Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today along with my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Mack, I am introducing the Professional Employer Organization Workers Benefits Act of 2000. This legislation will expand retirement and health benefits for workers at small and medium-sized businesses in this country. The bill makes it easier for certified professional employer organizations (PEO's) to assist small and medium-sized businesses in complying with the many responsibilities of being an employer. It permits PEO's to collect Federal employment taxes on behalf of the employer and provide benefits to the small business' workers. For many of these workers, the pension, health and other benefits that a PEO provides would not be available from the small business itself because they are too costly for the small business to provide on its own. The average client of a PEO is a small business with 18 workers and an average wage of $20,000. PEO's have the expertise and can take advantage of economies of scale to provide health and retirement benefits in an affordable and efficient manner. A recent Dunn & Bradstreet survey of small businesses reveled that only 39 percent offered health care and just 19 percent offer retirement plans. We must take every opportunity to assist these small businesses in providing retirement and health benefits to their employees. PEO's offer one creative way to bridge the gap between what workers need and what small businesses can afford to provide. In fact, one analyst at Alex. Brown & Sons estimates that 40 percent of companies in a PEO coemployment relationship upgrade their total employee benefits package as a result of the partnership with the PEO. Twenty-five percent of those companies offer health and other benefits for the first time. Over the past few years, small and medium-sized businesses have sought out the services offered by PEO's. In response, many states have created programs to recognize, license and regulate PEO's to ensure that a viable industry could grow. Unfortunately, federal law has not kept pace. Current rules for who can collect employment taxes and provide benefits do not fit with the PEO model. Under some interpretations, PEO's would be prohibited from performing the very services that small businesses are asking them to undertake. This legislation clarifies the tax laws to make it clear that PEO's meeting certain standards will be able to assist small businesses in providing employee benefits and collecting Federal employment taxes. This bill is a narrower version of a provision that was included in the pension legislation I sponsored in the last Congress. This new bill incorporates comments we received from interested parties over the course of the past year, including those received from the Treasury and Labor Departments. As a result the bill we are introducing today is much improved from previous versions. In addition, I would like to make clear what this bill does not do. Unlike earlier versions, this legislation applies only to PEO's, and not to temporary staffing agencies. Further, this bill applies only to the two specific areas of tax law--employment taxes and employee benefits. It does not affect any other law nor does it affect the determination of who is the employer for any other purpose. The bill specifically provides that it creates no inferences with respect to those issues. I am hopeful that, with this narrower focus, this legislation can be considered on its own merits, without getting bogged down in larger disputes involving contingent workforces and independent contractors. Those issues are important ones that Congress may want to examine, but we should not allow them to delay resolution of the unrelated PEO issued addressed by this bill. I look forward to working with Senator Mack, my other colleagues on the Finance Committee, and the administration to move this bill during the 106th Congress so that we can help small- and medium-sized businesses operate more efficiently while at the same time expanding the benefits available to their workers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following explanation of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators Hollings, Breaux, and Cleland, to introduce the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2000, a bill that would significantly improve the overall security and cargo processing operations at U.S. seaports. For some time, I have very been concerned that seaports--unlike our airports, lack the advanced security procedures and equipment that are necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, cargo theft and drug trafficking. In addition, although seaports conduct the vast majority of our international trade, the activities of law enforcement and trade processing agencies--such as the Coast Guard, Customs, the Department of Agriculture, the FBI, and state and local agencies--are often uncoordinated and fragmented. Taken together, the lack of security and interagency coordination at U.S. seaports present an extremely attractive target for criminals and a variety of criminal activities. Before discussing the specifics of this legislation, it is important to describe the circumstances that have caused the security crisis at our seaports. Today, U.S. seaports conduct 95 percent of the Nation's international trade. Over the next twenty years, the total volume of imported and exported goods at seaports is expected to increase three- fold. In addition, the variety of trade and commerce that are carried out at seaports has greatly expanded. Bulk cargo, containerized cargo, passenger cargo and tourism, intermodal transportation systems, and complex domestic and international trade relationships have significantly changed the nature and conduct of seaport commerce. This continuing expansion of activity at seaports has increased the opportunities for a variety of illegal activities, including drug trafficking, cargo theft, auto theft, illegal immigration, and the diversion of cargo, such as food, to avoid safety inspections. In the face of these new challenges, it appears that the U.S. port management system has fallen behind the rest of the world. We lack a comprehensive, nationwide strategy to address the security issues that face our seaport system. Therefore, in 1998, I asked the President to establish a Federal commission to evaluate both the nature and extent of crime and the overall state of security in seaports and to develop recommendations for improving the response of Federal, State and local agencies to all types of seaport crime. In response to my request, President Clinton established the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports on April 27, 1999. Over the past year, the Commission has conducted on-site surveys of twelve (12) U.S. seaports, including the Florida ports of Miami and Port Everglades. At each location, interviews and focus group sessions were held with representatives of Government agencies and the trade community. The focus group meetings with Federal agencies, State and local government officials, and the trade community were designed to solicit their input regarding issues involving crime, security, cooperation, and the appropriate government response to these issues. The Commission also visited two large foreign ports--Rotterdam and Felixstowe--in order to assess their security procedures and use their standards and procedures as a ``benchmark'' for operations at U.S. ports. In February of this year, the Commission issued preliminary findings which outlined many of the common security problems that were discovered in U.S. seaports. Among other conclusions, the Commission found that: (1) intelligence and information sharing among law enforcement agencies needs to be improved at many ports; (2) many ports do not have any idea about the threats they face, because vulnerability assessments are not performed locally; (3) a lack of minimum security standards at ports and at terminals, warehouses, and trucking firms, leaves many ports and port users vulnerable to theft, pilferage, and unauthorized access by criminals; and (4) advanced equipment, such as small boats, cameras, vessel tracking devices, and large scale x-rays, are lacking at many high-risk ports. Although the Commission's final report will not be released until later this summer, I have worked closely with them to draft this legislation. The legislation Senator Hollings and I are introducing today will begin to address the problems of our seaports by directing the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in consultation with the Customs Service and the Maritime Administration, to establish a Task Force on Port Security. The new Task Force on Port Security will be responsible for implementing all of the provisions of our legislation. It will have a balanced representation, including Federal, State, local, and private sector representatives familiar with port operations, including port labor. To ensure full implementation of this legislation, the bill requires the U.S. Coast Guard to establish local port security committees at each U.S. seaport. Membership of these committees will include representatives of the local port authority, labor organizations, the private sector, and Federal, State, and local government officials. The committees will be chaired by the local U.S. Coast Guard Captain-of- the-Port. In addition, our bill requires the Task Force on Port Security to develop a system of providing port security threat assessments for U.S. seaports, and to revise these assessments at least every three years. The local port security committees will participate in the analysis of threat and security concerns. Perhaps most important, the bill requires the Task Force to develop voluntary minimum security guidelines for seaports, develop a ``model port'' concept for all seaports, and include recommended ``best practices'' guidelines for use by maritime terminal operators. Again, local port security committees are to participate in the formulation of these security guidelines, and the Coast Guard is required to pursue the international adoption--through the International Maritime Organization and other organizations--of similar security guidelines. Some States and localities have already conducted seaport security reviews, and have implemented strategies to correct the security shortfalls that they have discovered. In 1999, Florida initiated comprehensive security review of seaports within the state. Led by James McDonough, Director of the governor's Office of Drug Control, the review found that 150 to 200 metric tons of cocaine--or fifty percent of the U.S. total-flow into Florida annually through ports throughout the state. Both the Florida Legislature and the Florida National Guard recognized the need to address this growing problem and acted decisively. Legislation was introduced in the Florida Senate that called for the development and implementation of statewide port security plans, including requirements for minimum security standards and compliance inspections. In fiscal year 2001, the Florida National Guard will commit $1 million to provide counter-narcotics support at selected ports-of-entry to both strengthen U.S. Customs Service interdiction efforts and enhance overall security at these ports. In a July 21, 2000, editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat, Mr. McDonough identifies the evaluation of Florida's seaports and the implementation of security standards as a priority initiative in stemming the flow of drugs into Florida. We realize that U.S. seaports are a joint federal, state, and local responsibility, and we seek to support comprehensive port security efforts such as the one in Florida. Therefore, our bill provides significant incentives for both port infrastructure improvements and research and development on new port security equipment. The bill authorizes the Maritime Administration to provide title XI loan guarantees to cover the costs of port security infrastructure improvements, such as cameras and other monitoring equipment, fencing systems, as well as other physical security enhancements. The authorization level of $10 million annually, for four years, could guarantee up to $400 million in loans for seaport security enhancements. In addition, the legislation will also establish a matching grant program to develop and transfer technology to enhance security at U.S. seaports. The U.S. Customs Service may award up to $12 million annually, for four years, for this competitive grant program. We also must improve the reporting on, and response to, seaport crimes as they take place. Therefore, the bill requires the Attorney General to coordinate reports of seaport related crimes and to work with State law enforcement officials to harmonize the reporting of data of cargo theft. To facilitate this coordination, the bill authorizes $2 million annually, for four years, to modify the Justice Department's National Incident-Based Reporting System. It also authorizes grants to states to help them modify their reporting systems to capture crime data more accurately. In order to pay for all of these important initiatives, the bill would reauthorize an extension of tonnage duties through 2006. It would also make available $40,000,000 from the collection of these duties to carry out all of the provisions of the Port and Maritime Security Act. Currently, the collection of tonnage duties is not directed towards a specific program. Implementing the provisions of the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2000 will produce concrete improvements in the efficiency, safety, and security of our nation's seaports, and will result in a demonstrable benefit for those who currently pay tonnage duties. Seaports play one of the most critical roles in expanding our international trade and protecting our borders from international threats. The ``Port and Maritime Security Act'' recognizes these important responsibilities of our seaports, and devotes the necessary resources to move ports into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to look towards the future by supporting this critical legislation--and by taking action to protect one of our most valuable tools in promoting economic growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the July 21, 2000 editorial from The Tallahasee Democrat in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Mack and Chairman Stevens to secure funding for this important project. Crusader Program

Mr. GRAHAM. This will be the only SAR facility of its kind in the east, and the Department of Defense has indicated to us, its' strong interest in developing this capability further in South Florida. It was for this reason that we asked the Senate to approve, which it did, an amendment for up to an additional $5 million dollars specifically for drug interdiction activities at the facility.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce the Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000 with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Mikulski, Bayh, Breaux, Collins, and Akaka. Americans in need of long-term care now face a fragmented and inadequate system of state and federal programs. This is no longer acceptable. Millions are struggling today to meet their long-term care needs, and these numbers will grow dramatically as the country ages. While Medicare reform is important, we will have accomplished little if we address seniors' acute care needs, but then leave them to suffer in poverty when they require long-term care. I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation that demonstrates the Senate's commitment to addressing this issue in a comprehensive way. The Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000 will help millions of seniors and their caregivers who are struggling in our communities, while also encouraging all Americans to better plan for their own retirements. Many seniors move to Florida with plans of a comfortable retirement, but all too often, these hopes are never realized. A stroke or Alzheimer's Disease strikes and a family is quickly overwhelmed by their long-term care costs and responsibilities. To complicate matters, many spouses of disabled seniors are frail themselves, and so find it increasingly difficult to meet the needs of their loved ones. Caregiving is also a huge concern for the millions of Americans in the sandwich generation, those who are caring both for their children and their parents, while also balancing work obligations. Almost one- third of all caregivers is juggling employment and caregiver responsibilities, and of this group, two-thirds have conflicts that require them to quit work, cut hours, or turn down promotions. It is clear that too many Americans are now being forced to sacrifice their health and their careers to care for their loved ones. To help, this bill: provides the disabled or their caregivers with a $3,000 long-term care tax credit; implements the National Family Caregiver Support Program, which will provide caregivers with information and services to help them meet their responsibilities; increases Social Services Block Grant funding for community-based long-term care services; and ensures that seniors can return to their nursing home after hospitalization. This bill can also avert the long-term care crisis that will result if we do nothing to prepare for the aging of the Baby Boomers. Millions who are struggling to care for their parents today will soon need long- term care themselves. Baby Boomers had a higher divorce rate and fewer children than today's seniors, so they will not have the same support network that today's retirees enjoy. With more seniors needing more paid help in the future, costs will skyrocket. According to the Congressional Budget Office, individual out-of-pocket costs for long-term care could nearly double from $43 billion today to $82 billion in 2020, and government's costs could increase from $73 billion to $125 billion in the same period. It is clear that future retirees and the government cannot afford business as usual. We must ask all Americans to take more responsibility for their own long-term care needs. To help bring this about, this bill: offers a tax deduction for the premiums of long-term care insurance policies; provides long-term care insurance to federal employees; authorizes a national public information campaign to educate employers and employees about the benefits of long-term care coverage; mandates a federal survey to determine whether cities and counties are ``elder-ready;'' calls for studies to determine how best to meet Americans' future long- term care needs; and includes a Sense of the Senate affirming the body's commitment to ensuring seniors' physical, emotional, and financial well-being in the new century. The long-term care crisis we face demonstrates that we have neglected this issue for far too long. But we must act now. The large number of seniors and their caregivers who are suffering in our communities today and the future needs of the Baby Boomers require it. A big problem requires a big solution, and this bill helps protect seniors today and in the future. All of the cosponsors of this legislation have championed the need to meet seniors' long-term care needs. The fact that we have all come together in a bipartisan manner demonstrates that the Senate is committed to addressing this issue in a meaningful way. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the many organizations that support this bill to make comprehensive long-term care reform a reality.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce the Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000 with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Mikulski, Bayh, Breaux, Collins, and Akaka. Americans in need of long-term care now face a fragmented and inadequate system of state and federal programs. This is no longer acceptable. Millions are struggling today to meet their long-term care needs, and these numbers will grow dramatically as the country ages. While Medicare reform is important, we will have accomplished little if we address seniors' acute care needs, but then leave them to suffer in poverty when they require long-term care. I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation that demonstrates the Senate's commitment to addressing this issue in a comprehensive way. The Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000 will help millions of seniors and their caregivers who are struggling in our communities, while also encouraging all Americans to better plan for their own retirements. Many seniors move to Florida with plans of a comfortable retirement, but all too often, these hopes are never realized. A stroke or Alzheimer's Disease strikes and a family is quickly overwhelmed by their long-term care costs and responsibilities. To complicate matters, many spouses of disabled seniors are frail themselves, and so find it increasingly difficult to meet the needs of their loved ones. Caregiving is also a huge concern for the millions of Americans in the sandwich generation, those who are caring both for their children and their parents, while also balancing work obligations. Almost one- third of all caregivers is juggling employment and caregiver responsibilities, and of this group, two-thirds have conflicts that require them to quit work, cut hours, or turn down promotions. It is clear that too many Americans are now being forced to sacrifice their health and their careers to care for their loved ones. To help, this bill: provides the disabled or their caregivers with a $3,000 long-term care tax credit; implements the National Family Caregiver Support Program, which will provide caregivers with information and services to help them meet their responsibilities; increases Social Services Block Grant funding for community-based long-term care services; and ensures that seniors can return to their nursing home after hospitalization. This bill can also avert the long-term care crisis that will result if we do nothing to prepare for the aging of the Baby Boomers. Millions who are struggling to care for their parents today will soon need long- term care themselves. Baby Boomers had a higher divorce rate and fewer children than today's seniors, so they will not have the same support network that today's retirees enjoy. With more seniors needing more paid help in the future, costs will skyrocket. According to the Congressional Budget Office, individual out-of-pocket costs for long-term care could nearly double from $43 billion today to $82 billion in 2020, and government's costs could increase from $73 billion to $125 billion in the same period. It is clear that future retirees and the government cannot afford business as usual. We must ask all Americans to take more responsibility for their own long-term care needs. To help bring this about, this bill: offers a tax deduction for the premiums of long-term care insurance policies; provides long-term care insurance to federal employees; authorizes a national public information campaign to educate employers and employees about the benefits of long-term care coverage; mandates a federal survey to determine whether cities and counties are ``elder-ready;'' calls for studies to determine how best to meet Americans' future long- term care needs; and includes a Sense of the Senate affirming the body's commitment to ensuring seniors' physical, emotional, and financial well-being in the new century. The long-term care crisis we face demonstrates that we have neglected this issue for far too long. But we must act now. The large number of seniors and their caregivers who are suffering in our communities today and the future needs of the Baby Boomers require it. A big problem requires a big solution, and this bill helps protect seniors today and in the future. All of the cosponsors of this legislation have championed the need to meet seniors' long-term care needs. The fact that we have all come together in a bipartisan manner demonstrates that the Senate is committed to addressing this issue in a meaningful way. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the many organizations that support this bill to make comprehensive long-term care reform a reality.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, members of the Senate, I rise before you today with my colleague, Senator Mack, to offer an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill on behalf of the Florida citrus industry. Mr. President, if ever there was an industry in crisis, this is it. Since last year, the Florida citrus industry has been besieged by the ravages of citrus canker. Citrus canker is a disease that spreads rapidly through the air to infect grove after grove after grove. There is no cure. Once a tree becomes infected, it must be burned to the ground to prevent further spreading. As part of an ongoing effort to eradicate citrus canker, the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a regulation requiring the destruction of all trees within a 1,900 foot radius of an infected tree. The result is that hundreds of healthy trees are burned to the ground. This government regulation is critical to eradication of citrus canker, but it increases the number of trees that are destroyed. To date, over 1,500 acres of limes and oranges, have been burned. In response, both the Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture declared a state of emergency in Florida due to the citrus canker outbreak. Once destroyed, it takes between three and four years for a citrus tree to reach maturity and produce its maximum capacity of fruit. The growers whose healthy trees are destroyed by the federal government are robbed of income today and income for the next three to four years. I believe that the destruction of the healthy trees in accordance with federal regulation is in effect, a ``federal taking'' of private property for which Florida citrus producers should be compensated. The Appropriations bill we are considering today provides the Secretary with authority to spend funds on compensation for growers who experience losses due to citrus canker. Our amendment would modify this language to mirror language in the House-passed Agriculture Appropriations bill which provides up to $40 million for compensation of growers for citrus canker losses. Our amendment ensures that Florida citrus growers whose trees are destroyed as a result of federal regulation are able to receive appropriate compensation. I hope that my colleagues will join me in providing much needed assistance to an industry besieged by disease and severely impacted by a federal regulation which, while well-intentioned and important to the eradication of this disease, robs citrus growers of income from healthy trees for a three to four year period.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Mack and I offer this amendment that will correct an injustice being done to nursery growers in south Florida impacted by Hurricane Irene in October of 1999. On October 15, Florida was hit with Hurricane Irene. Following closely on the heels of Hurricane Floyd, a storm that caused a disaster declaration in 13 states, Hurricane Irene dropped over nine inches of rainfall on average across Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties. Three-day rainfall totals at specific measuring sites throughout this area ranged between 10.88 and 17.47 inches. Nineteen Florida counties received a major disaster declaration. At the height of the storm, more than 1 million people lost power. Agriculture losses from Hurricane Irene totaled over $438 million. In total, seven deaths were attributed to Irene's visit to the Florida coastline. Last year, Congress specifically provided $186 million in ``additional resources for damage caused by hurricanes and other natural disasters in Florida and other states'' under Title I-- Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of the FY 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act. This crop loss assistance was provided in addition to the $1.2 billion previously allocated under the Crop Disaster Program to respond to farmers who suffered losses due to ``adverse weather and related conditions.'' In executing this program, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made the determination that nursery, unlike other Florida crops damaged by Hurricane Irene, will not be eligible for Crop Disaster Program assistance. FSA indicates that nursery is ineligible because the program is limited to losses in the 1999 crop year, and the hurricane damage occurred after the FSA-set 2000 crop year had begun. The hurricane damage occurred on October 16-17, 1999, and the 2000 nursery crop year, according to FSA, began on October 1, 1999. By all accounts, the FSA's crop year determination was made on an arbitrary basis as nursery does not have a traditional crop year and crops are grown on a year-round basis. By contrast, the Risk Management Agency had a similar problem and made a special dispensation for the nursery crop year to provide eligibility for hurricane losses under the federal crop insurance program. The Florida delegation has made a concerted attempt to work closely with the Department since the hurricane damage occurred. On December 9, 1999 FSA representatives briefed the Florida delegation on disaster assistance available to Florida farmers, and we were informed that Crop Disaster Program assistance would be available to respond to hurricane-related farm losses in Florida. Today, it is still not available. The amendment we offer today will ensure that nursery stock losses due to Hurricane Irene will be eligible for relief under the Crop Disaster Program. Mr. President, the intent of Congress was clear--that losses in Florida due to natural disasters should be covered by the Crop Disaster Program. I hope that my colleagues will support our amendment that will provide clear direction to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ensure that its actions meet the intent of Congress. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 3966 (Purpose: To permit the enrollment of an additional 100,000 acres in the wetlands reserve program) On page 85, after line 8, of Division B, as modified, add the following: Sec. . Notwithstanding section 1237(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(1)), the Secretary of Agriculture may permit the enrollment of not to exceed 1,075,000 acres in the wetlands reserve program: Provided, That not withstanding section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i), such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended, shall provided through the Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 2000 for technical assistance activities performed by any agency of the Department of Agriculture in carrying out this section. Provided further, That the entire amount necessary to carry out this section shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request for the entire amount that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, upon the passage of our legislation to reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and to create public and private incentives to reduce the cost of future disasters. On June 1st, we will face the beginning of the 2000 Hurricane season, the National Weather Service has predicted that the United States will face at least three intense hurricanes during the next six months. Coming just eight years after Hurricane Andrew damaged 128,000 homes, left approximately 160,000 people homeless, and caused nearly $30 billion in damage, this forecast reminds us of the inevitability and destructive power of Mother Nature. We must prepare for natural disasters now in order to minimize their devastating effects. It is impossible to prevent violent weather. Our experiences since Hurricane Andrew--including the Northridge Earthquake, the Upper Midwest Floods, and Hurricanes Fran and Floyd--clearly demonstrate the overwhelming losses associated with major weather events. However, Congress can reduce these losses by legislating a comprehensive, nationwide mitigation strategy. Senator Inofe and I have worked closely with our colleagues in the Senate, FEMA, the National Emergency Management Association, the National League of Cities, the American Red Cross, and numerous other groups to construct a comprehensive proposal that will make mitigation--not response and recovery--the primary focus of emergency management. In addition, I would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Bond, Chairman of FEMA's appropriations subcommittee, in working closely with us to pass this legislation. This legislation amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by: Authorizing programs for pre-disaster emergency preparedness; Streamlining the administration of disaster relief; Controlling the Federal costs of disaster assistance; and Providing real incentives for the development of community-sponsored disaster mitigation projects. Mr. President, history has demonstrated that no community in the United States is safe from disasters. From tropical weather along the Atlantic Coast to devastating floods in the Upper Midwest to earthquakes in the Pacific Rim, all Americans have suffered as a result of Mother Nature's fury. She will strike again. But we can avoid some of the excessive human and financial costs of the past by applying both what we have learned about disaster preparedness and by implementing new technologies that are available to mitigate against loss. Florida has been a leader in incorporating the principles and practice of hazard mitigation into the mainstream of community preparedness. We have developed and implemented mitigation projects using funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, FEMA's Project Impact, and many other public-private partnerships. All Americans play a role in reducing the risks associated with natural and technological hazards. Engineers, hospital administrators, business leaders, regional planners, emergency managers and volunteers each contribute to community-wide mitigation efforts. A successful mitigation project may be as basic as the Miami Wind Shutter program. The installation of shutters is a cost-effective mitigation measure that has proven effective in protecting buildings from hurricane force winds, and in the process, minimizing direct and indirect losses to vulnerable facilities. These shutters significantly increase strength and provide increased protection of life and property. For example, Hurricane Andrew did $17 million worth of damage to three hospitals in Miami. These facilities included Baptist, Miami South, and Mercy Hospitals. Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, these hospitals were retrofitted with wind shutters. Six years after Hurricane Georges brushed against South Florida, this mitigation project paid real dividends. Mercy Hospital estimated that the $2 million investment in their shutters protected their $230 million medical complex. In addition, the track of this storm motivated evacuees to leave more vulnerable areas of South Florida to seek shelter. The protective shutters allowed this hospital to be used as a safe haven for 200 pregnant mothers, prevented the need to evacuate critical patients, and helped the staff's families to secure shelter during the response effort. In July of 1994, Tropical Storm Alberto's impact on the Florida Panhandle triggered more than $500 million in federal disaster assistance. State and local officials concluded that the most direct solution to the problem of repetitive flooding was to remove or demolish the structures at risk. A Community Development Block Grant of $27.5 million was used to assist local governments in acquiring 388 extremely vulnerable properties. The success of this effort was evident when the same area experienced flooding again in the spring of 1998. Although both floods were of comparable severity, the damages from the second disaster were significantly lower in the communities that acquired the flood prone properties. In summary, this mitigation project reduced the communities' vulnerability to loss. Today, we will reinforce the working partnership between the federal government, the states, local communities and the private sector. In mitigating the devastating effects of natural disasters, it is also imperative that we control the cost of disaster relief. Our legislation will help both of these efforts. I thank my colleagues for their support of this initiative.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Despite the importance of this refuge to the loggerhead sea turtle, there is no refuge station at Archie Carr. The result is both a lack of educational opportunities for visitors and a lack of security at the refuge. I join my colleague, Senator Mack, in proposing that $200,000 of the funds provided by the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge be available for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of site evaluation for a visitor center/research and education center.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to first thank my colleagues, Senators Gorton and Byrd for their support in obtaining $2 million in the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1991. It is 900 acres in Brevard County Florida which makes up the twenty mile section of coastline from Melbourne Beach to Wabasso Beach in Florida. It is the most important nesting area for loggerhead sea turtles in the western hemisphere and the second most important nesting beach in the world.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of the act for the consideration of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what we are about is to authorize that $40 billion of the new surplus which has come into the Federal Government and is projected to come over the next 5 years to be dedicated to the prescription medication benefit. This would allow for a total of $80 billion to be committed to this program. The result of that will be to bring the scale of the prescription medication benefit, as a totality of the Medicare program, somewhat into line with what other health care programs are spending on prescription medications today. The reality is that prescription medications have been the fastest growing sector of American health care, increasing at a rate of 15 to 20 percent a year. The fact is, with the new breakthroughs in prescription medication, there is likely to be further escalation of prescription medication costs. We have incorporated in the bill that has been introduced, and which would be supported by this allocation of additional funds, that annual increase in the expected rate of prescription medication costs. It is our hope that through some of the procedures in this legislation--such as the encouragement for the use of generic drugs, the use of an intermediary called a pharmacy benefits manager, and multiple managers so that there will be competition between the pharmaceutical company and the Medicare beneficiary who is using those drugs--there will be efforts to restrain the enormous explosion in cost of prescription medication. But I would have to honestly say to my colleagues that there is every indication the prescription medication will continue to be a rapidly growing source of medical expenditures. I take this occasion to commend Senator Roth, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for the legislation which he has, this week, outlined to the committee and to the American people. I think it is a very constructive contribution toward the goal of arriving at a prescription medication benefit that will serve the almost 40 million Americans who depend upon Medicare for their health care financing. I suggest that if we had a more realistic allocation for the purpose of prescription medication, the proposal that Senator Roth made would be even more advantageous to Medicare beneficiaries. Thus, I hope this amendment will be adopted and will give us the basis for a continuing dialog and discussion, leading to a prescription medication benefit that will serve America's needs. One of the things that Senator Roth has done in his proposal, which I think is especially significant, is to recognize that prescription drugs are a central part of a modern health care system. Some other proposals, particularly those emanating from the other Chamber, have treated prescription drugs as if they were the red-headed third cousin at the family picnic --something that is still outside the main circle of appropriate health care. The fact is, in modern medicine, prescription drugs are a centerpiece, particularly as we make what I think is the most significant reform in the 35-year history of Medicare, and that is to move it from a program which was exclusively acute care--one that would provide extensive and very effective medical services if you had a dramatic incidence, such as a disease or an accident, but had almost no orientation towards trying to keep you healthy through effective prevention measures --to me it is that movement from essentially a sickness plan to a wellness plan that is the most fundamental reform which Medicare must make now in its 35th year. And key to being able to do that is the inclusion of prescription medication. Is this $40 billion that we are discussing an unrealistic number? Well, let me just give you these numbers. When we started this budget year, the assumption was that we would be dealing with a non-Social Security surplus, over the next 5 years, of $95 billion. We allocated $40 billion of that $95 billion to prescription drugs, or roughly 42 percent of the total non-Social Security surplus, for 5 years, was committed to this single purpose of financing a prescription drug benefit. It is now estimated that when the next non-Social Security surplus, for 5 years, is calculated, it will be more in the range of $350 to $400 billion. We have had approximately a quadrupling of the non-Social Security surplus as a result of the strong economy from which we all so benefit. Is it not appropriate, out of that additional $300 billion, to take another $40 billion and use it so that we can finance a prescription medication benefit at approximately the same level that private sector health care plans are financing prescription medication in terms of a percentage of total health care expenditures? We are expending, this year, about $280 billion on Medicare. This benefit will add about $25 billion a year--half of which is the Federal component, half of which is the beneficiary's monthly payment. So we now will have a program with slightly over $300 billion. If we stay with that $25 billion number, we will have less than 10 percent of the total Medicare program to be in prescription drugs, while private health insurance for persons over 65 are spending 25 percent or more. By adding this additional $40 billion, we will double that percentage to approximately 18 to 19 percent of total Medicare expenditures, which I think is the range that is going to be required in order to finance a reasonable, affordable, medically appropriate prescription medication benefit for America's older citizens. Mr. President, I offer this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, was the Senator from New Mexico speaking on the opposition's time on our amendment?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand we are now debating the amendment as offered by Senator Roth relative to repeal of the telephone tax. In the absence of anyone wishing to speak further on that issue, I want to offer the next amendment which relates to prescription medication. I rise today for myself and Senators Kennedy, Robb, Bryan, Lincoln, Rockefeller, Daschle, Wellstone, John Kerry, and Dorgan to offer an amendment which will couple the estate tax, as presented by Senator Daschle, with an amendment to the budget resolution which dedicates an additional $40 billion of the new surplus dollars towards a Medicare prescription drug benefit. To put this in context, in the budget resolution, $40 billion with conditions was inserted for purposes of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I believe that no one will argue with the description of that $40 billion as being an arbitrary number; that is, it was not a number which was derived by some analysis of what was going to be required to fund an effective prescription medication benefit for the first 5 years of its availability. I am here with a sense of disappointment. I am disappointed because I do not think the issue of the prominence that is being given to the estate tax repeal should be what we are debating on July 13 of the year 2000. I do not believe the issue of estate tax repeal, whatever absolute value one places upon it, is among the highest priorities of the American people and deserves the kind of time and attention it is receiving today. I am also disappointed that this discussion of the estate tax has, frankly, become a charade. What is happening is that, on each side of the aisle, we are hurling a grenade at the other side on the issue we think is the most popular or politically difficult to vote upon, such as the issue of repealing the telephone tax. We ought to be discussing what is a first priority to Americans, and I happen to believe that in that first tier is the issue of modernization of the Medicare program which just yesterday celebrated its 35th birthday. Unlike a human being who, after 35 years of life, would have largely grown and matured into adulthood, the Medicare program at 35 years of life is still very much as it was on the day it was born in 1965. One of the areas in which it is still as it was when it was born in 1965 is the absence of a prescription medication benefit. Virtually every program today which finances the health care of Americans, from the Medicaid program, which is available to indigent Americans, to private health care financing programs, includes a prescription medication benefit. Medicare stands out as the exception to that rule. What is especially ironic to that exception is that some significant things have happened in the 35 years we have had the Medicare program. One of those things is that the characteristics of the American Medicare-eligible population have changed. When Social Security was established in the 1930s, the average American would only live a few years, generally 7 years or fewer, after they had reached the age of 65. Today the average American male will live 15 years after he reaches the age of 65, and the average American female will live to be 85. Those numbers will dramatically increase during the 21st century as new medical breakthroughs extend the age of life. The significance of that aging process on the Medicare program is that it makes services through Medicare which were irrelevant or unnecessary when the program commenced now a center part of American health care, programs such as prevention of illness, those things we now know how to do to intervene and to avoid a condition degenerating into a fatality. It also fails to adequately cover chronic condition management, which is a very typical circumstance for persons who live into their eighties or nineties. Both of those, prevention and chronic condition management, almost always involve prescription medication as an important part of the treatment regime, and yet our Medicare program fails to provide a prescription medication benefit. I believe if we are going to have a prescription medication benefit-- and it is critical that we do so--that we also be realistic. Part of that realism is a recognition that this is not going to be an inexpensive additional benefit if it is to be meaningful. As an example, the typical private sector health care plan today is spending between 15 and 20 percent of its total outlays on prescription drugs. For those programs that focus on persons over the age of 65, the percentage for prescription drugs is in excess of 25 percent of all expenditures. Yet with the structure of the program that was adopted in the budget resolution--that is, $40 billion for the first 5 years of the program--this would result in a prescription medication benefit that would represent less than 10 percent of the cost of what we are spending on prescription medication.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Therefore, I urge we adopt this amendment which will allow us to have a more reasonable allocation of what has become a gush of new surplus funds to provide a prescription medication benefit that will be affordable, adequate, humane, and medically appropriate for America's older citizens. Mr. President, I now send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when we adopted the budget resolution, we allocated $40 billion over 5 years to finance a prescription medication benefit. Two things have happened since then, and a third is about to happen. The first thing that happened is we have recognized that $40 billion over 5, which is actually over 3 years that the prescription benefit will be available, would result in a prescription medication benefit that would be less than a third of the prescription medication benefit which most health insurance programs for over-65-year-olds provide. So we are about to propose going in with a grossly deficient prescription medication benefit if we restrict ourselves to the $40 billion. The second thing that happened is we have new revenue estimates which have quadrupled the amount of surplus we are going to have. The third thing is we have just made a series of decisions already tonight, which will be confirmed by final passage, to spend some $100 billion over 5 years for tax cuts, from the estate tax to the R&D tax to the phone tax cut we just passed, and if we pass the Social Security cut of Senator Grams. How can we go home and say we can pass $100 billion over 5 years in these tax cuts but cannot add $40 billion which will allow us to finance a decent prescription benefit for 40 million American elderly?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, last year, on October 7, during the consideration of the FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, Senators Ron Wyden, Gordon Smith and I offered an amendment which was accepted as part of the legislation that passed. It directed the Department of Labor to send to Congress its suggestions, or a plan, to improve the day-to-day lives of farmworkers. We are here again. The Labor-HHS Appropriations bill is being debated, and we are still awaiting answers to concerns raised in the last debate. In fairness, I should mention that the Secretary of Labor has indicated that this report is underway and that we can expect it later this year. But yet another year has slipped by without the Administration designing a plan to improve the lives of those who do so much to provide for us. The purpose of our amendment and speech last year was to outline the three previous years of frustration in our efforts to secure this plan from the Department of Labor. We sought legislatively what we had not been able to obtain in personal meetings and phone calls. Now, we are here again, on this same bill, asking for the same assistance. For the past several years I have worked with several of our colleagues to develop a comprehensive strategy to improve the lives of our Nation's farmworkers. Almost everyone agrees that the status quo is unacceptable. GAO estimates that at least 50 percent of agricultural workers in the United States do not have documented status. This is a conservative estimate since these are workers who have admitted their illegal status, the actual number without work authorization is likely much higher. I respect the fact that the Department of Labor has concerns about our bipartisan legislation. What we have asked, year after year, is that they improve it, modify it, or offer their own alternate comprehensive plan. I commend the work that the Department has done up to this point to respond to us, but I urge Secretary Herman to finish work on this proposal and submit it to Congress at the earliest possible opportunity. The legislative calendar is short this year, and we have no time to waste.

Mr. GRAHAM. I understand that the Health Care Financing Administration has now cleared the NPRM, but there are other Departmental Agencies who now have questions about issuing the NPRM. I also concur with my colleague Senator Mack, that this issue has remained unresolved for too long, and I also believe it would be appropriate to include language to mandate this change.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators DeWine, Moynihan, Grassley, Dodd, Coverdell, and Biden, to introduce the Plan Colombia Trade Act, a bill that would provide additional trade benefits to the nations of the Andean Trade Pact, which includes Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. This bill is an important component of Plan Colombia, which seeks to address not only the nation's crisis with respect to massive narcotrafficking and insurgent and paramilitary forces, but also focuses on Colombia's deep economic recession. The bill is consistent with U.S. policy of promoting trade and combating drugs on a regional basis, thereby ensuring that U.S. benefits and assistance provided to one nation do not adversely affect other nations in the immediate region. Such a strategy is the only way to avoid what is often described as the ``balloon effect,'' which has meant that the drug problem, at best, is displaced from one location to another. Finally, the bill would re-assert our commitment to promote economic growth and regional stability throughout the Andean region, and to provide alternatives to the cultivation and exportation of illegal narcotics. Passage of this legislation by the Senate will signal the United States' support of the Andean Trade Pact's economic reform efforts, and will boost the confidence of both domestic and international investors in pursuing business opportunities that create jobs and enhance international trade in the Andean region, particularly in Colombia. In addition, this bill would ensure that U.S. trade with these important nations is not adversely affected by the recent passage of the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which provided significant trade benefits to the Caribbean Basin. To briefly summarize, the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' would extend, for approximately one year, additional trade benefits to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru-nations that currently benefit from the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991 (commonly known as the ATPA). New trade benefits would include some--but not all--trade benefits extended to the nations of the Caribbean Basin under the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which was signed by the President on May 18, 2000. Specifically, the bill would extend duty-free, quota-free treatment to apparel articles assembled or cut in ATPA beneficiary nations using yarns and fabric wholly formed in the United States, thereby achieving a measure of parity with the CBI nations, as well as expanding an important source of economic and employment growth for the U.S. textile and apparel industry. In its March 2000 interim report, ``First Steps Toward a Constructive U.S. Policy in Colombia,'' a Council on Foreign Relations/Inter- American Dialogue Independent Task Force--which I co-chair with Brent Scowcroft--recommended the extension of the ATPA, to include the same benefits as those contained under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Specifically, we recommended the following: Indeed, Colombia's economic well-being is absolutely critical, and in this area the United States can be more helpful. Perhaps even more important than providing increased assistance to the Colombian government to support employment programs is assuring Colombia greater access to U.S. markets for its products. Extending trade-related benefits to Colombia would have a positive impact on the country's prospects for higher growth and employment levels. Although the bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is particularly critical to Colombia, which in 1998 exported 59 percent of all textiles and apparel from the Andean region to the U.S., two-thirds of which were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabric. This legislation addresses an important, albeit unintentional, contradiction in U.S. policy towards Colombia. With the recent passage of enhanced trade benefits to the countries of Caribbean Basin Initiative, Colombia stands to lose up to 150,000 jobs in the apparel industry. At least ten (10) U.S.-based companies that purchase apparel from Colombian garment manufacturers have already indicated their near- term intentions to shift production to CBI countries due to the significant cost savings associated with the new trade benefits afforded to the Caribbean basin. Some of these U.S. companies have utilized Colombia as a manufacturing base for over ten (10) years, providing desperately needed legitimate employment in the Colombian economy. In summary, the immediate reaction of these companies to enhanced Caribbean trade benefits clearly demonstrates the negative effects of the CBI legislation on Colombia. It would be foolish for the Congress to approve a comprehensive aid package for Colombia, while simultaneously implementing legislation that puts tens of thousands of Colombians out of work. This bill will address that critical, unintended contradiction. On a more comprehensive scale, passage of this legislation is critical to ensure that all nations in the Western Hemisphere can maintain their long-term competitiveness with Asian nations, particularly in the textile industry. At present, the textile products of most Asian nations are subject to quotas imposed by the Multi-Fiber Agreement, now known as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This restriction on Asian textiles has enabled the nations of the Western Hemisphere to remain competitive, and further, the Andean region-- specifically Colombia--has become a significant market for fabric woven in U.S. mills from yarn spun in the U.S., originating from U.S. cotton growers. However, in 2005, these Asian import quotas will be phased out. At that time, textile production in both the Andean region and the Caribbean basin will be placed at a distinct and growing disadvantage. Disinvestment in the region will occur, reducing the incentive to use any material from U.S. textile mills or cotton grown in the United States. background Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the first legislation to provide trade preferences to the twenty-seven countries of the Caribbean Basin. In 1983, the Caribbean Basin was a region inflamed with violent conflict and rampant drug trafficking that threatened the political and economic stability of our closest neighbors, as well as our own national security. The primary goal of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) was to stabilize the region by building stronger and more diverse economies, encouraging growth in international trade, developing a strong economic relationship between the U.S. and the region, and creating employment opportunities in the legitimate economy as an alternative to drug trafficking. Following enactment of CBI, the U.S. trade position with the region improved from a deficit of $3 billion in 1983, to a surplus of nearly $3.5 billion in 1998. Between 1983 and 1998, U.S. exports to the region increased fourfold, while total imports from the region grew by less than 20 percent. On a per capita basis, the U.S. trade surplus with the region has consistently outpaced the U.S. trade surplus with any other region of the world--in fact, since 1995, U.S. exports to the CBI region have increased by almost 32 percent. In 1991, after 8 years of resounding success in the CBI region, Congress passed the ATPA, providing CBI-like trade benefits to the countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. In the nine years following enactment of ATPA, U.S. exports to the Andean region have more than doubled--from $3.8 billion in 1991 to over $8.6 billion in 1998. U.S. exports to Colombia account for over half of this increase, growing from $2 billion in 1991 to $4.8 billion in 1998. During the same time period, Andean exports to the U.S. increased by almost 80 percent. In addition, in 1998, the U.S. achieved a $309 million trade surplus with the ATPA nations. Under ATPA, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru enjoyed the same trade benefits that we had extended to the CBI region. However, on May 18, 2000, the President signed the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which extended additional trade benefits--particularly with respect to textiles and apparel--to the nations of the CBI region. Therefore, our Andean trading partners are now likely to lose significant trade and investment opportunities that will shift to the CBI, given the additional trade benefits included in the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000.'' Need for the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act'' The United States is at now a critical juncture with its neighbors in the Andean region. As was demonstrated by the recent passage of the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000.'' it is clear that we must continue enhance our trading relationship with our partners in the Caribbean and the Andean region. In particular, these additional trade benefits should be extended to Colombia, which is currently fighting a war for the survival of its democratic institutions, its free market economy and for the future of its people. Those challenging Colombia's future include drug traffickers, guerilla groups (the FARC and the ELN) and other elements of society who seek to foster instability and fear. A comprehensive strategy in response to the crisis in essential for Colombia. The government of Colombia, therefore, has formulated Plan Colombia. The United States government, in turn, has responded generously to Columbia's needs by considering a supplemental appropriations package of more than $1.6 billion to help the country in this time of crisis. This will supplement over $4.0 billion being spent by Colombia itself. Fundamental to Plan Colombia (and to the government's ability to succeed in its efforts to safeguard the country) will be efforts to encourage economic growth and provide jobs to the Colombian people. Today in Colombia more than one million people are displaced, the unemployment rate is nearly 20 percent and Colombia is experiencing the worst recession in 70 years. Without new economic opportunities, more and more Colombians will turn to illicit activities to support their families or seek to join the growing numbers of people who are leaving the country to find a better, safer future for their families. Measuring both imports and exports, Colombia is by far the most important U.S. trade partner in the ATPA region. In 1998, over 53 percent of U.S. exports to the Andean region went to Colombia, and over 53 percent of U.S. imports from the Andean region originated from Colombia. Mr. President, to promote economic growth and regional stability, the Congress must consider additional trade measures that benefit the entire Andean region. Therefore, Congress should grant CBI parity to the ATPA beneficiaries, specifically with respect to textiles and apparel. During 1999, Colombia and its Andean neighbors exported approximately $562 million in textiles and apparel to the United States. While insignificant in comparison to the $8.4 billion in textile and apparel exports originating in the CBI region, Andean textile and apparel production sustains more than 200,000 jobs in Colombia alone--valuable jobs in the legitimate economy. Absent CBI parity, the Andean region will find itself at a significant competitive disadvantage with the 27 countries of the CBI region. Mr. President, upon final passage of CBI enhancement legislation, I stated that we had initiated the process of establishing true ``partnership for success'' with some of our most important neighbors. Although that legislation was a good start, it was only the beginning. I urge my colleagues to look towards the future by supporting the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' and by taking advantage of the real economic benefits that can be achieved by further enhancing our relationship with all of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come before you to today to discuss one of our nation's most valued assets--our National Parks. Throughout the history of our country, visionary statesmen have arisen to remind us of the natural resource heritage on which our country rests. As early as 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt, spoke of the challenge at hand: We must handle the woods, the water, the grasses so that we will hand them to our children and our children's children in better and not worse shape than we got them. It is a challenge we still face today, and will into the future, in our role as stewards of the world in which we live. Our system of National Parks and other public lands is the envy of the world. It serves as a model for other countries, as they also seek to preserve their natural and cultural heritage. No other country has set aside as full a spectrum of public lands--from wilderness to urban parks--for people to use and enjoy. But to just set them aside is, of course, not enough. The feature that makes these lands remarkable--that they are open and accessible to all Americans to enjoy--also threatens their existence in the future. Mr. President, we face an ironic question: are we loving our national parks to death? The simple answer to that question is yes. Earlier this year, the National Parks Conservation Association released its list of the Ten Most Endangered National Parks. We should all feel ashamed that they have so many endangered Parks from which to chose. This year's list includes National Parks across the country, from Alaska to Arizona, from Tennessee to Hawaii. It also includes Everglades National Park in my state of Florida, where decades of human manipulation have led to ecosystem destruction. This list of the 2000 Ten Most Endangered National Parks is unfortunately not comprehensive, but is representative. During the past year I have visited several national parks to get a first hand view of the problem. From personal experience, I can enlarge the list of endangered national parks. At Ellis Island National Monument, a facade of immaculate buildings hides an inventory of dilapidated historical structures. At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, lack of maintenance and vandalism is leading to the deterioration of historical artifacts. I recently witnessed a similar deterioration of marine-related artifacts at a park in my own state of Florida. In April I participated in my 359th work day at Biscayne National Park, a chain of subtropical islands protecting mangrove shoreline, interrelated marine systems and the northernmost coral reef in the United States. This was my 4th workday in a National Park. At Biscayne National Park, we Americans are in danger of losing a piece of our history. The HMS Fowey, an 18th century British warship, lies submerged in a highly unstable location. This very significant, national register site has been weakened by looting, prop-wash deflection, storms and other forces. The best choice available is to excavate the wreckage and recover whatever of the historical record we can. This kind of operation is well beyond the means of Biscayne National Park's annual operating budget. My feelings about the National Park System are truly of wonder. The wonder that I feel at the treasures in our park system is only matched by my wonder at how we can take such treasures for granted. The importance of our National Parks should be reflected in our stewardship of the National Park System. We have failed to provide the National Park Service with the tools it needs to be good stewards of our National Parks. Today, with my colleagues Senator Akaka, Senator L. Chafee and Senator McCain, I am introducing the ``National Parks Stewardship Act''. I would also like to include for the record a letter from the National Parks Conservation Association expressing that organization's support for this legislation. This legislation seeks to give the National Park Service the tools it needs to prepare for the next century. It also includes many of the proposals of others who feel strongly about the importance of our National Parks. This bill gives park managers the protective tools needed to support the stewardship challenges of Theodore Roosevelt. We provide three types of tools: resource protection, financial tools and human resources. The first element in the resource protection section of my bill deals with activities occurring outside park boundaries. My inspiration for this was legislation introduced by the late Senator John Chafee who proposed the formation of ``park protection areas'' in 1986. John Chafee proposed that these areas be formed outside park boundaries to create the ``buffer zone'' needed for resource protection. I identified strongly with this concept, having worked since the 1970's on a state-federal partnership for Everglades restoration that focuses heavily on providing a buffer zone for Everglades National Park. Today, the original boundaries of Everglades National Park are surrounded by Big Cypress Preserve, an expanded park boundary, and undeveloped land on the eastern side of the park. It is as a memorial to John Chafee that I echo his provision in my bill, which I hope will become a permanent component of National Park stewardship. It is an honor to have Lincoln Chafee, a fine statesman in his own right, as a co-sponsor. The federal government must be unified in its stewardship of the National Parks. My legislation requires that federal agencies taking action on lands bordering National Park units consult with the Department of the Interior to ensure such actions do not degrade or destroy National Park resources. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit actions on Interior lands that will adversely impact Park resources. The second action I propose to protect park resources relates to park uses. The National Park Stewardship Act requires that activities allowed in National Parks pass the test of compatibility with natural, cultural and historical resource protection. As our parks are used and enjoyed by visitors, we must ensure that park resources are not inadvertently damaged. For example, the Park Service recently issued regulations limiting or prohibiting the use of personal water craft in some areas. This action was only taken after the use of these water craft in some areas was allowed at intensities seriously degrading water and air quality, and threatening both park wildlife and other park visitors. My bill requires the National Park Service to take action to protect these resources before damage occurs. Activities must be analyzed and the impacts understood before they are authorized. It also asks the National Parks to seriously plan for the future, projecting visitation and use trends and identify needed personnel and facilities. Another resource protection portion of the bill focuses on ensuring that our National Park System fully represents the history of our nation. Each year, a smaller percentage of the American population can trace its ancestry to those who landed at Plymouth rock, settled Jamestown, or fought in the American revolution. Many Americans are descended from people who crossed international boarders from the North or South, or landed at locations from the Florida Keys to the Aleutian Islands, from Ellis Island to the island of Oahu. All those who came to settle write their history alongside, and often atop the history of our country's native peoples. The bill calls for a comprehensive look at the ethnic and cultural content of our National Park System. It asks the National Park Service to report this review to Congress, and to make recommendations on sites that might round out the American story. It encourages cultural/ethnic groups to nominate sites important to their heritage for inclusion in the System, and to recommend changes in the interpretation of present sites to improve historic accuracy. America is etched with a rich historical record. I commend those who have succeeded in adding important heritage sites to the National park System. Units like the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, authorized by Congress in 1998, and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail in California, tracing the path of a party of Spanish colonists in 1776, ensure that these events do not pass from our historical landscape. There are certainly many as equally important sites to consider. Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record letters from the Ambassador of Spain and the Spanish Institute for Military History and Culture. These letters exemplify the willingness of those who contributed to the history of the United States to help in this effort. The Ambassador points out how the Institute's letter, ``opens the way for a cooperation between the two institutions that could result in a much better use of the many historical sites, of Spanish origin, on American soil. They could ``make the stones speak'' to many people in this country who are still unaware of a very rich and common heritage.'' I am sure other countries will be willing to help illustrate how the history of our country is linked to their own history. Our National Park System, the treasured sites of American history, must contain the history of all Americans. If not, our National Park System is like a partially woven tapestry, depicting only part of the picture. Instead let our National Park System be woven, whole and beautiful, from the multi-colored threads of history of the people of these United States. I hope this proposal will move us one step closer to a National Park System where all Americans should be entitled to see the role of their people in the exploration, settlement and development of this country. And I see it as complementing Senator Akaka's bill, S. 2478, calling for a study on the ``Peopling of America,'' which I am honored to co- sponsor. The second major section of the National Parks Stewardship act deals with financial resources. Last year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and Mack, S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide dedicated funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve the natural, cultural and historic resources in our park system. We continue to work toward final passage of S. 819. However, this bill alone does not meet all of the needs in our National Parks. The need for construction and maintenance in National Parks is great. Backlog estimates range from 2 to 8 billion dollars, depending on the method of calculation. In order to accommodate many visitors each year, some National Parks have facilities and services that rival those of towns or small cities. Along with these facilities come the problems of infrastructure maintenance and repair that are beyond the reach of annually appropriated budgets. Even at Yellowstone National Park, certainly a crown jewel of the system, a dilapidated sewer system leaking untreated waste befouls what should be pristine streams and lakes. At Yellowstone, a park visited by over 3 million people a year, certainly we should provide the means for financing a new sewer system. My colleague Senator McCain addressed this need through his bill, S. 831, which would authorize a portion of park entrance fees to be used to secure bonds for these very necessary capital improvements. Bonding would seem to be a workable approach, if we could find an appropriate way for a federal agency to issue revenue bonds. The National Parks Stewardship Act introduced today calls for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior to study and report to Congress how National Parks could issue revenue bonds to meet such large infrastructure needs. The authority to issue revenue bonds places into the hands of National Park superintendents a tool to generate the funds to make these repairs. The second revenue provision I propose is to make the recreation fee program in operation as a demonstration since its authorization in 1996 into a permanent park program. The program has demonstrated that park visitors can get a good return on the fees they pay; a return paid out in better maintained facilities, improved visitor services, and all-in- all, a more enjoyable park visit. To underscore the importance of recreation fee permanence, I, along with Senator Gorton, am introducing today the ``Recreation Fee Authority Act of 2000,'' a stand along piece of legislation containing these provisions. In fiscal year 1999, the recreation fee demonstration program generated $176.4 million in fee revenue at National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management sites. Even more important than the amount collected is the fact that the large majority of the fees were retained at the site where collected for use in Park operations, maintenance, resource protection and visitor services. Biscayne National Park, where I worked for a day in April, is one of the units benefitting from the recreation fee demonstration program. Last year, that park collected over $20,000 in recreation fees. At Biscayne, these funds were used to: replace the broken tables and grills in the picnic area; restore a historic breeze way trail across Elliott Key; and renovate the public showers and bathrooms on Elliott Key, improving their accessibility for people with disabilities. When park visitors see their ``fees at work'' in the form of improved facilities and services, research has shown that they understand and support the collection of an appropriate and reasonable fee. Over 95 percent of respondents to this year's National Survey on Recreation and the Environment felt reasonable fees were acceptable as a means for funding recreation services on public lands. The recreation fee demonstration authority is temporary. If it is not extended or made permanent, Biscayne and other National Parks will lose this very necessary means to get the job done. Let's instead make this a permanent tool for National Park Stewardship. In addition to revenue bonding and the recreation fee program, I propose the expanded use of Challenge Cost Share agreements, which allow the ``leveraging'' of Park Service appropriations with funds from the private sector and other federal agencies. The final tool I propose in this legislation focuses on the professional skills of those we employ as the stewards for National Parks. Professionals typically attracted to the Service come from many fields, including education, recreation management, and the biological sciences. Today park managers must also demonstrate fiscal and program accountability and management planning, skills that are not found throughout National Park Service ranks. I am proposing a pilot program, ``Professionals for Parks'', to attract needed skilled professionals to National Park Service careers. It will focus on recruiting at business schools across the country, offering talented graduates an entry level professional job within the National Park Service and a student loan buy-back program. Professionals for Parks will add to National Park Service ranks the business management skills needed for better management, leading to long term stewardship. And we know this can make a difference. We're looking for people like Nick Hardigg, a recent graduate of the Yale School of Management, who is now working as Chief of Concessions at Denali National Park. His financial analysis of the visitor transportation system in Denali led to a newly negotiated contract with the bus company. This contract allows for a healthy profit for the operator and for the first time in several years does not increase fees to park visitors. It also protects park resources by providing a quality transportation system. It's a long way from the Ivy League to the Alaskan wilderness. Mr. Hardigg has made that journey, and has put his business skills to good use for National Park stewardship. Mr. President, the National Park Stewardship Act is not calling for a revolution in the National Park System. It recognizes the value of what we have in the National Park System, recognizes what we stand to lose without immediate attention, and supplies the tools to the right people to tackle the job. In closing I would like to recall the words of John Chafee, a visionary statesman who helped craft much of the foundation on which our system of environmental protection rests. In 1994, he reminded us of the importance of our Parks stewardship role: I can think of no instance where the Government has designated an area as a park and years later people have looked back, regretted the decision, and tried to reverse it. As we continue to develop and extract resources from the remaining open spaces in our Nation, it is important that we ensure that there will always be places where people can get away and renew their spirits, breathe fresh air, and appreciate nature's gifts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue before us today is whether we are going to give the American people what I believe they expect and what they have a right to receive which is uniform, consistent coverage of their fundamental rights as beneficiaries of an HMO contract and as patients in a health care facility as it relates to the responsibilities of that health maintenance organization. The Senator from Oklahoma has indicated he is going to submit to us a counterproposal to the provision that has been offered by the Senator from North Dakota, which focuses on one of the most fundamental issues and that is, who is going to be covered. It is a little difficult for us to respond to the Senator from Oklahoma since at least none of us on this side of the aisle has had an opportunity to see the version of the amendment that will be offered. It is similar to seeing a biplane fly by with a long sign dragging behind its tail. That is what we see--a long, fluttering sign that says Patients' Bill of Rights. But we can't see any of the detail that supports that title of a Patients' Bill of Rights. The question raised by the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota is whether we should have a nationwide standard or whether we should have 50 standards. We have already answered that question as it relates to the 39 million Americans who are covered by Medicare. We have a national standard for all of those 39 million Americans. We have answered that question for the 20 to 25 million Americans who get their health care through the Medicaid program. All of those people are covered by a national standard. The question is whether we are going to provide for those people who get their insurance through private HMO companies rather than through one of these governmental programs to also be granted the right to have a national standard. The amendment Senator Dorgan has proposed would cover all 161 million Americans with private insurance. They will receive the same full array of protections. The proposal that I anticipate from the Senator from Oklahoma will only fund one type of insurance: self-funded employer plans, which cover only 48 million Americans. The others will be left out. I take second place to no Member of this body in terms of my support for federalism. I basically believe in the principle that, where possible, decisions should be made at the community and State level. So I consider it incumbent upon myself to answer the question: Aren't you being inconsistent by now supporting a national standard of patients' rights? Why not leave it up to the 50 States to decide for the 113 million Americans who have private insurance rather than self-funded employer plans? Why shouldn't those 113 million Americans be covered by a State's Patients' Bill of Rights? I would like to answer that question in the context of one of the provisions within this bill, and that is how you will be treated if you go to an emergency room. I think it is an appropriate provision to use as an example of the larger question of whether this should be determined 50 times by the 50 States or should there be a national consistent standard. The emergency room happens to be the site of the largest number of complaints by patients against their HMO's treatment. There are more complaints as to access, as to standard of care, and as to care after the initial critical services are provided, there are more complaints by patients in that setting than any other aspect of patient-HMO relationships. The emergency room is also a setting which is heavy with urgency and emotion. That is not just watching ``ER'' on television; it is the emergency room in reality. I have a practice of taking a different job every month. In February of this year, my job was working at the emergency room in one of the largest hospitals in Florida, St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa. In that setting, I had an opportunity, firsthand, to see some of the issues that an emergency room poses for an HMO patient, such as the question of the patient arriving and asking the question: Am I going to be covered for the services that I will secure from this emergency room? Am I entitled to access to the emergency room? It is the question of: Have I come to the right emergency room? Should I have gone to the emergency room that is part of the plan of my HMO or can I go to this emergency room because it is a half hour closer? It is the question of: What is going to happen after they stop the hemorrhaging and have moved into the poststabilization period? What kind of services can I receive, and what types of authorization do I have to get from my HMO to be certain that those services are going to be paid for? Those are very fundamental, tangible questions that a family who is taking a loved one to an emergency room will want to have answered. I suggest it would be preferable to all of the parties involved in this urgent transaction in an emergency room if there were a standard set of answers, whether you were in Tampa or Topeka or Tacoma, WA; that you would get the same answer. It would be beneficial to the beneficiary, to the patient, to know that there would be a consistent set of standards, that he would know, for instance, that he would be judged by the standard of ``the reasonable layperson'' in terms of access, that he would not be judged, as happens to be the case in my own State of Florida, not by the reasonable layperson standard, which is the rule in Medicare and Medicaid and most States but, rather, as he is in Florida, by the standard of an appropriate health care provider making a determination after the fact as to whether the patient should or should not have considered his or her condition requiring emergency room treatment. It also avoids confusion by the provider because the provider will know that they can render services to all the people who come into the emergency room based on a single set of standards in terms of what is in that individual's best interest. Talking about emergency rooms specifically, as I understand it, in the provision of the Senator from Oklahoma, rather than using the norm, which is a 1-hour period in which the HMO can decide whether they will assume responsibility for the patient in the emergency room or allow the hospital of the emergency room to render poststabilization care, the Senator from Oklahoma is going to propose that that 1-hour standard, which is the standard for Medicare, for Medicaid, for most plans, is now going to be ballooned up to 3 hours. So for a person who has been in a serious automobile wreck, who has had bleeding, hemorrhaging, who is in very serious circumstances and has been stabilized but not yet cured or not yet cared for, we are going to have a 3-hour period for that individual to wait for the HMO to decide whether it is OK for the hospital where the injured patient is located to provide the care there, or is the patient going to have to be put in an ambulance and carried to one of their network hospitals. I don't think that confusion as to standard is good medical policy for the providers. It is even not good policy for the insurance companies that have to deal with 50 different State standards as to authorization, length of poststabilization care, the other issues that arise in an emergency room. Mr. President, as a self-declared Jeffersonian Federalist, this is a case in which we need to have a national standard because it is for the benefit of the good health of the American people. I urge adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota.