Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan immigration legislation that will have a tremendous impact on thousands of families in the United States. I am very pleased to be working with my colleague, Gordon Smith of Oregon, on this effort. There are several reasons for the introduction of this legislation. 1. It corrects past injustices. Many of the immigrants helped by this legislation have been active, productive, hard-working members of our community for many years. For example, the majority of Central Americans helped by this legislation have been in the United States since the early 1980s, when they fled tyranny and turmoil in their home countries. The were welcomed into our nation by President Ronald Reagan. These Central American nationals were made retroactively deportable by the 1996 immigration bill. This legislation provides a state option to help legal immigrant children get needed health care. The 1996 welfare bill deprived vulnerable, legal children from benefits. This change is good public policy, from a health care perspective, an immigration perspective and a humanitarian perspective. 2. It is pro-family. This legislation will speed the process that reunites family members. It has been over ten years since the limits on family immigration were adjusted. This has resulted in waiting periods that could last years to bring immediate family members together. Spouses and children would have an easier time in obtaining visas to visit their loved ones through this legislation. In current practice, it is often very difficult to travel to visit legal residents in the United States while their immigration documents are pending--our legislation would ease the bureaucracy to allow families to be together for the events that shape their lives. 3. It is pro-business. Congress has focused this session on increasing the number of high- tech workers for U.S. companies. I have long been supportive of that proposal. Protections are in place for U.S. workers, and American business has the resources needed to keep our economy booming. This legislation is pro-business in two ways. It builds the pool of legal workers available by swifter family reunification. And it offers an avenue for those workers who are already here and working to remain here. They can stay here, and increase the productivity of our nation's businesses, or they can leave and work for foreign competitors. I want them to stay. Alan Greenspan agrees. He has said during a House Banking and Financial Services Committee meeting in July of last year: Aggregated demand is putting very significant pressures on an ever-decreasing supply of unemployed labor. The one obvious means that we can use to offset that is expanding the number of people we allow in. . . . I think in reviewing our immigration laws in the context of the type of economy which we will be enjoying in the decade ahead is clearly on the table. . . . 4. Its omnibus nature allows groups to work together toward a common goal All sides win in this equation. Families. Children. Business. Our economy By combining forces, groups that care about these issues can work together toward a comprehensive, prudent, rational immigration policy. These coalitions are already being built. I would like to submit a letter from May 16, 2000 from Jack Kemp, Henry Cisneros, and a wide range of business, religious, labor and immigrant advocacy groups endorsing components of this legislation. This is a wonderful example of groups at the national and local level coalescing together around pro-family, pro-business, pro-justice ideals. Our current immigration debates have had the negative effect of pitting one segment of our society against another, and pitting one nationality against another. In the past . . . the debate has been if businesses get more workers, family reunification will suffer. Nicaraguans and Cubans receive a swifter and more generous immigration status than similarly situated Central American and Caribbean nationals. No one wins if these divides remain. All of us win if we can work together and strengthen our nation by correcting past injustices, reuniting families and providing American businesses with the workers they desperately need. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Since the bill covers many issues, I would like to submit a summary of the legislation for the Record along with the test and a supporting letter.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for joining me in this recognition of America's children. Last night, our body passed an important resolution, affirming the sacred role of children in our society. I have often heard the phrase ``every day is children's day.'' Sadly, this is not always the case. There are too many children in America who are hungry, abused, neglected, and abandoned. Despite the best efforts of our parents, our foster parents, and our social services networks, not all children feel that they are loved and valued. Today, the United States Senate has taken a monumental step towards recognizing the merit and worth of all of our children. We already give special tribute to the efforts of our mothers and fathers. On both Mother's Day and Father's Day, we honor the hard work and sacrifices which parents make on behalf of their children and families. These are days where we pay homage to our parents, both acknowledging and giving thanks for their contributions to both society and home. I am pleased that June 4, 2000, will be National Child's Day--a day during which parents and friends alike can affirm the love we share for our children. This will be a day devoted to our youth, reminding children and ourselves of the special, blessed place which they have within both our hearts and our lives. I would like to give special recognition to those organizations whose tireless efforts greatly aided in the success of this resolution, specifically Ms. Lee Rechter, Executive Director of FOCUS (Friends of Children United Succeed) and Mr. David Levy, Director of the Children's Rights Council. Mr. President, National Child's Day provides a wonderful opportunity for us to celebrate America's children. But, we must also remember that every day should indeed be children's day. Let our expression of love and appreciation for our youth not be confined to a single day, but be shared with them on June 4th and always.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, to introduce the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000-- legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and abuse of MDMA, a drug commonly known as Ecstasy. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's Year 2000 Annual Report on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of Ecstasy is on the rise in the United States, particularly among teenagers and young professionals. My state of Florida has been particularly hard hit by this plague. Ecstasy is customarily sold and consumed at ``raves,'' which are semi-clandestine, all-night parties and concerts. Young Americans are lulled into a belief that Ecstasy, and other designer drugs are ``safe'' ways to get high, escape reality, and enhance intimacy in personal relationships. The drug traffickers make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth. Mr. President, I want to be perfectly clear in stating that Ecstasy is an extremely dangerous drug. In my state alone, 189 deaths have been attributed to the use of club drugs in the last three years. In 33 of those deaths, Ecstasy was the most prevalent drug, of several, in the individual's system. Seven deaths were caused by Ecstasy alone. In the first four months of this year there have already been six deaths directly attributed to Ecstasy. This drug is a definite killer. Numerous data also reflect the increasing availability of Ecstasy in metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In a speech to the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation earlier this year, Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated that in the first few months of fiscal year 2000, the Customs Service had already seized over four million Ecstasy tablets. He estimates that the number will grow to at least eight million tablets by the end of the year which represents a substantial increase from the 500,000 tablets seized in fiscal year 1997. The lucrative nature of Ecstasy encourages its importation. Production costs are as low as two to twenty-five cents per dose while retail prices in the U.S. range from twenty dollars to forty-five dollars per dose. Manufactured mostly in Europe--in nations such as The Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain where pill presses are not controlled as they are in the U.S.--Ecstasy has erased all of the old routes law enforcement has mapped out for the smuggling of traditional drugs. Under current federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is equivalent to only 35 grams of marijuana. In contrast, one gram of methamphetamine is equivalent to two kilograms of marijuana. This results in relatively short periods of incarceration for individuals sentenced for Ecstasy-related crimes. When the potential profitability of this drug is compared to the potential punishment, it is easy to see what makes Ecstasy extremely attractive to professional smugglers. Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 addresses this growing and disturbing problem. First, the bill increases the base level offense for Ecstasy-related crimes, making them equal to those of methamphetamine. This provision also accomplishes the goal of effectively lowering the amount of Ecstasy required for prosecution under the laws governing possession with the intent to distribute by sending a message to Federal prosecutors that this drug is a serious threat. Second, by addressing law enforcement and community education programs, this bill will provide for an Ecstasy information campaign. Through this campaign, our hope is that Ecstasy will soon go the way of crack, which saw a dramatic reduction in the quantities present on our streets after information of its unpredictable impurities and side effects were made known to a wide audience. By using this educational effort we hope to avoid future deaths like the one columnist Jack Newfield wrote about in saddening detail. It involved an 18-year-old who died after taking Ecstasy in a club where the drug sold for $25 a tablet and water for $5 a bottle. Newfield speaks of how the boy tried to suck water from the club's bathroom tap that had been turned off so that those with drug induced thirst would be forced to buy the bottled water. Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 can only help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. We urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, to introduce the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000-- legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and abuse of MDMA, a drug commonly known as Ecstasy. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's Year 2000 Annual Report on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of Ecstasy is on the rise in the United States, particularly among teenagers and young professionals. My state of Florida has been particularly hard hit by this plague. Ecstasy is customarily sold and consumed at ``raves,'' which are semi-clandestine, all-night parties and concerts. Young Americans are lulled into a belief that Ecstasy, and other designer drugs are ``safe'' ways to get high, escape reality, and enhance intimacy in personal relationships. The drug traffickers make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth. Mr. President, I want to be perfectly clear in stating that Ecstasy is an extremely dangerous drug. In my state alone, 189 deaths have been attributed to the use of club drugs in the last three years. In 33 of those deaths, Ecstasy was the most prevalent drug, of several, in the individual's system. Seven deaths were caused by Ecstasy alone. In the first four months of this year there have already been six deaths directly attributed to Ecstasy. This drug is a definite killer. Numerous data also reflect the increasing availability of Ecstasy in metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In a speech to the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation earlier this year, Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated that in the first few months of fiscal year 2000, the Customs Service had already seized over four million Ecstasy tablets. He estimates that the number will grow to at least eight million tablets by the end of the year which represents a substantial increase from the 500,000 tablets seized in fiscal year 1997. The lucrative nature of Ecstasy encourages its importation. Production costs are as low as two to twenty-five cents per dose while retail prices in the U.S. range from twenty dollars to forty-five dollars per dose. Manufactured mostly in Europe--in nations such as The Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain where pill presses are not controlled as they are in the U.S.--Ecstasy has erased all of the old routes law enforcement has mapped out for the smuggling of traditional drugs. Under current federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is equivalent to only 35 grams of marijuana. In contrast, one gram of methamphetamine is equivalent to two kilograms of marijuana. This results in relatively short periods of incarceration for individuals sentenced for Ecstasy-related crimes. When the potential profitability of this drug is compared to the potential punishment, it is easy to see what makes Ecstasy extremely attractive to professional smugglers. Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 addresses this growing and disturbing problem. First, the bill increases the base level offense for Ecstasy-related crimes, making them equal to those of methamphetamine. This provision also accomplishes the goal of effectively lowering the amount of Ecstasy required for prosecution under the laws governing possession with the intent to distribute by sending a message to Federal prosecutors that this drug is a serious threat. Second, by addressing law enforcement and community education programs, this bill will provide for an Ecstasy information campaign. Through this campaign, our hope is that Ecstasy will soon go the way of crack, which saw a dramatic reduction in the quantities present on our streets after information of its unpredictable impurities and side effects were made known to a wide audience. By using this educational effort we hope to avoid future deaths like the one columnist Jack Newfield wrote about in saddening detail. It involved an 18-year-old who died after taking Ecstasy in a club where the drug sold for $25 a tablet and water for $5 a bottle. Newfield speaks of how the boy tried to suck water from the club's bathroom tap that had been turned off so that those with drug induced thirst would be forced to buy the bottled water. Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 can only help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. We urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Grassley, and Rockefeller to introduce a bill to restore critical funding to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Mr. President, the Social Services Block Grant, Title XX of the Social Security Act, was created in 1981 by combining funding for social services and related staff training, and was intended to be the primary source of federal funds for social services. Funds are allocated to states on a per capita basis and they can use them to address abuse and neglect and to encourage self sufficiency and independence. Since its creation, SSBG has successfully provided states with funds to address the social service needs they see as most pressing. States have broad flexibility in determining which services meet the needs of their unique populations, who should deliver the services and which families and individuals to serve. The array of needed programs covered under this important block grant range from adoption services to adult protective services--from home delivered meals to day care--from education and training programs to residential treatment services. In the 1996 welfare law, an agreement was made between Congress and the States to decrease the SSBG from $2.8b to $2.38b until welfare reform was firmly established. The Finance Committee guaranteed states that SSBG would be funded at $2.38 billion per year until FY03 when it would be restored to $2.8b. In order to allow them to continue to fund critical social service programs, Congress allowed states to transfer 10 percent of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to SSBG. This was an important promise that has been broken. This legislation allows us to return to our promise and an agreement that was critical to the success of the new welfare system. As members of the Finance Committee, we have an acute understanding of the value of the programs over which we have oversight responsibilities. We have consistently worked, with some success, to ensure the foundation of SSBG. This overarching commitment was exemplified during the FY 2000 budget process. The Senate showed its bipartisan support for this important program by voting 57-39 to restore Title XX funding to its authorized level of $2.38 billion. Unfortunately, in the final omnibus appropriations bill, Title XX funding was cut from its authorized level of $2.38 billion to $1.775 billion. This $600 million cut is having a direct impact on the availability of necessary services for the nation's neediest citizens. This year, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education has included draconian cuts to this critical program by decreasing the funding levels from $1.7 billion to $600 million. This level of reduction is simply unacceptable and would virtually bankrupt the program. Our bill would ensure that Title XX funds would remain available to support needed services for children and families in crisis. The block grant has also been one of the only funding sources available for community-based services for elderly and disabled persons. It is unconscionable that this critical source of funding for the most basic and necessary of social services has been cut by over $1 billion in a short five years, and that the Senate Appropriations Committee would suggest a billion dollar cut in one year alone. If adequate funding for this program is not restored to SSBG, vulnerable children, families, elderly, and disabled persons will be without the assistance they need to live independently. Title XX provides the support necessary for families in crisis, the elderly, and many persons with both physical and mental disabilities to live independently in the community. These funds also provide support through childcare and counseling, both of which are necessary for persons with multiple barriers to employment to successfully leave the TANF rolls. The importance of the Social Services Block Grant is not only recognized by state and local governments, but also by non profit providers across the country who have joined together with governments in support of this block grant. Congress needs to also recognize the Social Services Block Grant as the critical safety-net program that it is, and pass our bill to restore funding to the levels necessary to keep our promise to our neediest citizens. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Grassley, and Rockefeller to introduce a bill to restore critical funding to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Mr. President, the Social Services Block Grant, Title XX of the Social Security Act, was created in 1981 by combining funding for social services and related staff training, and was intended to be the primary source of federal funds for social services. Funds are allocated to states on a per capita basis and they can use them to address abuse and neglect and to encourage self sufficiency and independence. Since its creation, SSBG has successfully provided states with funds to address the social service needs they see as most pressing. States have broad flexibility in determining which services meet the needs of their unique populations, who should deliver the services and which families and individuals to serve. The array of needed programs covered under this important block grant range from adoption services to adult protective services--from home delivered meals to day care--from education and training programs to residential treatment services. In the 1996 welfare law, an agreement was made between Congress and the States to decrease the SSBG from $2.8b to $2.38b until welfare reform was firmly established. The Finance Committee guaranteed states that SSBG would be funded at $2.38 billion per year until FY03 when it would be restored to $2.8b. In order to allow them to continue to fund critical social service programs, Congress allowed states to transfer 10 percent of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to SSBG. This was an important promise that has been broken. This legislation allows us to return to our promise and an agreement that was critical to the success of the new welfare system. As members of the Finance Committee, we have an acute understanding of the value of the programs over which we have oversight responsibilities. We have consistently worked, with some success, to ensure the foundation of SSBG. This overarching commitment was exemplified during the FY 2000 budget process. The Senate showed its bipartisan support for this important program by voting 57-39 to restore Title XX funding to its authorized level of $2.38 billion. Unfortunately, in the final omnibus appropriations bill, Title XX funding was cut from its authorized level of $2.38 billion to $1.775 billion. This $600 million cut is having a direct impact on the availability of necessary services for the nation's neediest citizens. This year, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education has included draconian cuts to this critical program by decreasing the funding levels from $1.7 billion to $600 million. This level of reduction is simply unacceptable and would virtually bankrupt the program. Our bill would ensure that Title XX funds would remain available to support needed services for children and families in crisis. The block grant has also been one of the only funding sources available for community-based services for elderly and disabled persons. It is unconscionable that this critical source of funding for the most basic and necessary of social services has been cut by over $1 billion in a short five years, and that the Senate Appropriations Committee would suggest a billion dollar cut in one year alone. If adequate funding for this program is not restored to SSBG, vulnerable children, families, elderly, and disabled persons will be without the assistance they need to live independently. Title XX provides the support necessary for families in crisis, the elderly, and many persons with both physical and mental disabilities to live independently in the community. These funds also provide support through childcare and counseling, both of which are necessary for persons with multiple barriers to employment to successfully leave the TANF rolls. The importance of the Social Services Block Grant is not only recognized by state and local governments, but also by non profit providers across the country who have joined together with governments in support of this block grant. Congress needs to also recognize the Social Services Block Grant as the critical safety-net program that it is, and pass our bill to restore funding to the levels necessary to keep our promise to our neediest citizens. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since the early 1980s, the United States has implemented a logical series of policy initiatives with respect to the nations of the Caribbean Basin. First, in 1983, we enacted the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, to stabilize the region by building stronger, more diverse economies. This initiative had the added goals of enhancing national security, and reducing the flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States. Second, after the enactment of NAFTA in 1993, we moved to ``level the playing field,'' for the CBI region by further enhancing our trade relationship with the CBI nations. Today, after 7 years of debate, we will vote on the final passage of this measure. Third, we have responded quickly and compassionately to a number of humanitarian crises in the CBI region; most recently to Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, which caused unprecedented damage and misery in many Latin American nations. And finally, we now look towards 2005, a year that will bring the expiration of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the implementation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, both of which will significantly affect trade relations throughout the Western Hemisphere. Today, I will discuss the importance of the legislation before us, as well as the future of our relationship with some of our most important neighbors. I am very pleased that the full Senate is now considering the conference report on H.R. 434, which includes a number of trade enhancement measures, including the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement. Although I fully support all the measures in this package, I have a particular interest in the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. Since the passage of NAFTA put our Caribbean neighbors at a competitive disadvantage, I have worked to enhance the Caribbean Basin Initiative that was originally passed in 1983. I thank Senators Roth, Moynihan, and Lott for their support in bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor, in addition to their tireless work with the Senate and House conferees to reach agreement on a number of provisions included in this bill. Over the past 7 years, I have worked to enhance and build upon our existing trade relationship with our neighbors in the Caribbean Basin region. Three times, in 1993, 1995, and 1997, I introduced CBI enhancement legislation to achieve this important goal. On February 3, 1999, in response to the overwhelming devastation and destruction caused by Hurricane Georges and Hurricane Mitch, I introduced the Central American and Caribbean Relief Act. This bill represented a broad and comprehensive strategy to provide immediate disaster relief, economic and infrastructure recovery and development, and long-term trade enhancements that would benefit both the United States and the countries in the region well into the new millennium. Although we passed legislation in March 1999 that provided immediate disaster relief to the countries in the region that were impacted by Hurricanes Georges and Mitch, I am pleased that we are now considering final passage of a bill that includes many of the long term trade enhancement provisions I introduced in the Central American and Caribbean Relief Act. Trade is the best form of aid. Enacting this legislation is critical to the continued economic health of our nation and the economic health of our closest neighbors in the Caribbean and Latin America. It is also in our national security interests. There are many compelling reasons to pass this legislation. The first is humanitarian. I have made three trips to the region in the year following the devastation of Hurricane Georges and Hurricane Mitch. I know that many of my colleagues have also seen the destruction caused by these hurricanes. These two destructive storms caused a level of death and devastation not seen in this hemisphere in over 200 years. We have all heard of the tremendous loss of life, economic disruption, and human suffering caused by these hurricanes. As a neighbor, a friend, and a great nation, we have an obligation to respond with assistance that will help the region recover as rapidly as possible. A second reason to pass this legislation is economic: CBI enhancements are in the best economic interest of the United States. Experience shows us that providing trade benefits to the Caribbean basin in good for the United States. Following enactment of the Caribbean Basin Initiative in 1983, our 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 into the U.S. from the region grew by less than 20 per cent. On a per capita basis, our trade surplus with the CBI region has consistently out-paced our trade surplus with any other region of the world. In fact, since 1995, U.S. exports to the CBI countries have increased by approximately 32 percent. Over 58 million consumers in the 24 countries in the CBI region purchase 70 percent of their non-oil imports from the United States. Yet another reason to strengthen the Caribbean economy is the stability of our closest neighbors. In 1983 the Caribbean Basin, which includes Central America, was a region inflamed with violent conflicts and rampant drug trafficking. The primary goal of the initial CBI legislation was to stabilize the region by building stronger, more diverse economies, and to enhance our national security by reducing the flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States. While everyone can agree that the region's worst days are behind it, we have a continued national security interest in the Caribbean Basin-- such as stemming the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Without assistance to restart the regional economy and make it possible for people to provide for their families, the nations in the region will be even more susceptible to the scourge of drug trafficking. The people of the region must have opportunities in the legal economy so that they may feed their families and resist the financial temptations associated with drug trafficking. In addition, failing to enact CBI enhancements will increase the pressure for migration to the United States. The people of the region must have real opportunity at home so that they are not forced to flee in order to find employment and feed their families. Passage of this legislation is not only critical to ensure that the Caribbean Basin is no longer negatively affected by NAFTA, but it will also boost the region's long-term competitiveness with Asian nations, particularly in the textile industry. Although current CBI textile production costs are somewhat higher than costs in Asia, the textile products of most Asian nations are currently 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 CBI region to remain competitive, and further, the CBI region 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, the Asian import quotas will be phased out. At that time, textile production in 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. That is why passing CBI enhancement legislation now is critical to the U.S. textile and yarn industries, as well as to the U.S. cotton growers. Sixty-four thousand U.S. textile workers depend on our partnership with the Caribbean. Overall, four hundred thousand U.S. jobs are dependent upon textile exports to the CBI region. Only by providing incentives for the development of strong relationships with apparel manufacturers in our hemisphere will we have any chance to maintain a market for U.S. cotton and textiles after the Asian quotas are eliminated in 2005. Inherent in our CBI enhancement efforts are public and private investment incentives that will increase productivity and the quality of life within the region. We anticipate the textile industry will provide investment capital targeted for the construction and maintenance of schools, health and child care facilities, and technology enhancements to increase the productivity of both workers and existing manufacturing facilities. A well trained and healthy workforce will be more productive and efficient as Caribbean basin producers compete for shares of the international textile market. Mr. President, we are about to make a fundamental decision that will impact twenty-seven of our closest neighbors. The choice is clear, stark and beyond reasonable debate. Will we engage or will we retreat? I urge my colleagues to extend this assistance to our neighbors in order to expand commerce and promote economic and political stability in the region. With the final passage of this legislation, we have an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen our economic and national security through the enhancement of our trade relationship with our neighbors in the region. We must act prior to 2005 to build a dynamic, formidable Western Hempishere trade alliance that encourages U.S. industry to invest in the region and to make commitments to rebuilding the industrial infrastructure in the region. There are a number of additional initiatives, both at home and abroad, that we should aggressively pursue in order to build a true ``partnership for success'' with both the Caribbean and the other nations of the Western Hemisphere. Mr. President, as we take the first step in this process today in passing CBI enhancement legislation, let me outline and advocate a comprehensive strategy for economic growth and development throughout our hemisphere. First, here in the U.S., we should move quickly to modernize and improve both the facilities and organizations that manage our international trade. For example, in recent years, the variety of trade and commerce that are carried out at seaports has greatly expanded. This continuing growth 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 products, to avoid safety inspections. In 1998, I asked the President to establish a federal commission to evaluate 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. Although the Commission will soon release its final report, it has already identified at least four preliminary recommendations for improving seaport security: First, we should establish minimum security guidelines for all U.S. seaports. These would include uniform practices for physical security, certification for private security officers at seaports, guidelines for restricting vehicle access to seaports, and other, similar measures. Second, local ports should establish and maintain local port security committees, made up of federal, state, and local agencies with trade and law enforcement responsibilities at seaports. These committees would discuss and develop solutions for issues related to port security. For example, a joint initiative among state and local police departments in South Florida, the FBI, and the Customs Service, known as the Miami-Dade County Auto Theft Task Force, has been very successful. In the last 3 years, this task force has recovered 851 stolen vehicles valued at $19 million. Third, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies should conduct cooperative, interagency threat assessments for seaports within their jurisdictions, with an eye towards coordinating their efforts to combat criminal activity. And finally, we should encourage the development and deployment of new technologies that would further assist law enforcement and trade officials in carrying out their missions at the ports. Currently, few ports employ measures such as security cameras, carbon dioxide detectors, vessel tracking devices, or enhanced x-ray equipment, all of which could assist law enforcement personnel in accomplishing their mission. Enhanced technology will not only facilitate the movement of legitimate trade, but will also assist in the rapid detection of criminal and terrorist activities. The second critical domestic initiative is the modernization of the U.S. Customs Service. On a typical day, dedicated Customs officers in over 900 U.S. field locations and 34 foreign offices perform multiple tasks associated with the successful performance of the agency's mission. This includes the examination of 550 vessels, 45,000 trucks, 344,000 vehicles, and 1.3 million passengers. Perhaps even more important, Customs officers seize over 4000 pounds of narcotics and $1.2 million in drug money in a day, and they make 67 criminal arrests of those involved in a various illegal activities, including drug running and money laundering. And finally, in their role as facilitator of U.S. trade, Customs processes over 58,600 import shipments worth $2.6 billion, monitors 27,000 export shipments, and collects over $60 million of revenue per day. It is vital that the automation systems upon which Customs relies to perform its mission-critical functions be up-to-date and capable of handling the ever-increasing pressure on the Service. And this is the problem. Currently, the Customs Service relies on severely aging automation systems. In particular, Customs Automated Commercial System (known as ACS), which is at the core of their trade enforcement and compliance functions, and is over sixteen (16) years old, is increasingly susceptible to short-term ``brown-outs'' and long-term failure. With an ACS system failure, even for a few hours, the Customs Service's responsibility for protecting American borders becomes significantly more difficult. Commissioner Kelly and the Customs Service are ready to move forward with the modernization of their information technology systems. They have determined the funding requirements to accomplish their modernization goals in the most cost-effective fashion. Customs will require $12 million for the remainder of fiscal year 2000, and they have requested $338.4 million for fiscal year 2001 in order to complete this project. The importance of Customs modernization cannot be overstated; it is a fundamental component of moving U.S. trade policy into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support Commissioner Kelly in his effort to streamline and modernize the Customs Service, and to fully fund this critically important initiative. Third, we must pass legislation that recognizes the comprehensive role of the Customs service in both trade facilitation and law enforcement. Both the Senate and the House have passed bills to reauthorize the U.S. Customs Service. Both bills would provide Customs with the necessary funding it requires to perform its multi-faceted functions of drug interdiction, passenger and cargo inspection, and trade facilitation. Both bills enhance drug interdiction and investigative efforts, the facilitation of international trade, the targeted use of sophisticated technology, the efficient allocation of assets and resources, and the enhancement of Customs internal affairs functions. In addition, the Senate bill directs the Customs Service to establish performance goals and indicators, as well as priorities and objectives by which we may evaluate the effectiveness of Customs operations. I urge both chambers of Congress to resolve quickly the differences between the two bills, and to pass a comprehensive Customs Reauthorization Act as a demonstration of our commitment to support the first line of defense against the flow of drugs and drug money across our borders, and boost the first line of offense in promoting trade. In the interest of expanding trade and economic development throughout the Western Hemisphere, there are a number of legislative initiatives already under consideration by the Senate that should be finalized and passed before we complete our business this year. As I have already stated, 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. In 1991, after 8 years of resounding success in the CBI region, Congress passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act (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 $3.9 billion in 1991 to nearly $9 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 the wake of the Asian financial crisis, Colombia and its Andean neighbors are struggling with issues similar to the challenges of the CBI region--only much worse. After more than 60 years of sustained growth, Colombia is experiencing its worst economic recession since the 1930s. Unemployment in Colombia is at an historic high of 21 percent; the Colombian economy is suffering from three consecutive quarters of negative growth. The economic downturn in Colombia has harmed both foreign and domestic investor confidence in the Andean region. Drug trafficking is undermining the democratic foundations of the Andean region. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) recently released information indicating Colombian coca cultivation has increased 140 percent over the past five years. More than 300,000 acres of coca are currently under cultivation in the jungles and mountains of Colombia. Actual cocaine production in Colombia has risen from 230 metric tons to 520 metric tons, a 126 percent increase in the same five year period. ONDCP estimates that 80 percent of the cocaine available on our nation's streets was cultivated on Colombian farm land, processed in Colombian drug labs, or smuggled into the U.S. through Colombia's roads, rivers, and air space. The people of the Andean region are also suffering from the rampant guerilla violence that plagues Colombia and threatens the stability of the entire Andean region. In 1998, there were over 21,000 murders and 1,100 kidnapings in Colombia. Ninety percent of these murders and kidnapings were related to the armed conflict between the Government of Colombia and the anti-government insurgent groups who control almost 40 percent of the country, are heavily involved in cocaine and heroin trafficking, and who regularly violate the national sovereignty of their Andean neighbors. Colombia's best and brightest citizens are leaving their homes in record numbers. Since 1995, over 1 million Colombians have fled their country to escape the drug and guerilla related violence that threatens the entire region. In the last year alone, more than 100,000 Colombians have moved to South Florida. Seventy percent of the Colombians displaced by the violence and terror in their country will never return to Colombia. In response to this crisis, the government of Colombia has formulated Plan Colombia. The administration, in turn, has responded generously to Colombia'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. 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. As part of its Colombian assistance package, the administration has proposed $145 million over the next 2 years for alternative economic development targeted toward Colombian coca and poppy growers. Although agricultural reform is an important component of the administration's plan, agricultural programs alone are insufficient in addressing the alternative development needs in the Andean region. Again Mr. President, trade is the best form of aid. The United States is at a critical juncture with its neighbors in the CBI and Andean regions. As we enhance our trading relationship with our partners in the Caribbean by passing the legislation under consideration today, we must also work to expand and enhance our trading relationships with the countries of the Andean region. Currently, under ATPA, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru enjoy the same trade benefits that we currently extend to the CBI region. However, upon final passage and enactment of CBI enhancements, our Andean trading partners will be at a competitive disadvantage. To promote economic growth and regional stability, the Congress must consider additional trade measures that benefit the Andean region. First, the Congress should grant early renewal of ATPA. Early renewal of this important trade agreement will signal the United States' support of Colombia'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 Colombia and the Andean region. Second, the Congress should consider granting CBI parity to the ATPA beneficiaries. 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. Third, the Senate should approve passage of the administration's supplemental assistance package for Colombia. The proposal responds to an emergency situation, expresses a strong U.S. commitment to Colombia, and complements other key elements of Plan Colombia. I believe that it will help mobilize higher levels of commitment from the Colombian government and the private sector, and will catalyze and sustain multilateral efforts of support for Colombia. As we consider the final passage of CBI enhancements, as well as the President's Colombian aid package, the United States has an unprecedented opportunity to make significant accomplishments in regions ravaged by natural disasters, economic contraction, and the scourge of drug trafficking. However, as we make the fateful decisions, we must recognize that the dollars we spend on eradication and interdiction will be wasted unless the expansion and enhancement of international trade is included as a critical component of an effective economic assistance and counter drug strategy. We must also aggressively pursue the Fee Trade Area of the Americas, which will put in place the future framework for trade in our hemisphere. We cannot afford to fail in this task, and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made up to this point. Last year, Congress passed my resolution stating that Miami should host the permanent Secretariat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Coupled with the passage of the trade legislation under consideration today, these actions indicate that the United States Congress still believes that opening markets and expanding economic links abroad are in our national interests. We must continue to demonstrate our leadership in this movement. There is also much that can and should be accomplished by our Caribbean partners to ensure that their end of the international trading system is as efficient as it can be. They must work to ensure the efficiency of their seaports, airports, and transportation systems. We can help with technical assistance. International institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank can use their assistance programs to promote efficiency and increase investment in the textile and apparel sector of the Caribbean economy. We can also work with these institutions and industries to ensure that internationally recognized labor rights are respected. Such initiatives will continue to build a consensus in the U.S. and aboard on the benefits of expanded trade. Upon final passage of CBI enhancement legislation, we will begin the important process of establishing a true ``partnership for success'' with some of our important neighbors. Mr. President, the action of the Senate today is a good start, but is only the beginning. I urge my colleagues to look towards the future, and to take advantage of the real economic benefits that can be achieved by further enhancing our relationship with the nations of the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Louisiana be recognized next, and then an intervening Republican, and then myself to be the next Democrat, and then Senator Lincoln be the next Democrat after that.

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Landrieu is the first, I will be the next, Senator Lincoln would be after myself, with the intervening Republicans.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, are we going to break at 12:30?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the idea would be that these would be the next three Democrats, and if there were Republicans, they would be intervening in order to maintain the alternating nature of the debate.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maine for her very thoughtful remarks. She focused on the large issues that are appropriate for the Senate, and she spoke in the spirit of the importance of what we are dealing with, the future of American children, and the necessity that we approach it with a level of seriousness and bipartisanship. I thank her for her very succinct, extremely valuable contribution to this debate. In that same vein, I wish to share an observation that some of us heard recently by a prominent American historian, Steven Ambrose. He is best known for his numerous books on military history, particularly on World War II, but he has also written a Pulitzer prize-winning book on the Lewis and Clark Expedition--an expedition which opened up much of America to serious study and exploration. It was an expedition that took place between 1804 and 1806. It comprised traversing some 7,600 miles of the recently acquired Louisiana Purchase in the northwest corner of the United States. What Mr. Ambrose pointed out is that the average length of each day of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was 15 miles. But the techniques used by Lewis and Clark between 1804 and 1806 were exactly the techniques that Julius Caesar would have used if he had the same assignment, which is to say that for a period of over 2,000 years their had been virtually no progress in man's mastery of the field of transportation. Since Lewis and Clark, in less than 200 years, we have had an explosion of transportation advancement. We are now in the process of building in space an international space station which will become the platform for which we will explore the universe. That is how much progress we have made in 200 years after 2,000 years or more of stagnation. What is the explanation? What has happened that last allowed us to make this much progress? According to this eminent historian, the single most significant fact that has allowed the 200 years of progress has been the fact that we committed ourselves as a nation--and much of the world--to the proposition of universal education; that we are allowing, for the first time in the history of mankind and in the last 200 years of America, hopefully, every human to reach their full potential. He used the example of the Wright brothers. If the Wright brothers had been born 100 years earlier--just four generations earlier than in fact they were born--by all accounts, given the nature of their family and its economic and social standing, both of the Wright brothers would have been illiterate, and therefore the world would have been denied the ingenuity which played such a critical part in all of these great advancements which now benefit all of us. We are not talking about a trivial issue. We are talking about a fundamental issue that has reshaped America and reshaped the world in the last two centuries, and which will reshape us again in this new 21st century and the centuries beyond. We are dealing with one of the most basic issues facing the world and America. I am pleased that the Senate's new Democrats, with much of the membership having spoken on the floor this morning, have taken on this issue as our first contribution to the policy today in the Senate. That is, I hope, illustrative of the seriousness of our group and its desire to be a constructive part of helping the Senate and the American people develop policy in basic areas such as education. I think we would all agree that there are certain important principles that we should look at as we approach what the Federal role should be in education. Those would include words such as ``accountability,'' ``reward,'' ``excellence,'' and ``resources.'' On February 5, I asked a group of Florida educators to meet together in Tampa to discuss what they believe, based on their professional experience, to be some of the priorities the Congress should look at as it reauthorizes the fundamental education act for our Nation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Here are some of the responses from this group of educators. First, not necessarily in priority on their points, was the importance of additional resources; that if we are going to achieve our purposes, we must have a Federal commitment as well as a State and local commitment which is commensurate to the challenge that is before us. The RRR response to this request: It will increase the Federal role in education by more than $30 billion over the next 5 years, the most significant increase in funding since the program was established in 1965. To underscore the importance of this, we talked about the implications of this chart. This chart is an attempt to indicate what has happened in America over the last 150 years in terms of the requirements for self-sufficiency by an older adolescent or young adult in America. In 1850, there was a relatively limited amount of knowledge required to be self-sufficient. Literacy was not such a requirement. Many Americans functioned very effectively at a high level of self- sufficiency without being able to read or write in 1850. Today, there has been a four-time explosion in the requirements of knowledge for an American to be self-sufficient. That explosion has not been a straight line. It has been an explosion driven by technology. Note the major increase in the knowledge demands that occurred in the late and early 20th century commensurate with the movement of America from a rural economy to an industrial economy. But the big increase has come well within our lifetime. Coincidentally, it almost starts at the time the first Elementary and Secondary Act was passed in the mid-sixties with an explosion of knowledge requirements as Americans entering the workforce had significantly greater expectations of what their skill level would be, particularly in areas of mathematics and communication skills. Mr. President, the second aspect of this chart is an attempt to indicate that one of the fundamental relationships in the acquisition of knowledge by Americans has been the relationship between what the family can contribute to that knowledge and what is provided by a formal educational institution, which we typically refer to as a school. In the 1850s, the family provided more than half of the knowledge of their children. Typically, they were doing so by educating the children to be able to read and write to achieve that level of literacy. It was the development of science and technology that began to effect the relationship of what a family and what a school was expected to provide to children's education. As science and technology has become more pervasive and more complex, the relative proportion of knowledge provided by the school and that which could be provided by the typical family has altered. Whereas, in 1850 the family was providing two-thirds of the education, today the school is providing about two-thirds of the education. The significance to me of this chart is the challenge that we as a society have to assure that all American children have an opportunity to acquire this much greater level of education; that our schools which are being called upon to provide a larger and larger share have the necessary resources--human resources, financial resources, and resources of support by the community--in order to carry out their responsibility. We are going to be voting shortly on some major trade agreements with Caribbean countries--Central American countries, African countries, and China. One of the recurring realities of all of those trade agreements is that we are opening our markets broader and broader to countries whose standard of living and whose per capita annual incomes are dramatically lower by factors of 20, 30, 40 times what they are in the United States. The only way the United States is going to be able to compete and maintain our standard of living is to assure that all Americans are getting this level of knowledge so that they can be full participants in the most effective and most competitive economy in the world--the economy of the United States of America. Again, this chart underscores the seriousness of the issue we are considering. We spent a good deal of time at that Tampa meeting with educators discussing this chart and its implications. The educators told me in addition to resources, they wanted more flexibility, the opportunity to adapt to the specific needs of the communities and the children they serve. That is the approach taken in the RRR program. We focus on results more than process and, thus, allow more flexibility to achieve those results. The educators said they don't mind accountability if there are resources there to realistically achieve the goals that have been sought. RRR demands accountability but provides the resources needed to accomplish these goals. Not only do we increase the total amount of resources by some $30 billion over 5 years, we also target these resources to the children who are most in need. When President Johnson talked about America's role in education, he was specifically talking about the chasm that existed between the abilities of poor children and more advantaged children to achieve what would be required to be competitive in the world. The Federal role has been targeted at these at-risk children. We need to refocus our commitment. I am sorry to say there has been a tendency for the formulas that distribute Federal education money to succumb to the temptation to have everybody get some piece of the Federal dollar. The consequence of that is the funds have been so diluted we have been unable to focus a sufficient quantity on those children who need it the most and who are most dependent upon that additional Federal support in order to be able to achieve their educational needs. Our very focused and stated position in the RRR legislation is that we believe, as a nation, this Congress needs to recommit ourselves to the proposition that the purpose of Federal assistance is to aid those children who are most at risk and that we should demonstrate that commitment by having a formula that targets the money to those children who are greatest in need. With that, we can then talk seriously about accountability. The Senator from Alabama talked about what I call process or product accountability where we count the number of books in the library. There are other forms of accountability that assess overall student performance. The type of accountability we are advocating is an accountability that focuses on what the school and what the local educational agency can do to contribute to a student's educational attainment. It is what I describe as a value-added approach. How much did the school experience add to the educational development of the child? I have been very critical of the educational assessment program which is currently being used by my State, by the State of Florida. The basis of my criticism is it does not assess the value added by schools; rather, it is an assessment of the total influences that have affected a student's performance. The most fundamental of those influences has nothing to do with what the school contributed but, rather, relates to the socioeconomic status of the family from which the child came. I spoke on an earlier date and submitted for the Congressional Record a very thoughtful analysis of the Florida plan by a professor at Florida State University, Dr. Walter Tshinkel. In that assessment, Dr. Tshinkel took the schools in Leon County, FL, which is the county of which Tallahassee, the State capital, is the county seat, and observed that if you looked at the affluence and poverty statistics of the various neighborhoods in Tallahassee and Leon County and assigned a letter grade based on that data alone without testing a single student, that 26 of the 33 school districts in the Leon County School District would have received exactly the same grade as they did when student test scores were taken into account. That says to me what we have been essentially testing in Florida is not what the school contributes, but the socioeconomic status of the children who come into that school. Professor Tshinkel went on to say if, in fact, you did assess on value added, what the school had contributed, you had almost a reversal of results. Schools that got F's actually should have gotten A's because they did the most to advance the students for which they had responsibility, and the schools that got A's should have gotten F's because they started with a very advantaged group of students and did not make that great of a contribution to their educational advancement. RRR provides accountability for what the schools can be held accountable for, what they can reasonably contribute to a student's development and hence a student's performance. Another topic discussed at our Tampa roundtable was professional development. It was very helpful that most of those who participated were current classroom teachers. These teachers are yearning for new avenues for professional development, for the time to be able to take advantage of these opportunities. The RRR will allow this to happen with a major new national focus on seeing that all of our teachers-- those who are entering the profession and those who are at an advanced position as professional educators--have an opportunity to continue their professional development and enhancement. We can only do this in a comprehensive manner. We believe strongly these principles are a key to achieving the challenge that America faces to provide the knowledge necessary for all Americans to be able to compete effectively in this rapidly changing world in which we live. If this line on the chart of the increased need for knowledge to be self-sufficient in the world as it exists today is a harbinger of where that line would go in the 21st century, the challenge for American education and the challenge for this Congress to be responsive to the Federal role in education is a stunningly great challenge that requires the most serious attention of the Senate. I thank all of my colleagues who have contributed to this debate, who have worked to bring forward to the Senate a proposal I believe is worthy of our task. Every 6 years we have a chance to analyze the programs that affect American children, from kindergarten to the 12th grade. This should be an opportunity not just to tinker around the edges, not just to make minor course corrections, but to look at the challenge we face to assure all American children, particularly those who enter the classroom with the least advantages, will have an opportunity to be successful, and through their success to contribute to the success of America.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that designates the first Sunday in June as National Child's Day. Our children are our future. I believe that most of my colleagues would agree that our children are, indeed, this nation's most precious resource--a resource that should be cherished and protected. Sadly, Mr. President, over five million of America's children go to bed hungry at night. In the last ten years there has been a 60 percent increase in the number of children in or in need of foster care services. Many children in America face crises of grave proportions, especially as they enter their adolescent years. We must make a commitment to reverse these trends. We must take the initiative to make each child in this nation a child who is loved, cared for and appreciated for his or herself. The establishment of a National Child's Day will give all of us the unique opportunity to focus on our children's needs and to recognize their accomplishments. National Child's Day will encourage families to spend more quality time together and will highlight the special importance of the child in the family unit. This simple, yet important, resolution will foster family togetherness and ensure that our children receive all of the love, support, and attention that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in establishing National Child's Day this year and for years to come.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a lot to say and not much time in which to say it. The fundamental point is that this budget resolution represents a statement of the values of the Members of Congress, representing the 270 million citizens of the United States of America. What this budget resolution says is that we are giving a priority to tax cuts over meeting the moral, ethical, and legal obligations of the U.S. Government to its citizens by failing to make a commitment to strengthen Social Security and to strengthen the Medicare program. That is the fundamental message of this budget resolution. This budget resolution requires the Senate Finance Committee to report two bills with tax cuts totalling $150 billion in the next 5 years. The Finance Committee can report separate legislation cutting taxes by an additional $25 billion over 5 years. The Finance Committee can report even greater tax cuts if in July the Congressional Budget Office projects higher on-budget surpluses. There is no similar set of mandates or permission as it relates to strengthening Social Security and strengthening and expanding Medicare. We must do these things. And we can do these things relative to tax cuts. There is no similar provision relative to our obligation to Social Security and Medicare. We already have embarked on a serious and, I say, unfocused tax- cutting process. If you add up what we have already done in the educational savings account, the Patients' Bill of Rights, the minimum wage, small business tax cut, and what was proposed this week in terms of marriage penalty tax cuts, and suspension of the gas tax, with that hole in our transportation funding being filled by the non-Social Security surplus, we have already spent approximately two-thirds of the non-Social Security surplus we anticipate for this next fiscal year and approximately two-thirds of what we anticipate for the next 5 years with those actions alone. I suggest that is not a prudent way to go about using the non-Social Security surplus--that we ought to do first things first. The first thing we should do is to meet the obligation this Government has to its citizens in the areas of Social Security and Medicare. Why are those two such priorities? They are priorities because the citizens of the United States every payday are paying into those trust funds for Social Security and for Medicare. They have a legal, contractual obligation from the Government to meet those benefits which they anticipate. We need to have a similar commitment to assure that those programs are going to be capable of meeting those obligations. We also have not been faithful in this budget resolution to some commitments both Houses have made in terms of a prescription medication benefit. Both the Senate- and the House-passed resolutions infer--and the leadership of both Houses publicly stated--that we would be reserving $40 billion over the next 5 years for purposes of a prescription medication benefit. We received from the conference committee a commitment to spend $20 billion for additional access to prescription medication--not a specific modification of the Medicare program that would incorporate prescription medication as a benefit of Medicare. The other $20 billion would be available only if there were changes in the structure of the Medicare program which would be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing the solvency of the Medicare program. This is not the prescription medication benefit the American people expected. This is not the benefit we anticipated when we passed the budget resolution in the Senate. It is not a prescription medication benefit that will respond to the realities of modern medicine. One of the reasons many of us believe it is so important to have a prescription medication benefit is to change the fundamental culture of the Medicare system. Medicare was adopted in 1965 as an acute-care program. If you were sick enough to go in the hospital, or if you were run over by a truck, Medicare would provide financing for your health care. What we need to be thinking about as we start the 21st century is the approach to health care most Americans want. That is an approach that emphasizes prevention and wellness and the maintenance of quality of life. Almost every step required to do that, whether it is to moderate diabetes, to reduce the prospect of stroke and heart disease, to deal with hormonal imbalances, all of those things that are fundamental to the quality of life, particularly of older Americans, requires prescription medication as a key to this accomplishment. Providing this prescription medication benefit is not just adding another benefit to Medicare, as has been asserted; rather, it is changing the fundamental orientation of Medicare to one that will focus on the wellness of the American people, and not just wait until they get sick enough to go in the hospital. That is the fundamental issue that is at risk with this budget resolution which puts at the top of the pyramid of American values providing unspecified tax cuts and puts at the bottom of American values meeting our contract with the Americans who have built this great Nation through strength in Social Security and Medicare. I urge the rejection of this budget resolution. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to adopt one that is more in keeping with the desires of the American people.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 2383 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM. In deference to the Presiding Officer, if a situation arises in which he feels my remarks should be terminated or restrained, if he will so indicate, I will be pleased to defer to his wishes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 10 minutes for purposes of introduction of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for many weeks, we have been dealing with the tragedy of Elian Gonzalez. If this tragedy teaches us anything, it is that the U.S. immigration laws have not been constructed in a manner that accounts for the special needs of our Nation's most precious resource--I also say our world's most precious resource--our children. Yesterday, CNN-USA Today released a Gallup Poll on the Elian Gonzalez tragedy. That poll said by a 2-to-1 margin Americans believe Elian Gonzalez should live with his father in Cuba rather than with relatives in the United States. But that same poll, also by a 2-to-1 margin, found that Americans disapprove of the way the Government has handled this case. That disapproval of the way in which the Government has handled this case could be a disapproval of hundreds of cases if they had the same notoriety as Elian. I come this afternoon to introduce legislation that will require the Federal Government to dramatically improve its treatment of the thousands of unaccompanied children who arrive in the United States each year. Many of us are parents. I personally have been blessed with four beautiful daughters and 10 wonderful grandchildren. We all know the special joy a child brings to our lives. We know that bond across generations that relationship between a parent or a grandparent and a child brings. We all want to pour all of the history, all of our personal experience into safeguarding and into paving the way in the best interests of our children. The Bible tells us to take this responsibility seriously. In the book of Proverbs, it imparts this wisdom: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. We all have that responsibility to train up a child. As that passage from Proverbs suggests, we have a responsibility to protect and nurture all of our children. Their future--our planet's future--depends on it. Unfortunately, U.S. law prevents us from carrying out that responsibility with respect to some of this planet's most vulnerable children. Each year, there are about 5,000 unaccompanied children who are detained by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Some children come to this country seeking asylum, others hope to be reunified with families, and others seek nothing but a better life. While many of these children ultimately are deported or voluntarily returned home, some have legitimate claims which merit our attention. Regardless of the outcome of their cases, in most instances, these children must endure the rigors of an immigration system that is anything but child friendly. Unfortunately, many children in INS custody end up spending time in jail-like settings while their cases are pending. They have no one to guide them through complex immigration law and procedure. Moreover, immigration laws are technical and inflexible and do not permit compassion or frequently even common wisdom to enter into the equation when determining the fate of a child. I will give some examples. Six Chinese children were detained by the INS last year in Oregon. Though charged with no crime, they were sent to a juvenile detention facility for 8 months where they were exposed to violent youthful offenders who had committed crimes such as murder and drug trafficking. One of the group, a 15-year-old girl, was forced to remain at the jail for several weeks after she had been granted asylum, even though she had relatives living in New York. Such innocent children should not have to endure exposure to hardened juveniles and criminals as part of their experience with the U.S. immigration process. Equally compelling is the story of a Kosovar Albanian boy who was suffering from severe depression. He was held in a juvenile correctional facility for over 6 months during his immigration proceedings. The INS provided psychiatric care but by a professional who spoke only English. After a mental episode, the boy was placed in the maximum security section of the jail rather than being provided with appropriate care. The INS even balked at placing the boy in foster care after he was granted asylum, thus further delaying his stay in an inappropriate facility. The Federal Government's insensitivity to child immigrants is also illustrated by a recent case of two children from the Caribbean. Their mother is a legal, permanent resident in the United States, but she had left her minor children behind with the belief they would soon follow. The mother promptly applied for visas for her children. Yet the children were required to wait in their home country for months and, in some cases, even years before they could even get an interview at the local U.S. Embassy to pave the way for reunification with their mother. These are just three examples of children who were improperly treated as a result of our current immigration laws. Many of these cases are the result of INS's inherent conflict of interest: Children are detained and frequently deported by the same agency that is responsible for caring for them and protecting their legal rights. This system does not work well enough, and it needs improvement. Children are entitled to receive care from child welfare authorities who will act in their best interest and who are trained to protect children's rights. Indeed, there is an irony. The Federal Government requires States to place children in facilities that are separate and apart from adult correctional facilities. The INS should at least abide by the same standard with respect to alien children. To address these problems, my legislation takes four actions: First, it requires that INS place children in its custody in a facility appropriate for children; in other words, no jails. These facilities are required to provide for the health, welfare, and educational needs of children. Two, provide children in INS custody with a guardian ad litem to champion that child's best interest. Notably, this guardian would not be associated with the INS in order to eliminate any conflict of interest. Three, give the Attorney General the flexibility and the authority in extraordinary cases to evaluate a child's case on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. Four, to direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study and report back to Congress regarding whether and to what extent U.S. diplomatic officials are fulfilling their obligation to reunify on a priority basis children in foreign countries whose parents are legally present in the United States. With these changes in the law, children will no longer be forced to struggle through the immigration process alone under the adverse conditions to which they are currently exposed. The INS will have the flexibility to treat children in its custody with greater compassion and common sense. I hope the recent attention which has and will continue to surround the Elian Gonzalez tragedy will encourage us to shield all our children from the vagaries of U.S. immigration law. Our future generations deserve to be protected, not persecuted or prosecuted. They deserve to be inspired, not incarcerated. They deserve to have decisions about their future made consistent with what is in their best interest, not confused by conflicts of interest. I conclude with hope that this Congress will give attention to an issue which affects not one child but thousands of children who are in the custody of the United States and whose treatment reflects our fundamental American values of justice and concern for their rights. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and three newspaper articles and editorials on the subject of ``INS Treats Children Shamefully'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may modify the request, I am in the category with the Senator from Maine. We have topics we wish to discuss other than the gasoline tax. We appreciate that debate should be completed. We just want to have an order that, after the gasoline tax debate, we may introduce our legislation. We want to be included in the unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my colleague, the Senator from Texas, completes her remarks, if I can have 10 minutes for purposes of introduction of legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for many weeks, we have been dealing with the tragedy of Elian Gonzalez. If this tragedy teaches us anything, it is that the U.S. immigration laws have not been constructed in a manner that accounts for the special needs of our Nation's most precious resource--I also say our world's most precious resource--our children. Yesterday, CNN-USA Today released a Gallup Poll on the Elian Gonzalez tragedy. That poll said by a 2-to-1 margin Americans believe Elian Gonzalez should live with his father in Cuba rather than with relatives in the United States. But that same poll, also by a 2-to-1 margin, found that Americans disapprove of the way the Government has handled this case. That disapproval of the way in which the Government has handled this case could be a disapproval of hundreds of cases if they had the same notoriety as Elian. I come this afternoon to introduce legislation that will require the Federal Government to dramatically improve its treatment of the thousands of unaccompanied children who arrive in the United States each year. Many of us are parents. I personally have been blessed with four beautiful daughters and 10 wonderful grandchildren. We all know the special joy a child brings to our lives. We know that bond across generations that relationship between a parent or a grandparent and a child brings. We all want to pour all of the history, all of our personal experience into safeguarding and into paving the way in the best interests of our children. The Bible tells us to take this responsibility seriously. In the book of Proverbs, it imparts this wisdom: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. We all have that responsibility to train up a child. As that passage from Proverbs suggests, we have a responsibility to protect and nurture all of our children. Their future--our planet's future--depends on it. Unfortunately, U.S. law prevents us from carrying out that responsibility with respect to some of this planet's most vulnerable children. Each year, there are about 5,000 unaccompanied children who are detained by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Some children come to this country seeking asylum, others hope to be reunified with families, and others seek nothing but a better life. While many of these children ultimately are deported or voluntarily returned home, some have legitimate claims which merit our attention. Regardless of the outcome of their cases, in most instances, these children must endure the rigors of an immigration system that is anything but child friendly. Unfortunately, many children in INS custody end up spending time in jail-like settings while their cases are pending. They have no one to guide them through complex immigration law and procedure. Moreover, immigration laws are technical and inflexible and do not permit compassion or frequently even common wisdom to enter into the equation when determining the fate of a child. I will give some examples. Six Chinese children were detained by the INS last year in Oregon. Though charged with no crime, they were sent to a juvenile detention facility for 8 months where they were exposed to violent youthful offenders who had committed crimes such as murder and drug trafficking. One of the group, a 15-year-old girl, was forced to remain at the jail for several weeks after she had been granted asylum, even though she had relatives living in New York. Such innocent children should not have to endure exposure to hardened juveniles and criminals as part of their experience with the U.S. immigration process. Equally compelling is the story of a Kosovar Albanian boy who was suffering from severe depression. He was held in a juvenile correctional facility for over 6 months during his immigration proceedings. The INS provided psychiatric care but by a professional who spoke only English. After a mental episode, the boy was placed in the maximum security section of the jail rather than being provided with appropriate care. The INS even balked at placing the boy in foster care after he was granted asylum, thus further delaying his stay in an inappropriate facility. The Federal Government's insensitivity to child immigrants is also illustrated by a recent case of two children from the Caribbean. Their mother is a legal, permanent resident in the United States, but she had left her minor children behind with the belief they would soon follow. The mother promptly applied for visas for her children. Yet the children were required to wait in their home country for months and, in some cases, even years before they could even get an interview at the local U.S. Embassy to pave the way for reunification with their mother. These are just three examples of children who were improperly treated as a result of our current immigration laws. Many of these cases are the result of INS's inherent conflict of interest: Children are detained and frequently deported by the same agency that is responsible for caring for them and protecting their legal rights. This system does not work well enough, and it needs improvement. Children are entitled to receive care from child welfare authorities who will act in their best interest and who are trained to protect children's rights. Indeed, there is an irony. The Federal Government requires States to place children in facilities that are separate and apart from adult correctional facilities. The INS should at least abide by the same standard with respect to alien children. To address these problems, my legislation takes four actions: First, it requires that INS place children in its custody in a facility appropriate for children; in other words, no jails. These facilities are required to provide for the health, welfare, and educational needs of children. Two, provide children in INS custody with a guardian ad litem to champion that child's best interest. Notably, this guardian would not be associated with the INS in order to eliminate any conflict of interest. Three, give the Attorney General the flexibility and the authority in extraordinary cases to evaluate a child's case on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. Four, to direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study and report back to Congress regarding whether and to what extent U.S. diplomatic officials are fulfilling their obligation to reunify on a priority basis children in foreign countries whose parents are legally present in the United States. With these changes in the law, children will no longer be forced to struggle through the immigration process alone under the adverse conditions to which they are currently exposed. The INS will have the flexibility to treat children in its custody with greater compassion and common sense. I hope the recent attention which has and will continue to surround the Elian Gonzalez tragedy will encourage us to shield all our children from the vagaries of U.S. immigration law. Our future generations deserve to be protected, not persecuted or prosecuted. They deserve to be inspired, not incarcerated. They deserve to have decisions about their future made consistent with what is in their best interest, not confused by conflicts of interest. I conclude with hope that this Congress will give attention to an issue which affects not one child but thousands of children who are in the custody of the United States and whose treatment reflects our fundamental American values of justice and concern for their rights. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and three newspaper articles and editorials on the subject of ``INS Treats Children Shamefully'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment would reserve $15 billion over the next 5 years to be able to meet the projected additional funding for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We propose this additional funding as part of a comprehensive Elementary and Secondary Education Act reform which focuses on principles such as accountability based on student performance, greater flexibility in terms of the States and local school districts' ability to utilize this money, and a strong focus on the at-risk child, the child who today is falling further and further behind and is going to be less able to be an equal contributant to the new economy era in which they will be living, unless the Federal Government increases the strength of its partnership with the States and local school districts. I urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein and Kohl be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2966.