Bob Graham

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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my colleagues in the Senate, our new Democrats, for having so eloquently outlined the goals of our amendment and what those goals represent in our vision of American public education. We believe American public education is fundamental to our Nation's progress. We are going to be faced with enormous economic challenges from around the world. The only way America will be able to maintain its current standard of living and improve that standard for the next generation is by an investment in our people, which means an investment in public education. We believe passionately in the importance of that. We recognize that the States and local school districts have the primary responsibility, but we think the Federal Government should be a meaningful and constructive partner and that the principles in this amendment and the principles we will be offering when we debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are critical to achieving that constructive partnership. The most obvious thing this amendment will do--since we are talking about an amendment to a budget resolution--is to reserve an additional $15 billion, over the next 5 years, for the purposes of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We do that because we believe that additional amount of Federal contribution, particularly with the flexibility, targeted at the most in-need students, with an accountability system that relates to student performance in the classroom, that that investment is going to be a necessary part of lifting the performance of our American students, especially those who are most in need. If we fail to do that, if we fail, at the Federal level, to make that additional commitment to their education, I am afraid we are consigning the next decade of American public education to the same critique we hear so much of today--that we are not doing an adequate job of preparing our children for the future, that we are contributing not just to a digital divide but to a socioeconomic divide among our children, and that those children who do not have the kind of support we have traditionally associated with the family's contribution to child development will continue to fall further and further behind their fellow students who are more advantaged. We believe this is a pragmatic approach to a passionately held goal of improved American education. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this group of Senate Democrats appreciates this opportunity and accepts the challenge. We understand that education is fundamental to the growth of America today and even more fundamental to our progress tomorrow. Our willingness to invest intelligently in our children is a test of our Nation's intelligence about shaping its future. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues in this effort and look forward to their illumination on these principles of our education proposal.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment, which is described as Graham amendment No. 1, in which I am joined by Senators Lieberman, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Breaux, Robb, and Edwards, which relates to a new approach to the Federal role in primary and secondary education. This is the first major legislative initiative of the Senate New Democrats. We are a group of Democrats who feel passionately about the importance of a partnership between the Federal Government and the State and local school districts for the benefit of our children, but we feel pragmatic as to the means by which we can achieve that appropriate partnership. We are going to advocate that that partnership has several fundamental principles. One of those is accountability for student results. A second is additional resources. If I could put it in a common form, we believe you will not make the cow bigger by just weighing the cow every day; that you have to provide the resources in order to be able to achieve the goals, the high goals, and to meet the accountability standards we believe are necessary to set for our children in order to achieve our national objectives. We also are believers in the principle of greater flexibility at the State and local levels; that our Federal programs should be more focused and concentrated. We believe the primary focus of Federal programs should be on the children in the greatest need, the at-risk children, the children who too often fall through the cracks of current American education. Individual members of our group will speak to the various principles of this legislation. I want to use the remainder of my time to talk about the issue of accountability because, in my opinion, that is a central and fundamental issue. It is a word that has many different meanings. Some people define accountability in the context of an accountant--that accountability is to be certain you have properly accounted for all of those things that were input into the education system; that you have the appropriate number of books in the school library, as an example. We believe those are important. We do not believe that is the accountability the Federal Government should be looking for from States and local school districts. We also do not believe that accountability is accountability for student performance alone. We recognize that student performance is heavily influenced by many factors, particularly the socioeconomic circumstances of the family of the student. The challenge, rather, is an accountability that focuses on those aspects of the experience in the school and the classroom that has contributed to the students' educational growth and development. So we will be attempting to present an accountability that is school based, school focused, but is determined by how much educational value the school experience has added to the students' progress. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion article that appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat entitled ``Bush Plan Grades Students Poverty Levels,'' as illustration of these different approaches to the concept of accountability.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for far too long, the health and welfare of America's children have been jeopardized by a relatively unregulated tobacco industry. ``The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has amply demonstrated that tobacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps the single most serious threat to public health in the United States.'' These words aren't mine. They are Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's, the author of the majority opinion in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson--the recent case which prevents the FDA from effectively regulating tobacco. We have worked hard to protect our children from the perils of tobacco, but we clearly have not done enough. A study recently released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows that over 18 percent of youth between the ages of 12 and 17 are smokers. That translates into 4.1 million kids. And, every day, another 3,000 children join the ranks of their smoking peers. Not only are these children exposing themselves to the long-term health risks that we know tobacco to pose, they are increasing the likeliness that they will develop other harmful addictions. SAMHSA's study has revealed that children who smoke are over 11 times more likely to use illicit drugs and 16 times more likely to drink heavily than are their nonsmoking peers. Specifically, children who smoke are 100 times more likely to also smoke marijuana and 32 times more likely to use cocaine than nonsmoking children. Today, of the 4.1 million children who currently smoke, approximately: 35% smoke marijuana; 8% take hallucinogenic drugs; 5% use cocaine; and 4% sniff inhalants. The Supreme Court has placed the burden of protecting not only these children, but all children from tobacco squarely on the shoulders of the Congress. This is indeed a heavy weight to bear, but it is one from which we cannot afford to shy away. We are here today to announce that we have accepted this charge, and are introducing legislation that will provide America's children with real protections from tobacco. Currently, the FDA has the authority to regulate virtually all products which we consume or apply to our skin--food, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices--protecting Americans by ensuring that these products meet certain health standards. Yet, today, FDA authority--and thus, FDA protection--does not apply to tobacco. Congress can extend these protections by giving the FDA the authority to truly regulate tobacco products. Our legislation would do just that. It would give the FDA authority to: (1) reduce harmful components--such as nicotine--in tobacco products; (2) impose appropriate advertising and marketing restrictions to reduce teenage tobacco use; (3) require manufacturers to submit information about the health effects of their product to the FDA; (4) require strong warning labels; and (5) regulate health claims and ``Reduced Risk'' products. Mr. President, we are all in agreement that it is our responsibility to promote a healthier America. This legislation will help us achieve that collective goal, by giving the FDA the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for far too long, the health and welfare of America's children have been jeopardized by a relatively unregulated tobacco industry. ``The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has amply demonstrated that tobacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps the single most serious threat to public health in the United States.'' These words aren't mine. They are Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's, the author of the majority opinion in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson--the recent case which prevents the FDA from effectively regulating tobacco. We have worked hard to protect our children from the perils of tobacco, but we clearly have not done enough. A study recently released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows that over 18 percent of youth between the ages of 12 and 17 are smokers. That translates into 4.1 million kids. And, every day, another 3,000 children join the ranks of their smoking peers. Not only are these children exposing themselves to the long-term health risks that we know tobacco to pose, they are increasing the likeliness that they will develop other harmful addictions. SAMHSA's study has revealed that children who smoke are over 11 times more likely to use illicit drugs and 16 times more likely to drink heavily than are their nonsmoking peers. Specifically, children who smoke are 100 times more likely to also smoke marijuana and 32 times more likely to use cocaine than nonsmoking children. Today, of the 4.1 million children who currently smoke, approximately: 35% smoke marijuana; 8% take hallucinogenic drugs; 5% use cocaine; and 4% sniff inhalants. The Supreme Court has placed the burden of protecting not only these children, but all children from tobacco squarely on the shoulders of the Congress. This is indeed a heavy weight to bear, but it is one from which we cannot afford to shy away. We are here today to announce that we have accepted this charge, and are introducing legislation that will provide America's children with real protections from tobacco. Currently, the FDA has the authority to regulate virtually all products which we consume or apply to our skin--food, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices--protecting Americans by ensuring that these products meet certain health standards. Yet, today, FDA authority--and thus, FDA protection--does not apply to tobacco. Congress can extend these protections by giving the FDA the authority to truly regulate tobacco products. Our legislation would do just that. It would give the FDA authority to: (1) reduce harmful components--such as nicotine--in tobacco products; (2) impose appropriate advertising and marketing restrictions to reduce teenage tobacco use; (3) require manufacturers to submit information about the health effects of their product to the FDA; (4) require strong warning labels; and (5) regulate health claims and ``Reduced Risk'' products. Mr. President, we are all in agreement that it is our responsibility to promote a healthier America. This legislation will help us achieve that collective goal, by giving the FDA the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an injustice to a group of Central American and Caribbean nationals who for many years have resided in the United States. As I speak, a clock is ticking. A deadline to gain legal status in the United States is one day away. How did we get to this point? In 1997 and 1998, Congress passed legislation to protect Central American, Cuban and Haitian refugees from deportation. Action was needed because of the passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which changed immigration rules retroactively. Under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the United States offered protection and legal status to many Central American nationals who were fighting for Democracy in their home country, or fleeing the war that ensued. Similarly, during the Presidency of George Bush, Haitian nationals were forced to flee after the overthrow of elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide. They were offered protection and legal status in the United States. By 1996, these Central American and Haitian nationals had been living in our nation for years, in the cases of Central Americans, often longer than a decade. They established businesses, had families, bought homes, and strengthened their communities. Then, in 1996, with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, these Central American and Haitian Individuals and families were made retroactively deportable. These deportations would have occurred years and years after these nationals had established full lives in the United States. Congress protected their legal status here by passing the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act in November of 1997 and the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in October of 1998 by making certain sections of the 1996 immigration law non-retroactive. Since 1997, we have waited for final regulations to guide applicants through the process of applying for relief under NACARA. Since 1998, we have waited for final regulations to assist Haitian nationals with this process. And now, seven days before the application deadline, final regulations are issued. This is not an example of ``good government.'' Under legislation I introduced in February, the new deadline for relief will be one year after the date the regulations became final. This new deadline, March 23, 2001, reflects the added time needed by the INS to develop regulation. This will not cover any additional individuals who will then have rights to live in the United States. It just creates a more realistic, and fair deadline for individuals Congress has already passed legislation to protect. We are now one day away from the deadline coming and going, and the Senate has yet to take action on this legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee will not be able to meet this week to approve this legislation. We cannot purport to offer our constituents good and fair government if we let this deadline come and go without the simple action of extending the deadline by one year. When I spoke on the Senate Floor earlier this year, I tried to put a human story with this legislation. It's her story, and others, that should spur us to action on this legislation. Immigration attorneys in Florida are trying to help a young woman I will call ``Francis.'' She is 22 years old this year. Her parents fled Haiti in the 1980's when she was very young. Her family settled in Florida and she now has 3 U.S. citizen brothers and sisters. Then tragedy struck her family. Her father died when she was seven. Her mother died when she was in her early teens. She finished high school and is raising her younger brothers and sisters while working. She is an orphan, protected by our 1998 legislation. She is trying to pull the documents together to apply to stay in the United States, and not be separated from her U.S. citizen brothers and sisters--the only family she has left. The 1-year extension and the ability to apply for relief under final regulations will make a huge difference in the life of this young woman. I ask for the Senate's quick action on this timely and important matter. Many in the Senate worked diligently to protect Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan nationals in the original legislation. Let's not put these families at risk by our failure to act now.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Space Partnership Act--legislation to encourage the commercial development of space through the long term lease of real and personal property held by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Cox Commission Report identified the need to expand domestic launch capacity to meet the rapidly growing demand for commercial U.S. launch services. It is vital that we increase our domestic launch capacity, reduce our dependence on foreign launch providers and help eliminate the transfer of critical U.S. technology. The Cox Report specifically recommended that congressional committees ``report legislation to encourage and stimulate further the expansion of such capacity of competition.'' Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act is the third piece of legislation I have introduced with the goal of increasing our domestic launch capacity. The first was the Commercial Space Act, which became law in 1998. The Act helped break the federal government's monopoly on space travel by establishing a licensing framework for the private sector's reusable launch vehicles. It also provided for the conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation vehicles, thus helping to reduce our nation's cost of access to space. Last year, along with a similar bipartisan coalition, I introduced the Spaceport Investment Act. This bill would allow spaceports to issue tax-free bonds to attract private sector investment dollars for launch infrastructure. It achieves the dual purpose of reducing pressure on the federal budget while stimulating this crucial industry. Mr. President, the third leg of this effort is the Commercial Space Partnership Act. Presently, NASA holds real and personal property that would be invaluable in developing new domestic launch resources. At the same time, however, NASA has no appropriations with which to cover the costs that result from integrating new commercial launch facilities into its existing infrastructure. The Commercial Space Partnership Act is designed to resolve this problem by allowing public and private interests with development money to lease property from NASA for the purpose of expanding commercial launch capacity, and by permitting NASA to make use of some of the lease proceeds to cover the resulting costs it incurs. The Commercial Space Partnership Act will empower NASA to assist the commercial space industry in expanding the domestic launch capacity at no cost to the taxpayer. Under this new lease authority, NASA will receive fair market value for its property and will further be empowered to apply the lease proceeds to cover the full costs resulting from the integration of the new commercial launch facilities into NASA's existing infrastructure. The Act further provides that any lease proceeds in excess of NASA's full costs shall be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. The fair market value approach also ensures that NASA property will be leased to industry at a price which is comparable to other similar commercial properties. NASA's property will thereby be leased in a fair and equitable manner that will give in an unfair advantage to those with preexisting launch facilities in commercial locations. Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act can only encourage and stimulate the domestic launch capacity of our country. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Space Partnership Act--legislation to encourage the commercial development of space through the long term lease of real and personal property held by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Cox Commission Report identified the need to expand domestic launch capacity to meet the rapidly growing demand for commercial U.S. launch services. It is vital that we increase our domestic launch capacity, reduce our dependence on foreign launch providers and help eliminate the transfer of critical U.S. technology. The Cox Report specifically recommended that congressional committees ``report legislation to encourage and stimulate further the expansion of such capacity of competition.'' Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act is the third piece of legislation I have introduced with the goal of increasing our domestic launch capacity. The first was the Commercial Space Act, which became law in 1998. The Act helped break the federal government's monopoly on space travel by establishing a licensing framework for the private sector's reusable launch vehicles. It also provided for the conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation vehicles, thus helping to reduce our nation's cost of access to space. Last year, along with a similar bipartisan coalition, I introduced the Spaceport Investment Act. This bill would allow spaceports to issue tax-free bonds to attract private sector investment dollars for launch infrastructure. It achieves the dual purpose of reducing pressure on the federal budget while stimulating this crucial industry. Mr. President, the third leg of this effort is the Commercial Space Partnership Act. Presently, NASA holds real and personal property that would be invaluable in developing new domestic launch resources. At the same time, however, NASA has no appropriations with which to cover the costs that result from integrating new commercial launch facilities into its existing infrastructure. The Commercial Space Partnership Act is designed to resolve this problem by allowing public and private interests with development money to lease property from NASA for the purpose of expanding commercial launch capacity, and by permitting NASA to make use of some of the lease proceeds to cover the resulting costs it incurs. The Commercial Space Partnership Act will empower NASA to assist the commercial space industry in expanding the domestic launch capacity at no cost to the taxpayer. Under this new lease authority, NASA will receive fair market value for its property and will further be empowered to apply the lease proceeds to cover the full costs resulting from the integration of the new commercial launch facilities into NASA's existing infrastructure. The Act further provides that any lease proceeds in excess of NASA's full costs shall be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. The fair market value approach also ensures that NASA property will be leased to industry at a price which is comparable to other similar commercial properties. NASA's property will thereby be leased in a fair and equitable manner that will give in an unfair advantage to those with preexisting launch facilities in commercial locations. Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act can only encourage and stimulate the domestic launch capacity of our country. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, members of the Senate, I am proud to offer my support for the legislation. As many before me have said, this bill is the product of extended debate and compromise on all sides of this debate. crop insurance is a tool to reduce disaster aid Over the last 3 years, we have passed large disaster aid packages to farmers. Over the last 2 years, we have spent billions of dollars in disaster relief for farmers. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin said it best: a stitch in time saves nine. If we invest in crop insurance, it will significantly lower the costs associated with agricultural disasters. The choice is simple: give farmers the tools they need to plan for catastrophic weather, or risk emergency, after-the-fact spending that impedes our ability to preserve social security. Of particular interest to my state of Florida are the provisions in this legislation dealing with the needs of specialty crop producers. Agriculture in Florida has many different faces. There are 40,000 commercial farmers in the state. In 1997, Florida farmers utilized a little more than 10 million of the state's nearly 35 million acres to produce more than 25 billion pounds of food and more than 2 million tons of livestock feed. Florida ranks number nine nationally in the value of its farm products and number two in the value of its vegetable crops. Florida agriculture is not only valuable, but also diverse. Florida ranks number two nationally in horticulture production with annual sales of over $1 billion. Florida grows 77 percent of U.S. grapefruits and 47 percent of the world supply. The state produces 75 percent of the nation's oranges and 20 percent of the world supply. Florida's farmers led the Nation in the production of 18 major agriculture commodities in 1997 ranging from oranges and grapefruits, to a wide variety of vegetables, to tropical fish. Florida livestock and products sales were $1.1 billion in 1997. Florida is the largest milk-producing State in the southeast. The bottom line for Florida agriculture is that our State has a wide variety of non-traditional crops. On July 29, 1999 I introduced S. 1401, the Specialty Crop Insurance Act of 1999, with my colleagues Senators Mack, Feinstein, Boxer, and Bingaman. This legislation sought to reduce the dependence of the specialty crop industry on catastrophic loss insurance coverage by improving its access to quality crop insurance policies. Current crop insurance policies available for specialty crops do not cover the unique characteristics associated with the planting, growing, and harvesting of specialty crops. We need a different approach for this unique sector of U.S. agriculture. Our legislation sought to promote the development and use of affordable specialty crop insurance policies. This action is intended to increase specialty crop producer participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, encourage higher levels of coverage than provided by catastrophic insurance, and encourage better planning and marketing decisions. I am extremely pleased that the legislation we are considering today incorporates the provisions in my legislation. (1) The biggest problem for specialty crop growers is availability of affordable policies. According to a 1999 GAO Report on USDA's progress in expanding crop insurance coverage for specialty crops, even after an expansion in policies available to specialty crops planned through 2001, the existing crop insurance program will fail to cover approximately 300 specialty crops that make up 15 percent of the market share. To increase the availability of affordable crop insurance products, I proposed that we give the Risk Management Agency the resources and the ability to tap into expertise in the private sector during product development. S. 2251 accomplishes this goal. The bill before us today requires that at least 50 percent of the funds dedicated to research and development for new crop insurance products are focused on specialty crop product development. Fifty percent of these funds are to be spent on outside contractors, giving those with expertise on specialty crops the opportunity to develop policies. The legislation specifically authorizes $20 million per year for RMA to enter into public and private partnerships to develop specialty crop insurance policies. It also establishes a process to review new product development and ensure that crop insurance products are available to all agricultural commodities, including specialty crops. I believe the actions taken by S. 2251 will give RMA the authority and resources it needs to use the expertise of the private sector to develop good crop insurance products for specialty crops. (2) To further encourage development of new policies, I proposed expansion of the RMA pilot authority. This legislation authorizes funds for pilot programs. It allows pilots to be conducted on state, regional, and national basis for a period of four years to be extended if desired by RMA. S. 2251 also includes the authority for RMA to conduct a pilot program on crop insurance for timber, a provision I originally introduced on April 22 of last year in S. 868, the Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment. (3) Growers who do not have access to crop insurance policies depend on the Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP). To ensure that aid from this program actually reaches farmers in need, I proposed elimination of the area trigger for non-insured assistance program, making any grower whose crop is uninsurable and experiences a federally-declared disaster, eligible for these funds. This bill does the same. (4) My legislation took action to encourage growers to purchase buy- up coverage. The Risk Management for the 21st Century Act increases the rate for 50/100 coverage, the initial buy-up level after catastrophic coverage to 60 percent. (5) To encourage farmers to take proactive risk management action, both my legislation and S. 2251 propose a premium refund for low-risk producers. I believe that the provisions in the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act will ensure that specialty crop producers have access to high-quality insurance products designed to meet their needs. I am pleased that the goals of my legislation, S. 1401, the Specialty Crop Insurance Act of 1999, are met by the legislation before us today. I commend my colleagues for their efforts to ensure that crop insurance reform passed by the 106th Congress will take into account the needs of all agriculture producers, not just one sector. I offer my support for this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, in 1991, I spent one of my monthly workdays at a Winn- Dixie grocery store in Santa Rosa County, FL. I worked as a bagger standing at the end of the checkout line putting the groceries of the customers of that store into a paper or plastic bag they had selected and then taking it out to their car. The man I worked with throughout that day was Jim Young. Jim has a history that is typical of many retired Americans. He had worked both in a military and a civilian capacity. He had looked forward to his retirement time in a place of paradise and came to a place where he thought he could find paradise. Unfortunately, Jim had a few difficulties that had the effect of necessitating he seek employment in order to supplement his retirement income. It was then that he encountered the restrictions on earnings after retirement and the impact that this was about to have on his Social Security. Jim, therefore, had to go through an elaborate process of adjusting his work schedule so as to minimize the adverse effect of the earnings limit on his total income and to be able to fashion his way through what he found to be an inexplicable restriction on his capacity to work, make a contribution, and supplement his income. It was that experience with Jim as much as anything that caused me to be interested in the issues before us today. I am pleased to have played a role in the 1996 action which was described by our colleague from Kentucky, which substantially raised the cap on earnings to its current $17,000 and gave significant relief to people such as Jim Young. Today, we are finishing the job. With the passage of this legislation, we will eliminate any earnings restraint on Social Security retirement income. We will no longer be shackled by a 1930s concept that we have to discourage older workers from continuing their productive lives in order to open up positions for younger workers. If there ever was a time in our Nation's history where that concept has been rendered an anachronism, it is at the beginning of the 21st century. We need the productive talent of Americans such as Jim Young. We need to encourage people to think they will be able to extend their period of working and contributing to our Nation's economy as long as it is in their interest to do so, and not by applying arbitrary restraints to their earnings in the form of a penalty against their Social Security income. I will be very pleased tomorrow when we vote on what I anticipate will be an overwhelming majority in favor of eliminating this 1930s dinosaur which still occupies too big a space in the living room of Social Security. I wish to use this opportunity to talk about another dinosaur that is occupying too much space. That is the dinosaur of an excessive focus on Social Security as we think about the retirement lives of older Americans. In fact, Social Security is becoming a declining portion of the total revenue of retired Americans, and will continue to decline as a portion of their income for the foreseeable future. Retirement in America is today based on a three-legged stool. Those three legs are employer-sponsored retirement plans, individual savings, and Social Security. I believe, rather than talking about the issue of Social Security reform, what we should be talking about is the issue of retirement security reform so we can focus on all of the relevant components of the retirement package upon which most Americans rely. We need to add a fourth component to this discussion; that is, a much more intense effort at encouraging Americans to plan for their retirement. It has been said--and not only in jest--that most Americans spend more time planning a 2-week summer vacation than they do the 15, or 25, or more years they will live in retirement. That may have been a practice that was acceptable when retirement was not as complex as it is today, when retirement did not involve as much self-responsibility as it does today, when retirement did not include as many facets, from long-term care to providing for your physical health and well-being. I believe these four components--employer-sponsored retirement plan reform, encouragement of individual savings, strengthening Social Security, and the promotion of preretirement planning--are the basis of an American national effort at enhanced retirement security. The goal of that enhanced retirement security should be to place all Americans in a position to be able to, with reasonable assurance, anticipate that they will have in retirement a significant percentage of their preretirement income. Many have suggested that the appropriate goal would be 75 percent of preretirement income as the reasonable attainable goal of America. What do we need to do in order to reach a 75-percent goal? Soon I will be introducing legislation that will encompass the subjects of employer-sponsored retirement plans, individual savings, strengthening Social Security, and the promotion of preretirement plans. This afternoon, in the context of the elimination of one old attitude from our Social Security system; that is, the necessity to cap the earnings of retirees, I will lay out a few comments about the elimination of another old attitude, that the only thing we need to focus on is Social Security reform. We need to focus on employer- sponsored retirement plans, particularly as they relate to small businesses. In my State, in the last 5-plus years, we have added well over 1 million new jobs. Most of those new jobs have come from businesses that employ less than 25 people. In fact, over 70 percent of the new jobs in America are from small businesses with less than 25 employees. It is exactly those small businesses that are the least likely to have an employer-sponsored retirement plan. I believe--and so does Senator Grassley of Iowa, with whom I have worked closely on these matters--that the principal focus of our attention needs to be to encourage small businesses to provide pension benefits for their employees. We introduced legislation to this end. That legislation, styled as S. 741, contains the following components: It expands coverage by providing incentives for small businesses to begin offering pension coverage. As an example, it will assist small businesses in paying some of the startup costs in the establishment of a pension plan. It increases portability, making it easier for employees to move retirement money from one plan to another as they change jobs. We know today the average American will work at seven jobs during the course of their working lifetime. They need to be able to carry their pension benefits from one job to the next. S. 749 strengthens pension security and enforcement. It reduces red tape associated with pension plans and has its own encouragement for retirement education. The second thing we need to do is to assist Americans with their retirement savings. Again, the focus is on Americans who work for smaller businesses where most of the new jobs are being created, and Americans who have not had a tradition of saving as part of their retirement security. The President has proposed a program in which the Federal Government provides matching contributions for lower and moderate-income families who save for retirement. The structure of this utilizes existing savings vehicles such as IRAs, or individual retirement accounts, and 401(k)s. Rather than creating new government-run accounts, we utilize the structure in which many Americans already have started the process of saving for retirement. There would be economic incentives provided to lower income families to encourage their employers to offer these plans. Employers are finding in this very tight job market that they need to provide incentives to retain their current workforce and attract new workers. It is hoped by encouraging more employers to provide retirement savings accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s that it will make it more attractive for persons to work for those employers. We are suggesting there should be some modifications of the current IRAs and 401(k)s, particularly in two areas. One, we propose to restrict the ability to withdraw funds from the 401(k)s or IRAs. There are many important, legitimate, credible reasons why a person would want to withdraw money from their retirement accounts--to buy a new home, finance education, or deal with an unexpected health emergency. However, if too many of those allowances for withdrawal are legalized we could end up with many Americans having a hollowed-out retirement account. They have a retirement account in substance, but the resources have been withdrawn for purposes earlier in their lifetime. We want to give the maximum assurance that if the Federal Government is going to be supplementing retirement accounts, the funds will end up financing retirement. We also propose to restrict the investment options in order to maximize the fund safety. Retirement accounts are not intended to be casinos. They are accounts with substantial emphasis on security and predictability so that people will have a sense of confidence in their retirement years. The third element is Social Security, its solvency and safety. In my opinion, Social Security should be thought of as the safety net underneath individual savings and employer-based pension systems. It is the ultimate and final source of retirement security. For that reason, I believe Social Security should continue to be what it has been since its inception--a defined benefit plan. That is a plan in which Americans will have a high degree of confidence as to what that check will be every month from Social Security. Social Security is not the place to be encouraging excessive speculation. There are other opportunities where people can engage in speculation if they wish to use their retirement as a means of attempting to expand their net worth. I do not believe Social Security is the place to do so. Social Security provides 67 percent of America's single-person households with one-half or more of their income; Social Security provides 44 percent of the multiperson households with one-half or more of their income. However, Social Security is facing serious challenges. We are all familiar with the demographics. Over the next 20 or 30 years, the number of persons drawing Social Security will approximately double from its current 40 million. The 1999 Social Security trustees report stated that the Social Security program lacks the resources necessary to meet its contractual obligations over the next three generations. Using the trustees' immediate forecast, Social Security revenue will fall short of the amount needed to fund existing committed benefits by as much as 15 percent. I believe there are a number of reforms we need to make in the Social Security system in order to strengthen it and to assure that the contract which exists between the Government of the United States of America and the citizens of the United States of America can and will be honored. One proposal which has been made by the President which I strongly support is the concept that we ought to allocate a portion of the non-Social Security surplus to help meet this pending shortfall in the Social Security trust fund. What is the justification for using non-Social Security surplus to strengthen Social Security? Almost every Member of Congress has now accepted enthusiastically the principle that all of the Social Security surplus should be used to pay down the national debt as a means of strengthening our ability to meet our Social Security obligations. I certainly join those strong supporters of that fiscally prudent practice and principle. It is estimated we will have approximately $2 trillion of Social Security surplus over the next 15 to 20 years. If we maintain our discipline and use those funds to pay down that portion of the national debt which is held by the public, when fully reduced we will find an annual interest savings--assuming interest rates are approximately what they are today--of about $120 billion a year that we will not have to pay in interest because we have used that Social Security surplus to pay down the debt currently held by the public. I believe all or a substantial portion of that $120 billion of interest savings ought to go into the Social Security trust fund. It was the Social Security trust fund and its surpluses, the additional amount paid by working American men and women, which made it possible to use the Social Security to pay down the national debt. Why isn't it justified, why isn't it both legally and morally appropriate, to then have a portion of those interest savings--I personally advocate all of those interest savings--to then be used to strengthen the very Social Security system which has made that debt reduction possible? The fourth component of a national program of retirement security is to promote greater preretirement planning. There is going to be much greater individual responsibility for preparation for retirement for this and future generations of Americans. They need to be encouraged and given the means by which to make intelligent decisions, intelligent decisions occurring almost immediately as they enter the workforce so they will be as well prepared as possible for their retirement years. These decisions are going to be complex. They will require changes in attitude, in lifestyle. They will particularly require a greater focus on savings rather than consumption. I believe, for instance, we should consider using the Social Security notices, which are now going to be provided on an annual basis to all future Social Security recipients, as a window so Americans can see the kind of information they will need to make good choices on a whole array of issues that will affect their status in retirement, from purchasing long-term care insurance--which I hope we will soon make more affordable by changes in the tax law--to steps they should take to assure their physical, emotional, and mental health in their retirement years as well as decisions which affect their finances in retirement. So these are the four components of a 21st century approach to Americans in retirement. I look forward to soon returning to the Senate floor to introduce this legislation and to speak on it in somewhat greater detail. I encourage my colleagues to take an interest in this important subject, and I invite them to join me. Again, I am enthusiastic about the action we are about to take in which we eliminate an anachronism from the 1930s which continues to be part of our Social Security system in the 21st century. I hope we will soon be prepared to take strong action to deal with some of the old attitudes that retirement was only Social Security, an attitude which also is an anachronism of the 1930s that continues to have too much saliency in the 21st century.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bingaman, Senator Chafee, Senator Bryan, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Kerry, Senator Murray, Senator Moynihan, Senator Lugar, and Senator Snowe, I introduce the Medicare Wellness Act of 2000. The Medicare Wellness Act represents a concerted effort by myself and my distinguished colleagues to change the fundamental focus of the Medicare program. it changes the program from one that simply treats illness and disability, to one that is also proactive. Enhancing the focus on health promotion and disease prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, despite common misperceptions, declines in health status are not inevitable with age. A healthier lifestyle, even one adopted later in life, can increase active life expectancy and decrease disability. This fact is a major reason why The Medicare Wellness Act has support from a broad range of groups, including the National Council on Aging, Partnership for Prevention, American Heart Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. The most significant aspect of this bill is its addition of several new preventative screening and counseling benefits to the Medicare program. The benefits being added focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries, including: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, nutrition therapy, expanding screening and counseling for osteoporosis, and screening for cholesterol. The new benefits added by The Medicare Wellness Act represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries of the Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force--recognized as the gold standard within the prevention community. Attaching these prominent risk factors will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, diabetes, and osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness. The addition of these new benefits would accelerate the fundamental shift, that began in 1997 under the Balanced Budget Act, in the Medicare program from a sickness program to a wellness program. Prior to 1997, only three preventive benefits were available to beneficiaries, pneumococcal vaccines, pap smears, and mammography. Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the Healthy Seniors Promoting Program. This program will be led by an interagency workgroup within the Department of Health and Human Services. It will being together all the agencies within HHS that address the medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly and instructs them to undertake a series of studies which will increase knowledge about the utilization of prevention services among the elderly. In addition, The Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive applied and original research effort that will investigate ways to improve the utilization of current and new preventive benefits and to investigate new methods of improving the health of Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, this latter point is critical. The fact is that there are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer screening. But those services are seriously underutilized. In a study published by Dartmouth University this spring (The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999), it was found that only 28 percent of women age 65-69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of the beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing figures and they clearly demonstrate the need to find new and better ways to increase the rates of utilization of proven, demonstrated prevention services. Our bill would get us the information we need to increase rates of utilization for these services. Further, our bill would establish a health risk appraisal and education program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression. This program will target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare beneficiaries. The main goal of this program is to increase awareness among individuals of major risk factors that impact on health, to change personal health habits, improve health status, and save the Medicare program money. Our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every two years and assess how the program needs to change over time in order to reflect modern benefits and treatment. Shockingly, this is information that Congress currently does not receive on a routine basis. And this is a contributing factor to why we find ourselves today in a quandary over the outdated nature of the Medicare program. Quite frankly, Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest of the health care world. While a vintage wine from the 1960s may be desirable, a health care system that is vintage 1965 is not. We need to do better. Our bill would also require the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a study every five years to assess the scientific validity of the entire preventive benefits package. The study will be presented to Congress in a manner that mirrors The Trade Act of 1974. The IOM's recommendations would be presented to Congress in legislative form. Congress would then have 60 days to review and then either accept or reject the IOM's recommendations for changes to the Medicare program. But Congress could not change the IOM's recommendations. This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program. While limited to preventive benefits, this will offer a litmus test on a new approach to future Medicare decision making. In the aggregate, The Medicare Wellness Act represents the most comprehensive legislative proposal in the 106th Congress for the Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for beneficiaries. It provides new screening and counseling benefits for beneficiaries, it provides critically needed research dollars, and it tests new treatment concepts through demonstration programs. The Medicare Wellness Act represents sound health policy based on sound science. Before I conclude, I have a few final thoughts. There are many here in Congress who argue that at a time when Medicare faces an uncertain financial future, this is the last time to be adding new benefits to a program that can ill afford the benefits it currently offers. Normally I would agree with this assertion. But the issue of prevention is different. The old adage of ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is very relevant here. Does making preventive benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries ``cost'' money? Sure it does. But the return on the investment, the avoidance of the pound of cure and the related improvement in quality of life is unmistakable. Along these lines, a longstanding problem facing lawmakers and advocates of prevention has been the position taken by the Congressional Budget Office, as it evaluates the budgetary impact of all legislative proposals. Only costs incurred by the Federal Government over the next 10 years can be considered in weighing the ``cost'' of adding new benefits. From a public health and quality of life standpoint, this premise is unacceptable. Among the problems with this practice is that ``savings'' incurred by increasing the availability and utilization of preventive benefits often occur over a period of time greater than 10 years. This problem is best illustrated in an examination of the ``compression of morbidity'' theory developed by Dr. James Fries of Stanford University over 20 years ago. According to Dr. Fries, by delaying the onset of chronic illness among seniors, there is a resulting decrease in the length of time illness or disability is present in the latter stages of life. This ``compression'' improves quality of life and reduces the rate of growth in health care costs. But, these changes are gradual and occur over an extended period of time--10, 20, even 30 years. With the average life expectancy of individuals who reach 65 being nearly 20 years--20 years for women and 18 years for men--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that improve quality of life and reduce costs to the Federal Government for that 20 year lifespan. In addition to increased lifespan, a 10 year budget scoring window doesn't factor into consideration the impact of such services on the private sector, such as increased productivity and reduced absenteeism, for the many seniors that continue working beyond age 65. The bottom line is, the most important reason to cover preventive services is to improve health. While prevention services in isolation won't reduce costs, they will moderate increases in the utilization and spending on more expensive acute and chronic treatment services. As Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, two basic questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of the debate. (1) Is the value of improved quality of life worth the expenditure? And, (2) How important is if for the Medicare population to be able to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives? These are just some of the questions we must answer in the coming debate over Medicare reform. While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some of the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to our children and grandchildren. Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss in pointing out that the Medicare Wellness Act represents the first time in this Congress that Republicans and Democrats have gotten together in support of a major piece of Medicare reform legislation. This bill represents a health care philosophy that bridges political boundaries. It just makes sense. And you see that common sense approach today from myself and my esteemed colleagues who have joined me in the introduction of this bill. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join us on this important bill and to work with us to ensure that the provisions of this bill are reflected in any Medicare reform legislation that is debated and voted on this year in the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be ordered on the second-degree amendment, No. 2870.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I could not agree more with the comments that were made by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee relative to the importance of America investing in its future, and education is one of the most fundamental ways in which we are able to shape our future, by assuring that our young people are fully prepared to meet the challenges of this exciting new century. It was for that reason that I supported this legislation when it was reported with a bipartisan vote from the Senate Finance Committee. I also supported it because it recognized another aspect of our responsibility to the future, and that is to act in a fiscally prudent manner, particularly at this rare moment of opportunity we have before us today. The U.S. Government had its last surplus in 1969. We then had 30 years of deficit financing. Our national debt went from 1979's little better than $900 billion to 1999's national debt of almost $5.5 trillion. That is trillion with a T. That is the extent of the profligate fiscal policy in which this country has engaged for the better part of three decades. But in the last few years, we have started to get seriously committed to not asking our children and grandchildren to pay our debts, and the result of that has been a dramatic reduction in our annual deficits to the point that now we are, for the first time in over three decades, in a surplus position. We have made a decision--and I hope we will stay faithful to that decision--that we will commit all of the surplus which is generated from Social Security to the reduction in the national debt as the means by which we can make our greatest contribution to the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. Second, we would husband the non-Social Security surplus to use against a set of yet-to-be-determined national priorities. My concern is that the pattern we are now following--and I am going to give a little history of what has happened in the past few months-- is that we are dissipating that opportunity to use the non-Social Security surplus against a set of national priorities by an incremental approach. A good idea or an appealing idea is presented, and we say: We will buy that, and we will pay for it out of the non-Social Security surplus. Then a few days later another good idea comes along and we say: We would like to buy that, too; we'll pay for it from the non-Social Security surplus. Do you know what is going to happen? It will not be long before there isn't any credit line left in that non-Social Security surplus. We will awaken and say: There were some really big things we needed to do. We have a contract out here--a contract between the Federal Government and the people of America for their Social Security. Right now, our ability to meet that contract, even with the investment we are going to make in reducing the national debt, is very uncertain. We should be using some of this non-Social Security surplus to help shore up our long-term ability to meet that contractual obligation. But because we spent all the non-Social Security surplus on these incremental piece-by-piece, toy-by-toy ideas, we will not have any money when we want to give America a big gift, the security of the Social Security system. We also are not going to have any money to do other important things for which we have a contract with the American people, such as to assure there will be a health care system for our older citizens. We know the Medicare system, as Social Security, has some very daunting challenges facing it in the next few decades, as the number of eligible Americans for Medicare and Social Security will double. Yet we will not have the resources to make that kind of a commitment. To focus on this specific issue, as I indicated earlier, I voted for this bill when it was reported from the Finance Committee because I thought it made good education policy but also because it was paid for. We were not asking future generations to sacrifice the non-Social Security surplus to pay for this program. We found some means within our current spending and taxing policy to generate the resources to pay for this program. We thought this program was important enough to pay for it, not ask our grandchildren to pay for it. I think that is not a failure; that is a statement of the seriousness of our intention. It is a lot easier to buy something somebody else has to pay for than to buy something you have to go into your own bank account and write that check to pay for. That is a statement of an important and serious commitment to the objective. We had made that statement of the seriousness of this goal by our willingness to pay for it. We are proposing to do two things: One, make it substantially more expensive; and, two, not pay for it. My amendment does a simple thing; that is, it says we should at least, at a minimum, keep in this bill those items that would help to pay for it, which the Senate Finance Committee, just a matter of a few weeks ago, found to be an appropriate method of financing this program. Let me put that simple principle into the context of what we are doing. First, we are making a series of significant fiscal decisions before we have adopted the budget resolution. For those who are new or unfamiliar with this process, the Congress, as one of its earliest efforts to get a handle on the 30 years of deficits, adopted a complex budget process which has, as its linchpin, a congressionally adopted budget resolution. That resolution would be analogous to an architect's set of plans for constructing a building. It gives the general direction, framework, and prioritization of Federal fiscal policy each year. Those priorities then drive the individual appropriations and tax measures which will support that architectural plan. We have not yet seen the architectural plan for fiscal year 2001 which will be affected by this measure, and, therefore, we do not know what within that plan is going to be the provision for tax-and-spending measures that would support this educational proposal. We do not know what will be the scale of the non-Social Security surplus. We do know this: The scale of the non-Social Security surplus could be as much as $1 trillion from the high to the low estimate. That depends largely on what is going to be our spending appetite. In the next 10 years, if we spend at the same rate we did in the last year, for the year 2000 fiscal budget, according to CBO, we are going to end up with a budget surplus of approximately $838 billion over the next 10 years for the non-Social Security account. If we go back to the budget caps we adopted in 1997--which I supported last year, and for that reason I voted against the omnibus appropriations bill--we would have a surplus over the next 10 years of about $1.9 trillion. Those are the two extremes of the resources we will have. Yet before deciding that fundamental question: Are we going to be dealing with a surplus of $838 billion or are we going to be dealing with a surplus of $1.9 trillion? we are making decisions as to how to distribute the surplus. Second, this is not the first example of that spending. Let me catalog what we have already done. In the Patients' Bill of Rights bill--and today is the start of its conference--we have proposed to spend $30 billion over 10 years of non- Social Security surplus in various tax reductions. The bankruptcy bill--which has passed both Houses, and which is or soon will be in conference--proposes to have tax cuts of $103 billion. The educational savings bill--the bill before us today--with the amendment the Senator from Delaware has proposed, would have a cost of approximately $13 billion. I use the word ``approximately'' because several of the measures that are in this bill or may be proposed to the bill have not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The marriage penalty bill, which passed the House, has a cost of $182 billion over the next 10 years. If we were to reject the House approach and adopt the legislation which has been introduced in the Senate Finance Committee, and which was contained in last year's Taxpayers Refund Act of 1999, that would increase the cost of the marriage penalty to $311 billion over 10 years. The consequence of what we have already done, using the conservative level on the marriage penalty, is we have already spent approximately $328 billion of our $838 billion, 10-year, non-Social Security surplus--before we have adopted a budget resolution, before we have decided how much of the non-Social Security surplus should be used for priorities such as strengthening Social Security and assuring its solvency for three generations, before we have made a decision as to how much should be spent on strengthening Medicare and modernizing Medicare so it represents the kind of health care program our older Americans deserve, before we have made decisions on what our defense budget should be in order to protect the security of America. All of those things have gone undecided. Yet we have decided to spend $328 billion on this collection of tax-and-spending measures before we have an architectural plan. It would be similar to the family who wants to build a house, and before they have the architect draw the plans for the house, they decide, ``We will go ahead and put in an attic family room,'' without any context of how that is going to relate to the rest of the house. It is always fun to be able to spend your money on those things that are joyful and happy without having to put your mind to the task of deciding what is of greatest importance. My amendment is a very modest one. It proposes to put back into the bill exactly the same items which were in the bill when it left the Senate Finance Committee. Let me briefly mention what those items are. First is a modification of the foreign tax credit carryover rules. This has a financial impact of $3.6 billion over 10 years. I point out that this is not a new idea for the Senate to consider. In fact, the Senate has already passed this bill, first in 1997, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act; in 1998, as part of the IRS restructuring program; in 1998, as part of the Parent and Student Savings Act; in 1999, as part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act; and in 1999, as part of work incentives. It appears from that record that the Senate has studied, is aware of, knowledgeable of this tax issue and has decided this would be an appropriate measure to use as a partial offset for the educational savings account. The second measure is to limit use of the nonaccrual experience method of accounting. This would contribute $300 million over the next 10 years. That proposal was first adopted in 1999 as part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, passed in 1999 as part of the trade bill offset, and passed in 1999 as part of the Work Incentives Act-- again, not a novel idea, an idea that the Senate has had repeated exposure to and repeatedly has found to be worthy. The third item is the extension of IRS user fees. This would produce $278 million over 10 years. This was passed as part of the 1999 Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act and the 1999 work incentives. The fourth item is to allow employers to transfer excess defined benefit assets. That would make a contribution of $156 million. That was included in the 1999 Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act. Finally, with a contribution of $1.2 billion over 10 years, is to impose a limitation on the prefunding of certain employee benefits. This passed the Senate in 1999 as part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act and in 1999 as part of the Trade Act offset. These five items aggregate to $5.5 billion over 10 years. These items were part of the package that had the objective of fully funding the educational savings account so it would not contribute to any reduction in the non-Social Security surplus when this bill passed the Senate Finance Committee. I do not represent that these items will fund the bill in its current form, because the bill has ballooned in cost since it has been on the Senate floor. I suggest we ought to first take this modest step of at least retaining the offsets that have already been voted by the Finance Committee and which are in the bill and then, before we take a final vote on this legislation, assess what the cost of this total program is as amended by the full Senate, and then find an offset to pay for those additional amounts. Failing to do so is to make a statement that we are prepared to spend the non-Social Security surplus without any frame of reference, without any budget resolution, without any architectural plan as to what we want to do. That is a prescription to return to the three decades of deficit spending which threatened the fiscal solvency and the economic future of this Nation. I believe it would be reckless for this Congress, having worked so hard to get to a surplus, not to now use this opportunity to make the hard decisions as to what is the priority for the use of this surplus and then to have the discipline to follow that set of priorities. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment which will be a symbolic statement that we are prepared to exercise fiscal discipline in times of potential prosperity and plenty, just as we had to exercise fiscal discipline during the 1990s in order to remove ourselves from the quagmire of deficits and exploding national debt.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue is not whether we believe investment in education is an important part of America's future; we all agree with that. It is not even whether we believe there should be some tax reductions to encourage people to invest in their children's education as well as other desirable goals. Most of us believe in that. I certainly do. The question is, How do we have a rational process of deciding how we are going to use the opportunities that are presented to us here today? It is interesting to me that as we start the third full century of America's national history we might reflect back on what happened at the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century--the two other full centuries of this Nation's existence. In both of those periods, there seemed to be an energy that came from a new century and the new beginnings that it represented--an energy that was channeled into areas that have had a lasting, positive impact on our Nation. In the beginning of the 19th century, the President of the United States was one of the gentlemen whose bust appears above our Presiding Officer--Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had the vision to see that America's future was not in being a scattering of States along the Atlantic but, rather, as a continental empire. And at a time when our country was small and struggling, and in some areas of Europe derided as a false dream of a democracy, Thomas Jefferson had the boldness to commit us to purchase from France the Louisiana Territory and fundamentally reshaped America and created the possibility of the great Nation we are today. That was the vision Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues had for America at the beginning of the 19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, another man whose bust is close to this Chamber, Theodore Roosevelt, was our President. He had a vision of an America that would begin to achieve its international goals. The Panama Canal was a statement not only of America's great technological capacity but also America's understanding of its role in the world. Theodore Roosevelt also understood the importance of investing in this country. During his Presidency, we added to our national land trust an amount of land that would be the equivalent of every acre from the State of Maine to my State of Florida along the Atlantic coast of America. Those were bold visions of the generation of Thomas Jefferson and the generation of Theodore Roosevelt. We have the opportunity now, both because of the start of a new century and a new millennium and because we have paid the price to get our national financial house in order, to begin to think boldly of what we want to have history write about what America did at the beginning of the 21st century. The concern I express today is that we are dissipating that opportunity through a series of incremental, uncoordinated, nonprioritized decisions that are going to have the effect of continuing to dissipate the resources that could be used to do something as bold as purchasing Louisiana or building the Panama Canal. The chairman of the Finance Committee said that the Budget Committee has indicated we will have a budget surplus over the next 10 years from non-Social Security funds of almost $2 trillion. Well, I say, let's wait until we pass a budget resolution that indicates that is going to be the amount of our budget surplus. As you will recall, we made a commitment in 1997 that we were going to exercise budget discipline and abide by budget caps. Those decisions would have caused us, last year, to have had a discretionary spending account of approximately $575 billion. In fact, we ended up spending over $620 billion. We crushed and we pulverized the budget ceilings that were supposed to be the hallmark of fiscal discipline. I want to be sure that we are going to declare that our 1999 actions were an aberration rather than the path of future lack of fiscal discipline before I conclude that we are going to have a nonbudget surplus of $1.9 trillion. We are being asked to take a leap of faith that runs directly counter to what we did a matter of a few weeks ago when we passed that bloated final appropriations bill--that that was a mistake, and that we asked for the repentance of the American people, and we are going to go back to the fiscal discipline that would be required to have a $1.9 trillion non-Social Security surplus, which is the discipline of returning to those 1997 budget caps. I want to see us make that commitment and live up to that commitment before we start spending the money. Let's eat our spinach before we start having our ice cream party. Second, in addition to not having set a budget resolution, which is the architecture of our fiscal policy, we haven't even had a serious debate on what our strategic priorities should be at the beginning of this century, that capability which fiscal discipline would give us. We haven't decided what we are going to do about the fact that, whereas today there are approximately 40 million Americans on Social Security and Medicare, at the end of the next generation we are going to have 80 million Americans looking to Social Security and Medicare--looking to the solemn contract that exists between the Government of the United States of America and the people of the United States of America to provide them financial and medical security in retirement. I think we ought to be figuring out how we are going to meet that solemn obligation before we do any of these other items--as attractive, desirable, and important as we might think they are. I believe those are our first two priorities. I am seriously concerned that the course we are on, which is following exactly what we did in 1999, is going to lead us to a dissipation of our capacity to set rational priorities, that we will become the first political leadership of America at the beginning of a new century, and instead of being the giants of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt, we will be the Pygmies in the toy store trying to fulfill our immediate desires and needs without focusing on what is in the best interests of America in this 21st century. This vote today is not a giant vote of fiscal policy. I said in my concluding remarks that this does not even purport to fund the bill that is before us, in large part because the bill before us has been growing almost hourly since it has been on the floor. This amendment the Senator from Delaware offered would be the most gargantuan growth of this bill we have experienced since it has been on the floor, an addition of approximately $10 billion over 10 years. I do not purport that this amendment will fund fully this bill. I say this amendment is a critical statement of whether we are serious about fiscal discipline, whether we are serious about setting a plan for the fiscal future of this Nation--at least a plan for the next fiscal year before we start spending our non-Social Security surplus--and whether we are serious about setting some longer range priorities to meet these very significant legal and moral obligations the American Government has to the American people. That is what this vote is about. Are we willing to take the very minor step of saying that we are willing to strip out of this bill five relatively small tax changes, all of which have been passed by this Senate, in most cases on multiple occasions, and ask our grandchildren to pay out of the non-Social Security surplus they will be contributing to over the next 10 years, or are we going to step up and say this is the time we will make a statement, a commitment, a pledge for fiscal discipline? It is my strongest wish we in the Senate do not see this as some kind of a partisan divide. We were able to contain the deficits and get to the point that we are because we worked together as Americans, not as members of any particular party or representatives of any region or interest of this country. It is in America's interest that we exercise this fiscal discipline. Today is the day we can make an important statement that we are prepared to do so. I urge us not to let this opportunity pass. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when I introduced Transition to Teaching in October last year, I talked about my workday with Bill Aradine. He teaches 150 students, from 9th to 12th grade at North Marion High School near Ocala, FL. He teaches auto mechanics, and has sparked an interest in students that may lead to rewarding, lucrative, and challenging careers for them. But Mr. Aradine brings something else to his first year in North Marion High School--eleven years of on-the-job experience. He has years of experience in a local Chevrolet car dealership, and he is starting a second career in teaching. The students look at him with a different perspective: When he says that ``you will need to know this to succeed'' they know that he knows. Having just come from the automotive industry, he teaches at the cutting edge. The information that he brings to his students is what he was actually doing in the workplace not that long ago. Mr. Aradine is also a bridge between North Marion High students and the world of employment. He offers them advice, counsel, and real-life connections to future jobs. As Bill Aradine made the mid-career transition into the teaching profession, students gained a valuable instructor and mentor, and North Marion High School was able to fill a vacancy and ease its teacher shortage. Every August and September--another school year begins for thousands of young Americans. Almost every year at this time, I hear from school districts in Florida about teacher shortages: Miami-Dade hired 1,700 new teachers for the 1999 school year, and still had 300 vacancies to fill on the first day of classes. Hillsborough County hired 1,493 teachers for the start of the school year and were still 238 teachers short when the first class bell rang. Orange County needed 1,300 teachers for the new year, and still had 50 vacancies several months after school started. These concerns will only get worse: 40 percent of current schoolteachers are over age 50, on the verge of retirement. Who will be the future role models to the next generation of Americans? The importance of having high-quality teachers, and in sufficient numbers is crucial when we look at the challenges facing education in the future. The American family structure will change in two key ways: Half of all children will spend some of their childhood in single-parent homes, and are more likely to live in poverty. And, of the children who grow up in a nuclear family, very often both parents will work, thus are less able to be involved in a child's school and schoolwork. Second, societal expectations for students upon graduation will be greater. In the middle of this century, 20 percent of the jobs needed skilled workers. At the end of this century, 80 percent of jobs will need skilled workers. Thus, the American student will need to graduate from school better prepared for the hi-tech world than ever before, but single parent families and dual-income families, in general, will face more challenges in being actively involved in their child's education. These challenges, and others, will face the American educational system. I rise today to take one step forward in easing the nationwide teacher shortage, and offering challenging new opportunities for America's professionals by introducing the Transition to Teaching Act of 1999. Representatives Jim Davis of Florida and Tim Roemer of Indiana have taken the lead in the House of Representatives on this issue. We have a very successful model on which to build the Transition to Teaching program. Since 1994, the ``Troops to Teachers'' program has brought more than 3,000 retired military personnel to our classrooms as math, science, and technology teachers. Florida schools have the benefit of more than 270 individuals who have successfully completed the Troops to Teachers program, and are bringing their life-experience to the classroom today. Troops to Teachers, and now Transition to Teaching, overcome two of the main obstacles that mid-career professionals face when becoming a teacher. It streamlines the teaching certification process. It provides money to mid-career professionals to become certified. It's not impossible to do this now, as Mr. Aradine has shown, but this legislation will assist with and simplify the process. The first issue that is addressed involves teaching colleges within universities. They are often set up for traditional students, in their early-20's, just starting out in their professional lives. These programs are generally taken over a multi-year period as a full-time college student. This legislation encourages teaching colleges to develop curriculum suitable for an individual who has many years of work experience. These programs are more streamlined, more flexible in school hours, and recognize that the professional brings more life and work experience than a traditional college student. By developing such programs, colleges can maintain high standards, but allow a mid-career professional, making the change into teaching to become certified in a more efficient, streamlined manner. Teaching colleges are also asked to develop programs to maintain contact with and support for these new teachers during at least their first year in the classroom. Second, Transition to Teaching will assist teachers who come to the profession in mid-career in a very tangible way. Grants will be awarded, up to $5,000 per participant, to offset the costs of becoming a certified teacher. In return, the teacher agrees to teach in low-income schools for three years, as determined by the percentage of Title One students in the school population. Thus, two of the biggest obstacles to becoming a teacher in mid- career are alleviated by this legislation: First, the certification process is streamlined, and second, stipends are provided to offset the cost of this additional education. By expanding the ``Troops to Teachers'' program into ``Transition to Teaching,'' law enforcement, attorneys, business leaders, scientists, entrepreneurs, and others in the private sector, should be encouraged to share their wisdom with students. This amendment is timely. We are on the cusp of the retirement of millions of baby boomers. By encouraging recent retirees, or mid-career professionals, to become certified through Transition to Teaching and spend a few years in the classroom, we will bring the life skills of experienced professionals to our youngest citizens. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Our nation's children deserve our best efforts to provide them with a world class education. Let me just add an economic component to this amendment. This amendment would be in the nature of an authorization. The President has in his budget an item of $25 million, which would be the basis of supporting this program, as well as the current Troops to Teachers Program. It is estimated that approximately half of the persons who would be trained with that $25 million appropriation that has been recommended by the President would be military personnel and the other half would be civilian. As we begin to stabilize the reduction of the military, the proportion of those persons who would be trained for a second career in the classroom would probably begin to shift with a larger number being from the civilian sector. It is estimated that the cost per student for this program will be approximately $3,500 to $4,000 a year for their training, with the average person taking between 1 and 2 years to be trained to the point they are certified to go into the classroom. I believe this is a very reasonable and prudent investment for America to make in Americans who have demonstrated their accomplishments in a first career and are now ready to share their experiences with American youth in a second career in the classroom. This will help to facilitate that transition to teaching for the 21st century.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment which is entitled Transition to Teaching. This amendment came to my attention as a result of a series of personal experiences. One set of those experiences related to the military and specifically the U.S. Navy in Pensacola. Several years ago, facing the downsizing of the military and aware that there were going to be a lot of people with talents, particularly in areas such as science and mathematics, who would be looking for a second career, the U.S. Navy in Pensacola, the State university in Pensacola, and the University of West Florida formed a partnership. That partnership was to provide training for naval personnel who were within a few months or years of their retirement date so that when they did reach retirement, they would be prepared to go into the classrooms of America with full certification and commence a second career educating the next generation of young Americans. This has been a very successful program. It has assisted scores of schools in my State and many more across the country. This program has been generally referred to as the Troops to Teachers Program. Last August, I did one of my monthly workdays at North Marion High School north of Ocala, FL. There I met a man by the name of Bill Aradine. Bill teaches automobile mechanics at North Marion. North Marion, as do many schools in America, every year faces a major challenge in how to recruit enough young new teachers to fill the ranks. We are facing, in the next decade, something on the order of 2 million American teachers who are going to retire. These are teachers who largely came to the classroom in the 1950s and 1960s, are now reaching their retirement period, and are going to create tremendous demands for new teachers to fill those ranks. Bill Aradine filled one of those positions at North Marion High School. What is peculiar about Bill is not just the fact that he is considered to be an outstanding teacher who motivates his students and has prepared students for very good paying jobs upon their graduation from his automobile mechanics program, but what is most peculiar about Bill is the fact that he is a man who already had a career. The career was that, at first, he was an automobile mechanic and then the lead mechanic of one of the large automobile dealerships in Marion County, FL. So when he came to the classroom, he was a fully mature adult with a lot of experience in the area he was going to teach, credibility with the students, and the ability to be beyond a teacher, a mentor, a counselor, and the bridge from the classroom to employment for his students. Now, Bill made that transition to the classroom out of his own grit, his interest in being able to share with young Floridians what he had learned in a lifetime of automobile mechanics. But Bill, unfortunately, is a rarer commodity than he should be. We ought to be encouraging more people at midcareer to consider the classroom as their second career. We ought to be facilitating their ability, as the Navy and the University of West Florida did, to get certified so they can move seemlessly into the classroom. We ought to recognize the fact that a student at 40 is different than a student at 18, in terms of their class schedule and their other responsibilities, both family and economic; and we ought to try to make it easier for those Americans to be able to pursue their desire at a second career in the classroom. That is what the transition to teaching legislation intends to do. It focuses on two of the principal inhibitors to persons pursuing a second career in education. The first of those occurs at the universities. The universities are very well prepared to train people who are right out of high school, who don't have many family or economic responsibilities, and who, at the age of 22 or 23, will go into the classroom. They are not so well prepared to deal with the student who is in their forties, who has all these responsibilities and has to have a greater degree of flexibility in their schedule. As the University of West Florida found, they had to redo their curriculum in order to be able to respond to the needs of the Navy personnel. I suggest the same thing is going to be required if we are going to move the Bill Aradines from a rare exception to a significant stream of persons coming into the classroom as a second career. So the first part of our transition to teaching is focused on the universities to provide them some stimulation and resources to commence the process of restructuring their curriculum so they can be responsive to the needs of the middle- age second career student. Second is to provide stipends to these students while they are undergoing this process of change, recognizing that they have other responsibilities, typically, in terms of supporting their families and the other obligations that an adult would typically have. So those are the two targets of this legislation in order to facilitate more Americans being able to consider a second career in education and to be able to contribute to that 2 million new teachers that America is going to need in the next 10 years in order to meet the tremendous demands that will be caused by the impending retirements of many hundreds of thousands of current teachers. I will offer, for purposes of consideration as an amendment to the legislation that is pending before us, an amendment on which I have been joined by Senators Bingaman and Robb, entitled ``Transition to Teaching.'' I will urge its consideration and vote at the scheduled time of 2 o'clock.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln and Senator Feinstein be added as cosponsors. I have no further comments to make on behalf of this amendment. I believe both sides have agreed to accept it. I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.