who comes from a coastal State with a major seaport in Savannah--if I am not from such a State as Georgia or South Carolina or Florida, this does not affect me and I will not get particularly exercised about strengthening seaports. Mr. President, it is not the seaport that is the principal threat. It is those 16,000 containers every day, every 24 hours, which are delivered to an American seaport and then placed on a truck or railroad car and moved to virtually every community in America as a critical part of our national commerce. The 16,000 containers are the containers that come from noncontiguous nations. They do not come from Canada, they do not come from Mexico, but they come from everyplace else in the world and arrive at one of our 361 seaports in America. Less than 3 percent of those 16,000 are inspected. Therefore, 97 percent plus are released into America without any determination of what is inside that container. With the creativity terrorists have shown, the use of one of those containers from a port far away, with very little prospect that it will be inspected and interdicted before it arrives at its ultimate destination, is an attractive means of mass destruction for terrorists, as it has been in the past a very attractive means of more traditional criminal activity. One of the most important provisions of this legislation is going to be to rapidly accelerate the technology of x-raying and other scanning of containers so we will get that percentage above 3 percent and have a greater assurance that containers are not used as weapons of mass destruction. That, in conjunction with increased intelligence which will identify from what ports and with what bills of lading what containers are likely to be arriving in the United States that would be used for terrorists or other illegal activities in conjunction with increased technology, will give us a greater chance to secure the American people from the illicit use of the containers which emanate from our seaports. I urge Members who have objected to taking up this bill, which I suggest will pass this Senate by close to a unanimous vote, where there is strong support, to remove their objection. This legislation is largely based, as Senator Hollings has already noted, on work of a commission established over 2 years ago. It was headed by the then-head of U.S. Customs, Ray Kelly, who now happens to be the new chief of police of New York City, the admiral in charge of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Lloyd, and other Federal executive officials with responsibilities for seaports. It was a solid, well-developed report which has been implemented to the extent possible through administrative actions. Now the burden is on us to provide the resources and the law changes necessary to fully implement this report. It is an urgent matter, a matter which we should take pride in the opportunity to act preventively, preemptively, before the American people are attacked at a seaport or through a container which emanated from a seaport. I urge reconsideration of denial of the motion for unanimous consent, bring this matter up, have a debate, which I suggest will likely be short and very one-sided in terms of the support this legislation will receive. We should pass this legislation, send it to our colleagues in the House, and hope they will act expeditiously so we can provide this protection to the people of America. I thank my colleague, Senator Hollings.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield myself 5 minutes off the proponents' time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this is the most important vote that we are going to take in this Congress, first or second session, on education, on public services, and on fundamental fairness in America's marketplace. Why do I make that statement? I make that statement because, first, State and local governments are very dependent on the sales tax in order to fund their basic public service responsibilities, specifically education, police, and fire. Let me just give you some examples. The city of Boston: 10 percent of its revenue comes from its local sales tax. That represents approximately half of its annual cost of its police and fire services. The city of Detroit: 10 percent of its total revenue comes from its local sales tax. That represents two-thirds of the cost of its police and fire services. In Milwaukee, 23 percent of the local revenue comes from its sales tax which represents almost 100 percent of the cost of its police and fire. At a State level, to use my State of Florida as an example, 73 percent of our general revenue comes from the sales tax, and 70 percent of that general revenue is used to finance education and the public emergency services, such as State police and our judicial system. If there were to be a significant erosion of our sales tax, in these cities in my State, and the other 45 States which are very dependent on the sales tax, there would be an immediate impact on their primary responsibilities of education and public services. Second, State governments and local governments are facing a hemorrhaging of the sales tax. To use my State again as an example, the State of Florida collects approximately $30 billion a year in sales tax. The General Accounting Office has estimated that by the year 2003, there will be a 4-percent erosion of that sales tax revenue by virtue of sales tax that will not be required to be collected because the sale will be made by a distant seller. Then, according to a study made by the University of Tennessee, 3 years later, in the year 2006, that will go up from 4 percent to almost 8 percent of our State's sales tax revenue. That is what I call a hemorrhaging of the ability of a major State-- illustrative of the other 45 sales tax States--to be able to finance basic public services. Third, there is no rationale for this discrimination in favor of one group of retailers over another group of retailers. This is not a new tax. This is a responsibility to collect a tax which is paid by the ultimate consumer and which has been in place in most States, including mine, for over a half a century. This is not a new tax. It is a responsibility for equality of treatment in the collection of an existing tax. This will do serious harm. It will do more harm to our traditional Main Street retailers. Why should we say to a local bookstore that they have to collect the sales tax on the Harry Potter book, but that if you buy it from a distant store, they do not have to collect the sales tax? There is no rationale to that policy. There have been, in the past, times in which there has been a public policy that said, we will provide a lessened sales tax or some other preferential benefit in order to stimulate the sale of a product that we consider to be in the public interest. In my State, we did it, for instance, for solar energy. But we are not talking about new products here; we are talking about books, we are talking about clothes, we are talking about electronic items. It is not the product; it is the method of sale of the product that is getting the discriminatory beneficial treatment. Finally, there have been statements made about all of the horrors that are going to happen if we pass this amendment. People forget, this amendment had no life, had no vitality until this Congress, by a separate independent affirmative act, at some point in the future, voted to institute this authority of the States to collect the sales tax through distant sellers.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this is an extremely important issue for the most important services rendered by our State and local governments. I urge a vote against the motion to table.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Shawn Fitzpatrick, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on H.R. 1552.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following list of staff members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1428: Jim Barnett, Randy Bookout, Steven Cash, Thomas Corcoran, Paula DeSutter, Vicki Divoll, F.F., Peter Dorn, Melvin Dubee, Christopher Ford, Lorenzo Goco, Christopher Jackson, Ken Johnson, Mary Pat Lawrence, Mark Magee, Kathleen McGhee, Don Mitchell, Ken Myers, Don Stone, Linda Taylor, Tracye Winfrey, James Wolfe, and Amanda Krohn.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 8, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., on the nomination of Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., to be Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The fact is, even with the sophisticated technology that our now-Presiding Officer just described, there is still a tremendous burden on intelligence. I visited some time ago in the course of my interest in seaport security what is the largest port in the world at Rotterdam, which uses a very advanced level of technology. But they can only inspect a relatively small percentage of all the containers that come into that port. So they must depend upon intelligence information to allow them to identify which of those thousands of containers that are arriving every day at Rotterdam are the ones that are the most suspicious and, therefore, need to have this advanced technology applied. While part of the Sea Port Security Act is going to give, hopefully as quickly as possible, to all of our ports significantly better technology, we are still going to be relying on intelligence to focus on which of those containers to which that technology would need to be applied. The legislation before us is a significant step in increasing our capability to provide that intelligence to seaports as well as to thousands of other American vulnerabilities.