Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Mack, to introduce legislation to restore America's Everglades. The diversity of this group speaks volumes about the national commitment to restoring America's Everglades. The Everglades is sick. We need to perform the surgery to make it well. Since the passage of the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project in 1948, nearly half of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. According to the National Parks and Conservation Association, the national parks and preserves contained in the Everglades are among the ten most endangered in the nation. In 1983, when I was Governor, Florida launched an effort--known as Save Our Everglades--to revitalize this precious ecosystem. Our goal was simple. By the end of our efforts, we wanted the Everglades to look and function more like it had in 1900 than it did in 1983. Back then, restoring the natural health and function of this precious ecosystem seemed like a distant dream. But after seventeen years of bipartisan progress in the context of a strong federal-state partnership, we now stand on the brink of seeing that dream become reality. I want to speak for a moment about that federal-state partnership. I often compare this unique partnership to a marriage--if both partners respect each other, and pledge to work through any challenges together, the marriage will be strong and successful. Today, we are again celebrating the strength of that marriage, and this legislation contains several provisions born out of the respect that sustains this marriage. For example, it requires that the Federal Government pay half of the costs of operations and maintenance. It offers assurances to both the Federal and State governments regarding the use and distribution of water in the Everglades ecosystem. Everglades restoration can't work unless the executive branch, Congress, and State government move forward hand-in-hand. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the administration, the State, and stakeholders in this project to continue that cooperation and achieve the historic goal of preserving the Everglades for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as our distinguished colleague from Delaware has so eloquently said, the cuts which this Labor/HHS appropriations bill imposes upon several of our most important social programs are simply unacceptable. In 1996, I stood with Chairman Roth as the Senate Finance Committee joined the House Ways and Means Committee in authorizing the social services block grant at $2.38 billion through 2003. This authorization was a part of our commitment to the states in the welfare reform laws. The social service block grant allocates important funds to our states, enabling them to provide valuable services to our most needy citizens. Because of this block grant, senior citizens receive Meals on Wheels. Neglected children receive foster care and adoption services. Working parents receive day care for their children and adult day care for their aging parents. Those being abused receive protective help. These services have become an integral part of our communities, expanding and enriching the lives of our young and old, our poor and vulnerable. If the social services block grant is cut to the draconian level appropriated by this bill . . . well, the future of these vital services is in grave danger. We have already reneged once on this commitment--in 1998, when in an 11th hour budgetary slight-of-hand, we used title XX funds to finance our road and highway spending. We revisited this topic again last year when, despite a vote of 59-37 in favor of restoring title XX to its authorized level of $2.38 billion, the social services block grant was again the victim of an end-game mugging, leaving only $1.7 billion of available funds. The $1.1 billion cut to SSBG in the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill would have forced our states to operate with a budget that has been cut by 65%. We return to the Floor time and time again on this issue because Congress continues to break the commitments it has made to our states. We slash these important programs under the guise of fiscal prudence and we perpetuate the illusion that we are not ``breaking the budget caps.'' But, what we are really doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, that means that we are not only breaking our promise to the states, we are reneging on the commitment that we made to our most vulnerable Americans. It is imperative that these monies be restored, and that the funding of the social services block grant be restored to the authorized level of $1.7 billion. I, along with Senators Grassley, Jeffords, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Moynihan, Wellstone, and Kennedy, was prepared to offer an amendment to restore funding to the social services block grant. I am pleased that the Senator from Alaska has alleviated that need. I appreciate the leadership Senator Stevens is showing today by pledging to restore these funds to our important SSBG, S-CHIP and TANF programs. I hope that this act represents the end of the long string of broken promises that we have made to states, localities, and most of all, our citizens in need.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Mack, to introduce legislation to restore America's Everglades. The diversity of this group speaks volumes about the national commitment to restoring America's Everglades. The Everglades is sick. We need to perform the surgery to make it well. Since the passage of the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project in 1948, nearly half of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. According to the National Parks and Conservation Association, the national parks and preserves contained in the Everglades are among the ten most endangered in the nation. In 1983, when I was Governor, Florida launched an effort--known as Save Our Everglades--to revitalize this precious ecosystem. Our goal was simple. By the end of our efforts, we wanted the Everglades to look and function more like it had in 1900 than it did in 1983. Back then, restoring the natural health and function of this precious ecosystem seemed like a distant dream. But after seventeen years of bipartisan progress in the context of a strong federal-state partnership, we now stand on the brink of seeing that dream become reality. I want to speak for a moment about that federal-state partnership. I often compare this unique partnership to a marriage--if both partners respect each other, and pledge to work through any challenges together, the marriage will be strong and successful. Today, we are again celebrating the strength of that marriage, and this legislation contains several provisions born out of the respect that sustains this marriage. For example, it requires that the Federal Government pay half of the costs of operations and maintenance. It offers assurances to both the Federal and State governments regarding the use and distribution of water in the Everglades ecosystem. Everglades restoration can't work unless the executive branch, Congress, and State government move forward hand-in-hand. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the administration, the State, and stakeholders in this project to continue that cooperation and achieve the historic goal of preserving the Everglades for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Senate began consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. As its name suggests, that legislation governs how Federal dollars that go to the States for education will be spent. It is a very important bill, and I regret that the Senate was unable to complete consideration of it. As important as the ESEA reauthorization bill is, however, it is not the most significant education bill that Congress will deal with in the next two years. In fact, the most important education bill Congress will consider won't mention schools or students. It won't reference classroom size or teacher salaries. In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act. That bill imposed a three year moratorium on specific state taxes applicable to the Internet. The legislation didn't affect the states' ability to impose sales tax on Internet purchases, nor did it fix the unfair advantage ``e-tailers'' currently have over their main street competitors with respect to their responsibility to collect sales and use taxes. As a result of two Supreme Court rulings, a state is prohibited from requiring out-of-state retailers from collecting sales tax on purchases made by its residents if the business has no presence in the state. The sales tax still applies, it just has to be collected directly from the purchaser. For a variety of reasons, very little of this tax is ever collected. The Internet Tax Freedom Act created the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce which was supposed to come up with a solution to this problem. Instead the Commission was hijacked by a small group who opted to demagogue this issue to further their ``anti-tax'' agenda. The result was a year-long study of an issue with little in the form of useful recommendations. The House has passed a five year extension of the moratorium put in place by the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Senate also may soon consider a proposal to extend the temporary ban imposed in 1998. The game plan of the forces supporting this extended moratorium is clear: delay, delay, delay. Keep extending the moratorium until there is a sufficiently large political constituency to permanently block the collection of sales taxes on purchases made over the Internet. This is not a hidden agenda. Governor Gilmore, Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce stated it clearly when he said that ``I believe America should ban sales and use taxes on the Internet permanently, for all time. If we secure tax freedom on the Internet through 2006, tax freedom on the Internet will become an entitlement for the American people and a political inevitability. No tax collector will be welcome on the Internet after 2006.'' Let me be clear: this is not about whether purchases made over the Internet are subject to sales tax. They already are. The question is whether Internet sellers should have the same responsibility to collect the sales tax as their Main Street competitors. If we answer this question with a ``no,'' funding for education will suffer. Why? Because states have the fundamental responsibility for financing public education in our country For most states, sales tax revenue is the primary means by which states fulfill this responsibility. Because many states rely on sales taxes for their general revenue, the equation is simple--no collection of sales tax on the Internet means less money for new schools, teacher salaries, or textbooks. Six states--Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Washington rely on sales taxes for more than half of their total tax revenue. Over the next four years, Internet sales are expected to grow by nearly $500 billion. If state and local governments are prohibited from collecting sales taxes on those new sales, they stand to lose close to $17.5 billion in revenue. Florida's share of that lost revenue could be $1 billion. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, ``that's where the money is.'' Today, the money is increasingly on the Internet. There is another reason to fix this issue: fairness. No one would seriously consider a proposal that barred state and local governments from collecting sales and use taxes from retailers who operate from green buildings. That would be unfair to those businesses that aren't located in green buildings. Proposals to arbitrarily benefit the Internet, however, somehow receive a great deal of attention and support. Our position should be clear: no more delays. No more moratoriums until Congress agrees to a process whereby states can simplify their sales tax systems and receive the authority they need to require remote sellers to collect their sales taxes. The legislation we are introducing today takes the first positive step in this direction. The bill extends the current moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple or discriminatory taxes on the Internet, a prohibition that virtually all agree should be imposed. More importantly, however, it establishes a process whereby states can cooperatively create a model sales and use tax system. Sales tax laws must be made significantly more uniform across the states, and the administration of the tax must be substantially overhauled and simplified. The goal of this legislation is to develop a simple, uniform, and fair system of sales tax collection. It will reduce the burden on remote sellers and protect state and local sovereignty. Once states have adopted this simplified system, they would then have the authority to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes to the state. Previous attempts to require remote sellers to collect sales and use taxes have been criticized on the grounds that it was unreasonable to require businesses to keep track of the nearly 7,500 state and local governments levying sales and use taxes. That is a suspect criticism, particularly for those. Nevertheless, this bill dramatically simplifies the system for businesses by establishing uniform definitions and fewer rates. The streamlined sales and use tax system envisioned by this legislation follows the guidance offered by the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce. The attributes of this streamlined system include: A centralized, one-stop, multi-state registration system for sellers; Uniform definitions for goods or services that would be included in the tax base; Uniform and simple rules for attributing transactions to particular taxing jurisdictions; Uniform rules for the designation and identification of purchasers exempt from tax; Uniform certification procedures for software that sellers may rely on to determine state and local taxes; Uniform bad debt rules; Uniform returns and remittance forms; Consistent electronic filing and remittance methods; State administration of State and local sales taxes; Uniform audit procedures; Reasonable compensation for tax collection by remote sellers; Exemption for remote sellers with less than $5 million in annual sales for the previous year; Appropriate protections for consumer privacy; and Such other features that member states deem warranted to promote simplicity. Critics of this legislation will argue that it is anti-technology, and that the Internet must be protected from this threat. That is not true. The sponsors of this bill yield to no one in their support and enthusiasm for a vibrant information technology era. But that support does not necessitate special breaks for companies doing business over the Internet. A more appropriate characterization for this legislation is that it will both assure fairness to all sellers and protect states' abilities to collect the resources necessary to make the education investments that will pave the way for the next technological breakthrough--the next Internet. I hope my colleagues will join us and support this approach.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I do not want to talk; I want to answer. The Senator asked a series of questions, and I am prepared to answer them.

Mr. GRAHAM. Point of personal privilege.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record answers to the questions that were asked during the debate by the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend our colleague, Senator Robb, for the outstanding leadership he is providing on this critical issue. On Monday, Senator Robb and I visited the Archbishop McCarthy Residences in Opa-Locka, FL. There I met an elderly lady who had this story to tell. She had purposefully joined an HMO in order to be able to get access to pharmaceutical coverage. Two months ago, the HMO announced it was dropping all pharmaceutical coverage. This was the first month in which the impact of that was felt by this elderly American. What did it do to her? She has five medically necessary prescriptions. She had to decide to forgo three of those five because she could not afford them. The two she thought she could not omit cost her $168 a month out of her very limited income. This is not a theoretical or conceptual issue. This is a real life- and-blood issue for millions of Americans. It has become an issue, in part, because of our successes. When Social Security was established in the mid-1930s, the average American had a life expectancy after 65 of 7 years. Today, the average American has a life expectancy after 65 of 17 years. According to the Census Bureau, 100 years from today, the average American will have a life expectancy of 27 years after they reach 65. Those numbers have fundamentally changed what constitutes effective, humane health care. It has meant that we need to be making an investment in prevention. If a person is only going to live a few years after retirement, one could argue, why spend the money on prevention. But if a person is going to live 17 or 27 years, that is a big share of their life. In addition, because of that extended life, there is more emphasis on care for people who have chronic conditions that have to be managed for many years. Both of those, prevention and chronic care, necessitate access to prescription drugs. That is what this plan will do. The year 2000, the beginning of the 21st century, will mark the year in which older Americans will no longer have to make the choice that the woman in Opa-Locka did, to drop three of her medically necessary prescriptions and then end up paying a very high part of her meager income to buy the two drugs she could not avoid. I congratulate our colleague for bringing this amendment forth. I urge all of our colleagues to see this as a kind of opportunity and pass the Robb amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Senate began consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. As its name suggests, that legislation governs how Federal dollars that go to the States for education will be spent. It is a very important bill, and I regret that the Senate was unable to complete consideration of it. As important as the ESEA reauthorization bill is, however, it is not the most significant education bill that Congress will deal with in the next two years. In fact, the most important education bill Congress will consider won't mention schools or students. It won't reference classroom size or teacher salaries. In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act. That bill imposed a three year moratorium on specific state taxes applicable to the Internet. The legislation didn't affect the states' ability to impose sales tax on Internet purchases, nor did it fix the unfair advantage ``e-tailers'' currently have over their main street competitors with respect to their responsibility to collect sales and use taxes. As a result of two Supreme Court rulings, a state is prohibited from requiring out-of-state retailers from collecting sales tax on purchases made by its residents if the business has no presence in the state. The sales tax still applies, it just has to be collected directly from the purchaser. For a variety of reasons, very little of this tax is ever collected. The Internet Tax Freedom Act created the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce which was supposed to come up with a solution to this problem. Instead the Commission was hijacked by a small group who opted to demagogue this issue to further their ``anti-tax'' agenda. The result was a year-long study of an issue with little in the form of useful recommendations. The House has passed a five year extension of the moratorium put in place by the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Senate also may soon consider a proposal to extend the temporary ban imposed in 1998. The game plan of the forces supporting this extended moratorium is clear: delay, delay, delay. Keep extending the moratorium until there is a sufficiently large political constituency to permanently block the collection of sales taxes on purchases made over the Internet. This is not a hidden agenda. Governor Gilmore, Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce stated it clearly when he said that ``I believe America should ban sales and use taxes on the Internet permanently, for all time. If we secure tax freedom on the Internet through 2006, tax freedom on the Internet will become an entitlement for the American people and a political inevitability. No tax collector will be welcome on the Internet after 2006.'' Let me be clear: this is not about whether purchases made over the Internet are subject to sales tax. They already are. The question is whether Internet sellers should have the same responsibility to collect the sales tax as their Main Street competitors. If we answer this question with a ``no,'' funding for education will suffer. Why? Because states have the fundamental responsibility for financing public education in our country For most states, sales tax revenue is the primary means by which states fulfill this responsibility. Because many states rely on sales taxes for their general revenue, the equation is simple--no collection of sales tax on the Internet means less money for new schools, teacher salaries, or textbooks. Six states--Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Washington rely on sales taxes for more than half of their total tax revenue. Over the next four years, Internet sales are expected to grow by nearly $500 billion. If state and local governments are prohibited from collecting sales taxes on those new sales, they stand to lose close to $17.5 billion in revenue. Florida's share of that lost revenue could be $1 billion. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, ``that's where the money is.'' Today, the money is increasingly on the Internet. There is another reason to fix this issue: fairness. No one would seriously consider a proposal that barred state and local governments from collecting sales and use taxes from retailers who operate from green buildings. That would be unfair to those businesses that aren't located in green buildings. Proposals to arbitrarily benefit the Internet, however, somehow receive a great deal of attention and support. Our position should be clear: no more delays. No more moratoriums until Congress agrees to a process whereby states can simplify their sales tax systems and receive the authority they need to require remote sellers to collect their sales taxes. The legislation we are introducing today takes the first positive step in this direction. The bill extends the current moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple or discriminatory taxes on the Internet, a prohibition that virtually all agree should be imposed. More importantly, however, it establishes a process whereby states can cooperatively create a model sales and use tax system. Sales tax laws must be made significantly more uniform across the states, and the administration of the tax must be substantially overhauled and simplified. The goal of this legislation is to develop a simple, uniform, and fair system of sales tax collection. It will reduce the burden on remote sellers and protect state and local sovereignty. Once states have adopted this simplified system, they would then have the authority to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes to the state. Previous attempts to require remote sellers to collect sales and use taxes have been criticized on the grounds that it was unreasonable to require businesses to keep track of the nearly 7,500 state and local governments levying sales and use taxes. That is a suspect criticism, particularly for those. Nevertheless, this bill dramatically simplifies the system for businesses by establishing uniform definitions and fewer rates. The streamlined sales and use tax system envisioned by this legislation follows the guidance offered by the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce. The attributes of this streamlined system include: A centralized, one-stop, multi-state registration system for sellers; Uniform definitions for goods or services that would be included in the tax base; Uniform and simple rules for attributing transactions to particular taxing jurisdictions; Uniform rules for the designation and identification of purchasers exempt from tax; Uniform certification procedures for software that sellers may rely on to determine state and local taxes; Uniform bad debt rules; Uniform returns and remittance forms; Consistent electronic filing and remittance methods; State administration of State and local sales taxes; Uniform audit procedures; Reasonable compensation for tax collection by remote sellers; Exemption for remote sellers with less than $5 million in annual sales for the previous year; Appropriate protections for consumer privacy; and Such other features that member states deem warranted to promote simplicity. Critics of this legislation will argue that it is anti-technology, and that the Internet must be protected from this threat. That is not true. The sponsors of this bill yield to no one in their support and enthusiasm for a vibrant information technology era. But that support does not necessitate special breaks for companies doing business over the Internet. A more appropriate characterization for this legislation is that it will both assure fairness to all sellers and protect states' abilities to collect the resources necessary to make the education investments that will pave the way for the next technological breakthrough--the next Internet. I hope my colleagues will join us and support this approach.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to see the final language of this amendment before we vote on it. Would it be appropriate to suggest the absence of a quorum until we have that opportunity?

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have spoken earlier this afternoon on the issue of Colombia in the context of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota. But now that we have another amendment relative to this provision within the foreign operations appropriations bill, I am pleased to have been afforded this opportunity to speak a second time. I believe that the fundamental thrust of the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, which would cut all but $200 million of the recommended appropriations for the United States share of the financing plan in Colombia, would essentially eviscerate not only the U.S. participation but would probably eliminate the prospects of other nations, that see themselves looking to the United States for leadership in terms of dealing with the crisis in Colombia, and would probably have a very destabilizing effect on Colombia's stated intention to provide more than half of the $7.5 billion cost of the comprehensive plan in Colombia. Essentially, what we would be saying, by adopting this amendment, is that we are prepared to see Colombia continue in the almost death spiral of downward direction in which it has been in for the past many months. I would like to first point out what are some of the national interests of the United States that would be sacrificed if we were to allow that to occur. Of course, the most fundamental sacrifice would be the loss of an effective democratic partner in the efforts to build stability within the Western Hemisphere. Colombia is the longest continuous democracy on the continent of South America. It is a country that other countries, which are relatively new democracies, look to for leadership and example. What a horrendous consequence it would be if, by our lack of responding to the call for help at this critical time, we were to be the principal agent of converting this nation of over half a century of democracy into a failed state. There are also consequences to the region, particularly the Andean region. That is a region that is already in trouble, as I know the Presiding Officer is well aware. There is a new and untested government in Venezuela. We have, in Ecuador, the first successful military coup in Latin America in almost two decades. Peru is in the midst of a very contentious election aftermath which in many quarters has been called incredible in the sense of not being a credible election. Even Bolivia, which has been a source of stability, had to impose essentially a period of martial law. And on the north side, we have Panama, which has recently been given full control of the Panama Canal, and where there are great concerns about the stability of that country, and particularly its vulnerability to drug traffickers. So here Colombia sits, in the middle of this very vulnerable, fractious part of our hemisphere. If it goes down, it will have enormous spillover effects, and the consequences will be dire for U.S. interests. What we most think about when we hear the word ``Colombia'' is drugs. Colombia has become an even greater source of drugs due, in part, to the success of our efforts in Peru and Bolivia in reducing coca production, but also, unfortunately, due, in large part, to the fact that we now have a marriage between the narcotraffickers, the guerrillas, and the paramilitaries who are all working together in various places in Colombia, particularly in the southern most regions, to have contributed to a doubling, maybe soon a tripling, of drug production in that nation over the last decade. Colombia is also an important economic partner of the United States. It has one of the larger economies in Latin America, and it has been a significant trading partner for the United States. Colombia has had a long period not only of democracy but also of sustained economic growth. It was not until 3 or 4 years ago that the record of every year being better than the last was broken in terms of the economy of Colombia. It was able to avoid a series of economic crises in South America and be a solid bastion of economic stability. That pattern is now broken, with 20 percent unemployment, a 3- to 5- percent drop in gross domestic product, and an outflow of investment. Finally, we have a national interest in terms of the people of Colombia believing that their future and their hope is in Colombia, and that they do not have to flee and become another diaspora in the United States. There has been substantial out-migration, oftentimes of the people with the very skills that are going to be necessary to restore the democracy and economy in Colombia. When I was in Bogota, in December of last year, I was told that if you wanted to apply for a visa to leave Colombia, even as a tourist or for one of the standard visas, it took 10 months to get an appointment to meet with the U.S. consulate official to apply to get a visa. That is how backlogged they are because of the number of people who are trying to legally leave the country. One can imagine if these conditions of violence and economic turmoil continue how many people will be leaving illegally from Colombia with the United States as their primary destination. We have a lot at stake. This is not a trivial issue with which we are dealing. I hope just as we, by a very strong vote, rejected previous propositions that would have diluted our capacity to be a good neighbor on this critical issue, that we will do so again in defeating the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. Once we have acted, we still will have some work to do, in particular work to do in terms of internationalizing the friends of Colombia to be a strong support group to continue this effort, remembering that 30 percent of Plan Colombia is going to be paid by other than the United States or Colombia--the Colombians have yet to identify who will pick up that 30 percent of the cost--and that we must put greater emphasis on the economic recovery of Colombia, which I hope will include items such as bringing parity to the Andean pact nations vis-a-vis the recently adopted increase in trade preferences for the Caribbean Basin and extending the Andean trade preference to the year 2008 in order to give investors greater confidence. There is important work to do today, important work to do tomorrow. The goal is to be a good neighbor and contribute to the salvation of a very good friend of the United States, Colombia, at a time of dire need. Amendment No. 369

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. Is there time remaining on that issue?

Mr. GRAHAM. Is the Senator controlling the time in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Washington?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I request 8 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I strongly support the approval of this assistance for Colombia. For the past 8 months I have chaired, together with General Brent Scowcroft, a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Colombia. This bipartisan Task Force released an Interim Report in March of this year which recommended that Congress approve the administration's aid request for Colombia, with two modifications. The first, that additional support should be provided to Bolivia, Peru, and other countries in the region, has been incorporated into the bill by the Appropriations Committee. The second modification, that additional trade benefits should be part of the package, I will address with the introduction of separate legislation later this week. Let me explain why I, and the Task Force, feel so strongly that this assistance package for Colombia needs to be approved. There is a crisis in Colombia that demands our immediate attention. While Colombia has experienced violence and guerrilla insurgencies for many years, the current crisis is unique in several important ways. First, Colombia is experiencing record violence which is killing over 25,000 Colombians each year. More than half of all kidnapings in the world occur in Colombia. The FARC and ELN guerrilla forces and the paramilitary groups are escalating their violence in ways that have not been seen before. Second, our success in reducing coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia has shifted the production and cultivation of coca to Colombia, with an explosion of coca cultivation in southern Colombia in the past five years. Over 90 percent of the cocaine on our streets comes from Colombia. More importantly, the guerrilla forces operating in Colombia have become directly involved in narco-trafficking. Where they once provided protection for drug traffickers, they now are directly involved in the production and transport of illegal drugs. This provides them with an almost limitless source of revenue. For the first time we have a guerrilla organization that does not rely on external sources of funding. Third, the Colombian economy is experiencing its worst recession since the 1930s. An unemployment rate of over 20 percent is exacerbating social and political tensions. The violence is deterring investment making economic recovery more difficult. Fourth, Colombians are leaving Colombia at record rates. Last year over 100,000 Colombians moved to my State of Florida alone. Hundreds of thousands more have come to other parts of the United States to escape the violence and instability. It is this combination of factors that led President Pastrana, working closely with our administration, to propose Plan Colombia. To many, Plan Colombia is only about drugs, but in reality it is a broad plan that addresses five key areas: the peace process; the Colombian economy; the counter-drug strategy; justice reform and human rights; and democratization and social development. It is this broad based plan to rebuild the Colombian state that needs our support. Some have said that Plan Colombia is only about providing military equipment to Colombia. Indeed, Plan Colombia is much more comprehensive and far-reaching. But, the United States contribution to Plan Colombia is heavily weighted toward military equipment. There is a good reason for this. Plan Colombia is a $7.5 billion plan, of which the Colombians themselves will provide over $4 billion. They are looking to the United States to provide about $1.6 billion and to international community for the remainder. It is appropriate that the portion of the funding being provided by the United States focus on the counter-drug part of Plan Colombia since this is of particular interest to us and since we are the only country that can supply that type of support. It is also the part of Plan Colombia that is most compelling for U.S. involvement, since it involves keeping drugs off of our streets. Some have argued that there are risks associated with providing this type of support to Colombia. That is true, but there are also risks associated with doing nothing, and I believe that the risks associated with doing nothing are far greater than the risks involved with helping the Colombian Government and the Colombian people. We have important national interests at stake in Colombia that would be critically harmed were the current situation in Colombia to continue. First, Colombia is the oldest democracy in South America and has been an important partner in bringing democracy and democratic values to all of our hemispheric neighbors, with the exception of Cuba. We must act to preserve democracy. Second, the entire Andean region is threatened by instability and Colombia is the center of that instability. Failure to stem the crisis in Colombia could lead to increased instability in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Panama, and Venezuela. A stronger Colombia means a stronger region and a stronger Western Hemisphere. Third, a complete breakdown in Colombia would make it even more difficult to control the drug trafficking. And the illegal networks that are set up by drug traffickers also involve other illegal activities that threaten our security, such as money laundering and financial crimes, arms trafficking, human smuggling, cargo theft, and terrorism. Fourth, Colombia is an important trading partner for the United States. It is South America's fourth largest economy and the fifth largest export market in Latin America for the United States. Colombia has the potential to be an economic engine for the Andean region and an even bigger market for U.S. goods. The violence and instability in Colombia are preventing economic growth, including the exploitation of large, newly discovered oil fields that would help to reduce gasoline prices in the United States. Fifth, the exodus of Colombians, nearly 1 million in the past 5 years, further exacerbates our own immigration problems. A further downturn in the Colombian situation could lead to an immigration crisis that would directly impact the United States. Finally, for those concerned about human rights, and I consider myself in that category, the deteriorating human rights situation in Colombia can only be reversed through the implementation of Plan Colombia, with the government gaining affective control over its national territory. President Pastrana has demonstrated his will to improve the human rights situation in Colombia, and has taken concrete steps, including dismissing senior military officers, to demonstrate his determination. With all of this at stake it is hard to understand why we have not been able to move faster to approve this assistance package. And there are direct costs associated with this delay. Last December I visited the first of the Colombian counternarcotics battalions that are to be trained and equipped by the U.S. as part of Plan Colombia. The U.S. Special Forces soldiers who were training them reported that their moral was excellent and they were as capable at their tasks as any soldiers they have ever trained. Unfortunately, this battalion has been doing very little other than calisthenics since my visit, largely because of our failure to move this assistance package. They are limited to where they can reach by foot, since they have no mobility capability. They have no fuel for the helicopters they were given on an interim basis by the State Department. The valuable training they received is wasting away, and their skills are fading from lack of practice. In addition, the second Colombian counternarcotics battalion has been vetted but are unable to begin training. Eradication of coca and opium poppy has been halted. Crop substitution and alternative development programs are also on hold, as are the human rights and judicial reform programs that are included in the legislation. Meanwhile, the guerrillas and the drug traffickers continue to strengthen and expand their operations. The peace process has floundered and the violence has escalated. Each day we wait the situation worsens, the regional instability increases, the drugs flow out of Colombia, and the money and effort required to turn the situation around increases. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to act now and support this vital package of assistance for Colombia.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I request 3 minutes of the remaining time of the opponents of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator McConnell is controlling time, but he is not here. Could I ask how much time is under Senator McConnell's control?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Bryan, Robb, Conrad, Chafee, Baucus, Rockefeller, and Lincoln to introduce the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000. We are all aware of the fundamental changes in Americans' life expectancy throughout the century. When Medicare was created in 1965, the average life expectancy for a woman who reached the age of 65 was 80 and for a man 78 years of age. In 1998, the life expectancy jumped to 84 years for a woman and 81 for a man. Projections for the year 2100 assume that the average life span for an individual who reaches 65 will be 94 years for a woman and 91 for a man. These statistics paint a clear picture--seniors are living longer and to ensure their quality of life, they must have guaranteed access to prescription medications. The Republicans say that they want a prescription drug benefit. The Democrats say that they want a prescription drug benefit. The question facing both parties is this: Do they really want a benefit or just an election year bully pulpit? If the answer is a benefit, we're here today to help. On far too many occasions in the last few years, important legislation has been knocked off the tracks by election year, partisan train wrecks. We hope that this year can be different. That is why we are offering a new Medicare prescription drug benefit--one that we believe represents a workable compromise between the Democratic and Republican positions. Our Proposal--the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000--is centrist. It is bipartisan. It is innovative. And we think it can pass Congress this year. I must mention that this effort has been a truly collaborative one from start to finish. The MOD Act has several key components: Universality--access for everyone; Consistency--keeps with the important tradition of the Medicare program by providing a defined, reliable benefit for all seniors alike. A senior in Fargo, North Dakota is assured access to the same defined benefit structure as a senior in Miami, Florida; Voluntary participation, like Medicare Part B; Special protections for low income Americans; True stop-loss protection, which ensures seamless insurance without gaps in coverage; A ramp-up payment system, which decreases beneficiary payments based on their increased prescription medication needs; and The use of Multiple Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to administer the benefit and promote competition and choice. For many years I have spoken about the need to move the Medicare program from one based on acute care and illness to one focused on prevention and wellness. The Medicare Wellness Act of 2000, of which many of my colleague are cosponsors and which ensures seniors access to a variety of preventive programs and screenings, represents the first piece of this puzzle--The MOD Act represents the second step in my three-point plan for accomplishing this goal. Prescription drugs are an integral part of health care and must be integrated in to the current Medicare system as a defined benefit--not as an ``add on.'' It is my understanding that the House Republicans have proposed a bill that entrusts the private insurance market to provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors. Though, on the surface these ideals have appeal and they are initially less expensive or claim to be ``more flexible'' than a comprehensive, universal benefit, I find myself asking the question: Are there other Medicare benefits that are or should be treated in this capacity? Let's take the example of physician services, for example, anesthesiology services. Would we ask private insurance companies to create anesthesiology-only insurance packages? Would beneficiaries purchase such policies? Would they be available? What would be the result of extricating this benefit from the Medicare program. With prescription drugs representing one of the most prevalent treatments in health care today--I ask myself, ``Is it wise to look toward an approach to providing coverage of prescritpion medication which is arguably unworkable in everyother sector of medicine?'' Leaders in the health insurance industry have stated that ``Lawmakers should avoid drug insurance-only coverage, which is unlikely to get off the ground and which would be impossible to price affordably.'' The MOD Act creates a defined, affordable, consistent prescription drug benefit within the Medicare system where it should be. The third piece to solving the Medicare puzzle lies in the need to give the Medicare program the tools to compete in the current health care market place. My colleagues and I will soon be introducing a reform bill that will have the dual effect of providing significant savings to offset the bill that we are introducing today. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Bryan, Robb, Conrad, Chafee, Baucus, Rockefeller, and Lincoln to introduce the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000. We are all aware of the fundamental changes in Americans' life expectancy throughout the century. When Medicare was created in 1965, the average life expectancy for a woman who reached the age of 65 was 80 and for a man 78 years of age. In 1998, the life expectancy jumped to 84 years for a woman and 81 for a man. Projections for the year 2100 assume that the average life span for an individual who reaches 65 will be 94 years for a woman and 91 for a man. These statistics paint a clear picture--seniors are living longer and to ensure their quality of life, they must have guaranteed access to prescription medications. The Republicans say that they want a prescription drug benefit. The Democrats say that they want a prescription drug benefit. The question facing both parties is this: Do they really want a benefit or just an election year bully pulpit? If the answer is a benefit, we're here today to help. On far too many occasions in the last few years, important legislation has been knocked off the tracks by election year, partisan train wrecks. We hope that this year can be different. That is why we are offering a new Medicare prescription drug benefit--one that we believe represents a workable compromise between the Democratic and Republican positions. Our Proposal--the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000--is centrist. It is bipartisan. It is innovative. And we think it can pass Congress this year. I must mention that this effort has been a truly collaborative one from start to finish. The MOD Act has several key components: Universality--access for everyone; Consistency--keeps with the important tradition of the Medicare program by providing a defined, reliable benefit for all seniors alike. A senior in Fargo, North Dakota is assured access to the same defined benefit structure as a senior in Miami, Florida; Voluntary participation, like Medicare Part B; Special protections for low income Americans; True stop-loss protection, which ensures seamless insurance without gaps in coverage; A ramp-up payment system, which decreases beneficiary payments based on their increased prescription medication needs; and The use of Multiple Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to administer the benefit and promote competition and choice. For many years I have spoken about the need to move the Medicare program from one based on acute care and illness to one focused on prevention and wellness. The Medicare Wellness Act of 2000, of which many of my colleague are cosponsors and which ensures seniors access to a variety of preventive programs and screenings, represents the first piece of this puzzle--The MOD Act represents the second step in my three-point plan for accomplishing this goal. Prescription drugs are an integral part of health care and must be integrated in to the current Medicare system as a defined benefit--not as an ``add on.'' It is my understanding that the House Republicans have proposed a bill that entrusts the private insurance market to provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors. Though, on the surface these ideals have appeal and they are initially less expensive or claim to be ``more flexible'' than a comprehensive, universal benefit, I find myself asking the question: Are there other Medicare benefits that are or should be treated in this capacity? Let's take the example of physician services, for example, anesthesiology services. Would we ask private insurance companies to create anesthesiology-only insurance packages? Would beneficiaries purchase such policies? Would they be available? What would be the result of extricating this benefit from the Medicare program. With prescription drugs representing one of the most prevalent treatments in health care today--I ask myself, ``Is it wise to look toward an approach to providing coverage of prescritpion medication which is arguably unworkable in everyother sector of medicine?'' Leaders in the health insurance industry have stated that ``Lawmakers should avoid drug insurance-only coverage, which is unlikely to get off the ground and which would be impossible to price affordably.'' The MOD Act creates a defined, affordable, consistent prescription drug benefit within the Medicare system where it should be. The third piece to solving the Medicare puzzle lies in the need to give the Medicare program the tools to compete in the current health care market place. My colleagues and I will soon be introducing a reform bill that will have the dual effect of providing significant savings to offset the bill that we are introducing today. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 7 months and 75 minutes from today we will not be in this Senate Chamber. We will be standing, probably on the west-facing flank of the Capitol, hearing the next President of the United States being inaugurated into office. What is the significance of that statement of fact and place to the debate we are having today? The significance is that the issue before us today is not, What should be U.S. policy towards Cuba? The amendment that is before us proposes to establish a commission to try to answer the question, What should be U.S. policy towards Cuba? In a few days, we are going to be debating a proposition to change the embargo as it relates to Cuba. But the question before us today on the issue of establishing this commission is, Who should have primary responsibility for establishing U.S. foreign policy and, specifically, foreign policy towards Cuba? My answer to that question, of course, is, the people of the United States. The way in which the people of the United States will participate is not through an elite commission appointed by an administration in its last 7 months but, rather, through the electoral process which is going to take place in November of this year. We are in the midst of a robust Presidential campaign in which many issues of domestic and foreign importance to the United States are being debated before the American people. Frankly, I think this has been one of the most constructive Presidential campaigns in recent years thus far. I hope it continues in that path from now to election day in November. One of the issues which will certainly be debated during this Presidential campaign will be the issue of the United States relationship to Cuba. The American people will have an opportunity to participate, to understand, to add their opinions to this debate. Then they will decide. They will decide by the election of the next President of the United States of America. Under our Constitution, the President has the primary responsibility for foreign policy. Why in the world would we today, on the day exactly 7 months before the next President will take the oath of office, support a proposition that would establish a commission dominated by members of the current President's administration, which would have the intention of shackling the range of options of the President that will be elected by the American people in November, thus frustrating the ability of the American people to influence what our policy should be relative to Cuba? There are a lot of things that we can say about Cuba. Clearly, Cuba is an authoritarian regime. Examples of that have already been cited. Cuba, within the last few weeks, has been cited again by the United Nations for its denial of human rights. Cuba, within the last few days, has been again identified by Amnesty International as one of the egregious human rights violators. Cuba has again been placed on the terrorist list of states, those states which support and harbor terrorist activities. All of those issues are matters of public knowledge and record. All of those, I am certain, will be further debated at the appropriate time, when we commence the consideration of whether it is in U.S. national policy interests to loosen the embargo on Cuba. But today the issue is not whether Cuba is an authoritarian state, a well-established principle but, rather, the question of whether we should lift from the hands of the American people and place into an appointed commission the primary responsibility for direction on our Cuba policy. There is a ``common sense'' in these debates about Cuba, that the United States and Cuba are the only two nations in the world, that they are locked in a singular bilateral relationship. The fact is, many countries in the world have various forms of relations with Cuba. Many of them have the type of relationship which I believe the advocates of this commission would like to see achieved for the United States; that is, open, political, and economic recognition and relationship. While the approaches to Cuba have been different among the countries of the world, the result of those approaches has been consistently the same. What is the result of that policy, whether it is ours or the Canadians or the Spanish or a series of countries in Latin America? The result of that policy has been a continuation of 40 years of one of the most egregious violators of human rights, deniers of even the most basic principles of democracy, and a Communist economic system which has driven what had been one of the most affluent countries in Latin America into one of the most desperate countries in Latin America. The idea that by the United States changing our policy, we are automatically going to have the effect of changing the policy of Fidel Castro in Cuba defies 40 years of other countries' efforts through an open, normal relationship with Cuba to achieve that result. I believe these are serious issues. They are issues which deserve to be decided by the American people through the electoral process. The distinguished list of Americans cited by the proponent of this commission to establish such a commission signed their letter on September 30, 1998, almost 2 years ago. I wonder if these same distinguished citizens would be advocating this commission on the very eve of a Presidential election which will select a new President, whether they would advocate that in June of 2000 we should be removing from the hands of the American people and placing in the hands of this commission the primary responsibility to examine American policy towards Cuba; and, further, whether we should be establishing a commission which has such a narrow and quite obviously tilted orientation as to what the results would be. If we look at what is required of the commission to evaluate, it is issues which are largely selected to determine in advance what the recommendations will be. For instance, missing from this list is what is one of the most fundamental questions of American policy towards Cuba; that is, what should we be doing now in order to influence the kind of environment that will exist in Cuba when the opportunity for real change is available. Will we have a Cuba that will make a change like Czechoslovakia, a velvet revolution from communism to democracy, or will we have a Romania, where thousands of people are killed, violence which scars the country even today. The fact that some of these fundamental questions are left off the list of what should be the focus of American policy towards Cuba leaves me to believe that the purpose of this commission is to certify a foregone conclusion rather than do what the American people are going to do in the weeks between now and November, and that is have a thoughtful consideration of what are our real issues and interests in Cuba and how should we go about selecting a President who will carry out those real interests. We are going to have an opportunity for a full and open debate. Some of that debate will occur soon and on this floor. Much of it will occur in the living rooms of the American people. We should allow the American people to decide this issue. In 7 months, we will be listening to a President inaugurated who, hopefully, in that inaugural speech, will make some comments about his feeling as to what the American people desire relative to our policy towards Cuba. I urge that we vote for the motion to table this misguided and mistimed proposition of a lame duck commission on Cuba at this time and that we let the American people and the next President of the United States provide the leadership on this important foreign policy issue.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Florida Keys are a unique natural resource area that we must value and protect. This 158 mile- long string of islands at the southern tip of Florida attracts two and a half million visitors each year to fish, swim, snorkel, dive, and otherwise enjoy the beautiful surroundings. One of the most striking characteristics of the Florida Keys is their pristine marine environment. The Keys support one of the largest sea grass communities in this hemisphere and more than 6000 species of plants fish, and invertebrates. The diversity of this reef ecosystem is considered the underwater equivalent of the tropical rainforests. But that ecosystem--and the economy it supports--is at grave risk. The degradation of water quality in the Florida Keys threatens the health of the living coral reef, sea grasses, fisheries, and other marine life. This decline threatens to transform the Keys from one of Florida's most treasured resources to one of its most poisoned. Mr. President, the great irony is that we are loving the Florida Keys to death. While we are pleased that these islands attract new residents and visitors from all over the world, improvements in wastewater treatment and management practices have not kept pace with population and tourism growth. Why is this significant? Ongoing research has determined that nutrients from wastewater have significantly contributed to the decline of water quality in the Florida Keys. It will take a strong partnership of federal, state, and local governments working in conjunction with environmental advocates and other interests to build the better sewage treatment systems needed to improve canal and nearshore water quality. Fortunately for the Florida Keys, such a partnership is already in place and at work. In 1990, Congress established the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to protect the marine habitat while continuing to allow for its appropriate use. The sanctuary program has brought together representatives of necessary interests to develop a plan for challenges like water quality. Central to this effort is the Monroe County government, which has developed a Wastewater Master Plan to identify long-term solutions to the water quality problem. The plan estimates that infrastructure projects implemented to improve water quality will incur total capital costs of $346 million--a major undertaking that will require funding at every level. Mr. President, I have long said that any federal assistance for Keys wastewater improvements would first require a strong show of local support. Monroe County has done its fair share. Through a combination of revenue bonds, user fees and an infrastructure sales tax, the County has made a commitment of over $150 million over 10 years. Mr. President, it is time for this Congress to hold up its end of the bargain. Today, Senator Mack and I are introducing the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act of 2000. Similar legislation passed the House on May 4, 2000 with almost unanimous support. The Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants for construction of wastewater treatment works. These grants are only awarded to projects that already have a significant investment. Successful applicant projects will be those that have completed the planning and design phase, demonstrated substantial water quality benefits and proven compliance with the Marine Sanctuary and other master plans for the area. And as is appropriate in a partnership, these grants will fund a portion of project costs, with an least 25 percent of the cost paid by local and state entities. Mr. President, the prospect of treating wastewater for an increasingly crowed 158-mile-long string of islands is not a simple one. But it is vital that we preserve this beautiful area not just for current residents and visitors--but also for our children and grandchildren. With this legislation, we can put the federal government on the side of this worthy goal, and support the investment that has been made by the residents and protectors of the Florida Keys. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, during National Homeownership Week, to urge the Senate's commitment to affordable housing. I ask my colleagues to support a Resolution expressing the Senate's commitment to the ``House the Senate Built'' project. This proposed partnership between the United States Senate and Habitats for Humanity will lead to the construction of a simple home with and for a low-income family in all fifty states and the District of Columbia by the end of 2001. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have already made this a priority. Three years ago, members of the House unanimously passed a Resolution which expressed its commitment to build an affordable home for a family in need in each of the 435 Congressional districts. Since that time, in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, homes have been built in nearly every district. Habitat for Humanity's work is respected and admired. In its twenty- three years, Habitat for Humanity has housed nearly 400,000 people in 79,300 Habitat houses worldwide. Under the continued leadership of founder Millard Fuller, Habitat built 13,682 homes in 1999. Spend some time with Mr. Fuller or at one Habitat's worksites, and you will find that the passion for providing all sleepy children a decent place to lay their heads is contagious. Millard wisely states, ``We have the know-how in the world to house everyone. We have the resources in the world to house everyone. All that's missing is the will to do it.'' I suggest that the Senate has the will to make affordable housing for all Americans a reality. We can show our commitment by lending our own skills and strength to the construction of one Habitat for Humanity home in each State by the end of next year. I encourage you to work with your local Habitat for Humanity affiliate--there are over 2,000--to identify a community and family in need of a little extra assistance to make their dream of homeownership a reality. We all remember our first home--the pride we took in mowing the lawn for the first time, family barbecues, the excitement and nervous anticipation of our first dinner party. I believe that every American deserves the opportunity to feel the pride of homeownership. We have the know-how, the resources, and, certainly, the need. Let us now show America that we have the will to give more Americans the opportunity to own their own home.