Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I could offer this amendment with the understanding that if there is someone who needs to go ahead of me I would yield at that time. I was on the floor this morning and now this afternoon for purposes of trying to get in the queue.

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't have any remarks to make on this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as I understand it, the sequence of amendments is such that there will be a Republican amendment after the amendment by Senator Dodd, and then there will be a Democratic amendment by Senator Robb, and then another Republican amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I might offer the transition teaching amendment immediately after the Republican amendment, which will follow Senator Robb's amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the introduction of my bill, that congressional fellow Terry Ceravolo and intern Ernest White be allowed privileges of the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern in my office, Mr. Chris Polaszek, be allowed floor privileges during the introduction of S. 2058.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send the legislation to the desk, which has been cosponsored by Senators Mack, Kennedy, Durbin, and Feinstein. I ask my colleagues for their understanding and their support for this legislation--legislation that will ensure the most basic elements of fairness in our democratic system, which will allow people who have fled war and persecution to come to the freedom of the United States and to be treated fairly by our laws. Exhibit No. 1 American Immigration Lawyers Association, South Florida Chapter, January 24, 2000. Senator Bob Graham, U.S. Senate, Re: Letter of support for your effort to extend application period for HRIFA & NACARA. Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the South Florida Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) I write this letter of support to encourage you in your effort to introduce legislation to extend the application period for HRIFA & NACARA beneficiaries. My organization has long-supported both bills and is appreciative of your great efforts in support of these efforts. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help. Thank you, Senator Graham. Sincerely, Michael D. Ray, President, AILA South Florida Chapter.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to introduce legislation which has as its objective to assure a greater measure of fairness to a particularly vulnerable group of Central American and Caribbean nationals who, in many cases, for many years have resided in the United States. I appreciate the support of my colleagues: Senators Mack, Kennedy, Durbin, and Feinstein, who join in this effort as cosponsors. For some background: In 1997, and again in 1998, Congress passed legislation to protect, first, a group of Central American and Cuban nationals and then a similar group of Haitian nationals who were refugees and were threatened with deportation. Action was needed in those 2 years because of passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which changed immigration rules and did so, in many instances, retroactively. The history of this group of people started during 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 had ensued. Similarly, during the Presidency of George Bush, Haitian nationals were forced to flee after the overthrow of the elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 1994. They were offered protection and legal status in the United States. In 1996, these Central American and Haitian nationals had been living in our country for years; in the cases of the Central Americans, often longer than a decade. They established businesses. They formed and raised families. They bought homes. They strengthened the communities in which they lived. 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 their lives in the United States. Congress moved quickly to protect their legal status here by passing the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act in November of 1997, and then the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in October of 1998. These two bills made certain sections of the 1996 immigration law nonretroactive. We mandated in those two pieces of legislation that to apply for relief from deportation under this measure, applications had to be made by a date certain: March 31, 2000. The sad fact is, in 3 years after one of these pieces of legislation was passed and more than 2 years after another, we are still waiting for the final regulations to be issued for both of these pieces of legislation. The final rules that would help families apply for relief have not yet been issued. Interim regulations were issued for both bills in 1998 and 1999, but in neither case have the regulations become final. There is the very real possibility that the application deadline, March 31, 2000, could come and go before the final regulations, which establish the rules and procedures by which applications will be submitted and evaluated, have even been issued. Both for reasons of fairness and to promote good Government, we should extend the application deadline for relief. Under this legislation, the new deadline for relief will be 1 year after the date the regulations become final. I point out to my colleagues that this legislation will not cover any additional individuals who will have the right to apply for the right to live in the United States. No additional persons will be granted eligibility as a result of this legislation beyond those who were made eligible in 1997 and again in 1998. What this legislation does is create a more realistic and fair deadline for individuals Congress has already passed legislation to protect. This action should be taken because it is fair. First, it is fair to the immigrants. We shouldn't expect them to go through the arduous and very costly application process without the certainty that the regulations which will govern their applications are final. It is easy to put a human face on this issue. There are scores, hundreds, thousands of examples. Let me just cite one which was brought to my attention by a prominent immigration attorney in Florida. I will call this young woman, in order to protect her privacy, Frances. She is a real human being. Frances is 22 years old. Her parents fled Haiti in the 1980s, when she was a child. Her family settled in Florida. She now has three U.S. citizen brothers and sisters. Tragedy has struck her family on several occasions. Her father died when she was just 7 years old. Her mother died when she was still in her early teens. She finished high school and is now raising her younger brothers and sisters while working. She is an orphan. She would be in the class of persons protected by the 1998 legislation. She is trying now to put together the documents necessary 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 once regulations are final will make a huge difference in the life of this woman, will make a huge difference in her ability to comply with procedures which are probably the most significant in her life. Today, I am introducing this in an effort to secure as rapid a resolution of these concerns as possible. I am not unmindful of the magnitude of the task Congress has asked the Immigration and Naturalization Service to perform. I don't want to imply that the INS and other Federal agencies should rush through these technical pieces of legislation. However, in situations such as this, where a longer time than expected was needed to develop the regulations, it is only fair to allow a longer time for those who are going to be affected by the law. I understand the INS has been very thorough and understanding. It has met with individual groups on all sides of this issue. Many of them have been my constituents in Florida. I commend the INS for its willingness to hear all points of view and be thorough in their review before issuing final regulations. However, having said that, I believe nearly 3 years is a reasonable amount of time to have finalized these regulations. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act took only nine pages of text in Public Law 105-100 when it was passed. Similarly, the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act took less than two pages to print in the Congressional Record. These were concise, targeted pieces of legislation. They were not lengthy, complex overhauls of major components of the immigration law. It is plain unfair to give someone a deadline and charge them a substantial fee to file and then to be uncertain as to what the rules will be that will govern those applications. With this legislation, I seek the flexibility to allow more time to apply for relief in a situation where more time than expected was necessary by the agency, the INS, to issue the regulations. I send to the desk a few of the letters I have received from individuals and advocacy groups and religious leaders calling for this deadline extension, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters from the American Immigration Lawyers Association of South Florida, the Haitian American Foundation, the Haiti Advocacy Agency, all be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the two votes which are currently scheduled to commence at 2 p.m. I be granted 20 minutes as in morning business for the purpose of a bill introduction.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to introduce legislation which has as its objective to assure a greater measure of fairness to a particularly vulnerable group of Central American and Caribbean nationals who, in many cases, for many years have resided in the United States. I appreciate the support of my colleagues: Senators Mack, Kennedy, Durbin, and Feinstein, who join in this effort as cosponsors. For some background: In 1997, and again in 1998, Congress passed legislation to protect, first, a group of Central American and Cuban nationals and then a similar group of Haitian nationals who were refugees and were threatened with deportation. Action was needed in those 2 years because of passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which changed immigration rules and did so, in many instances, retroactively. The history of this group of people started during 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 had ensued. Similarly, during the Presidency of George Bush, Haitian nationals were forced to flee after the overthrow of the elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 1994. They were offered protection and legal status in the United States. In 1996, these Central American and Haitian nationals had been living in our country for years; in the cases of the Central Americans, often longer than a decade. They established businesses. They formed and raised families. They bought homes. They strengthened the communities in which they lived. 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 their lives in the United States. Congress moved quickly to protect their legal status here by passing the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act in November of 1997, and then the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in October of 1998. These two bills made certain sections of the 1996 immigration law nonretroactive. We mandated in those two pieces of legislation that to apply for relief from deportation under this measure, applications had to be made by a date certain: March 31, 2000. The sad fact is, in 3 years after one of these pieces of legislation was passed and more than 2 years after another, we are still waiting for the final regulations to be issued for both of these pieces of legislation. The final rules that would help families apply for relief have not yet been issued. Interim regulations were issued for both bills in 1998 and 1999, but in neither case have the regulations become final. There is the very real possibility that the application deadline, March 31, 2000, could come and go before the final regulations, which establish the rules and procedures by which applications will be submitted and evaluated, have even been issued. Both for reasons of fairness and to promote good Government, we should extend the application deadline for relief. Under this legislation, the new deadline for relief will be 1 year after the date the regulations become final. I point out to my colleagues that this legislation will not cover any additional individuals who will have the right to apply for the right to live in the United States. No additional persons will be granted eligibility as a result of this legislation beyond those who were made eligible in 1997 and again in 1998. What this legislation does is create a more realistic and fair deadline for individuals Congress has already passed legislation to protect. This action should be taken because it is fair. First, it is fair to the immigrants. We shouldn't expect them to go through the arduous and very costly application process without the certainty that the regulations which will govern their applications are final. It is easy to put a human face on this issue. There are scores, hundreds, thousands of examples. Let me just cite one which was brought to my attention by a prominent immigration attorney in Florida. I will call this young woman, in order to protect her privacy, Frances. She is a real human being. Frances is 22 years old. Her parents fled Haiti in the 1980s, when she was a child. Her family settled in Florida. She now has three U.S. citizen brothers and sisters. Tragedy has struck her family on several occasions. Her father died when she was just 7 years old. Her mother died when she was still in her early teens. She finished high school and is now raising her younger brothers and sisters while working. She is an orphan. She would be in the class of persons protected by the 1998 legislation. She is trying now to put together the documents necessary 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 once regulations are final will make a huge difference in the life of this woman, will make a huge difference in her ability to comply with procedures which are probably the most significant in her life. Today, I am introducing this in an effort to secure as rapid a resolution of these concerns as possible. I am not unmindful of the magnitude of the task Congress has asked the Immigration and Naturalization Service to perform. I don't want to imply that the INS and other Federal agencies should rush through these technical pieces of legislation. However, in situations such as this, where a longer time than expected was needed to develop the regulations, it is only fair to allow a longer time for those who are going to be affected by the law. I understand the INS has been very thorough and understanding. It has met with individual groups on all sides of this issue. Many of them have been my constituents in Florida. I commend the INS for its willingness to hear all points of view and be thorough in their review before issuing final regulations. However, having said that, I believe nearly 3 years is a reasonable amount of time to have finalized these regulations. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act took only nine pages of text in Public Law 105-100 when it was passed. Similarly, the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act took less than two pages to print in the Congressional Record. These were concise, targeted pieces of legislation. They were not lengthy, complex overhauls of major components of the immigration law. It is plain unfair to give someone a deadline and charge them a substantial fee to file and then to be uncertain as to what the rules will be that will govern those applications. With this legislation, I seek the flexibility to allow more time to apply for relief in a situation where more time than expected was necessary by the agency, the INS, to issue the regulations. I send to the desk a few of the letters I have received from individuals and advocacy groups and religious leaders calling for this deadline extension, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters from the American Immigration Lawyers Association of South Florida, the Haitian American Foundation, the Haiti Advocacy Agency, all be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send the legislation to the desk, which has been cosponsored by Senators Mack, Kennedy, Durbin, and Feinstein. I ask my colleagues for their understanding and their support for this legislation--legislation that will ensure the most basic elements of fairness in our democratic system, which will allow people who have fled war and persecution to come to the freedom of the United States and to be treated fairly by our laws. Exhibit No. 1 American Immigration Lawyers Association, South Florida Chapter, January 24, 2000. Senator Bob Graham, U.S. Senate, Re: Letter of support for your effort to extend application period for HRIFA & NACARA. Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the South Florida Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) I write this letter of support to encourage you in your effort to introduce legislation to extend the application period for HRIFA & NACARA beneficiaries. My organization has long-supported both bills and is appreciative of your great efforts in support of these efforts. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help. Thank you, Senator Graham. Sincerely, Michael D. Ray, President, AILA South Florida Chapter.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I rise with my colleague Senator Mack to take a moment to recognize our Florida state park system, which recently received the prestigious 1999 National State Parks Gold Medal from the National Sports Foundation, Inc., a part of the 25,000-member National Sporting Goods Association. The State Parks Gold Medal is awarded every other year to the state park system considered America's best. We are proud and honored that Florida's state park system, which includes 151 diverse state parks throughout the state covering more than one-half million acres, received this recognition in October at the National Recreation and Park Association Annual Congress in Nashville, Tennessee. Congratulations to Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Secretary David Struhs, and the Department's Division of Recreation and Parks Director, Fran Mainella, on this achievement. This nation's state parks play a key role in our society--they provide much needed recreational opportunities to Americans while protecting key resources. These parks create the link between our national parks, dedicated specifically to protection of the resources for which the park was created, and our local parks, dedicated specifically to recreation. Without a strong state park system, the resources in our national parks will become stressed as people seek to fill unmet recreational needs. We are proud that the state of Florida recognizes this connection, and works to maintain a strong state park system. In honor of ``Florida's State Parks--Voted America's Best,'' Governor Bush and the Florida Cabinet have designated Saturday, November 20 as a ``free day'' when admission charges to Florida state parks will be waived for all visitors. We invite all of our colleagues to a free day in one or more of America's best state parks that day. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to recognize these outstanding natural areas, preserved forever for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been to the floor many times in the past to speak about the expense smoking has cost this great country-- both in terms of dollars that the federal and state governments have paid for the care of those afflicted with tobacco-related illnesses and in terms of lives lost from this dreadful addiction. I have supported state and federal efforts to recoup a portion of these lost dollars from the tobacco industry, as well as their efforts to begin education campaigns that would teach all Americans about tobacco's harmful effects. And, most importantly, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that tobacco companies are no longer targeting our youth. Tobacco companies must stop marketing their wares to our most vulnerable population, be it through magazine ads that depict smoking as the ``cool'' thing to do or through the strategic placement of billboard advertisements near their schools and play areas. Mr. President, I am here today to let this distinguished body know that in Florida our message is being heard. Florida's children are learning about the health hazards that tobacco poses, and they are deciding not to smoke. This great news is due, in large part, to the successes of our innovative anti-tobacco pilot program--the ``Truth'' campaign. Funded with the monies awarded in Florida's 1997 tobacco settlement, the ``Truth'' campaign has a very simple mission--to counter the misinformation that our youth hear about smoking. Funded with the monies awarded in Florida's 1997 tobacco settlement, the ``Truth'' campaign has a very simple mission--to counter the misinformation that our youth hear about smoking. Much of this truth-telling is done by students working in what are known as SWAT teams. The Students Working Against Tobacco concept was created in February 1998. Today, SWAT teams are operating in all 67 counties of Florida, with more than 10,000 members throughout the state. With a goal of reducing teen smoking through youth empowerment, the SWAT teams have formed partnerships with their communities and developed both marketing and education campaigns to impart the truth about tobacco. Although SWAT teams have been operational for less than two years, they are already making progress in the war against tobacco. Statewide studies are showing that over 95 percent of Florida's youth recognize the ``Truth'' Campaign and know its message to be anti- tobacco. Additonally, surveys are showing that teenage smoking has decreased since SWAT's 1998 inception. Tobacco use among high school students has dropped by 8.5 percent, and middle schools have seen a dramatic 21 percent decline in student tobacco use. This reduction is particularly significant when compared to national statistics showing that states without an anti-tobacco campaign have seen an approximately eleven percent rise in tobacco use. Florida's success may be due to SWAT's willingness to employ both education and mass media as means of spreading their message. Ads that are designed by students are played on local television stations, informing teens of the perils of tobacco use. Similarly, billboards that the SWAT teams have designed are displayed within the communities. These are complemented by an education component that is adaptable for all school grades. Health classes provide an opportunity to discuss the impact smoking has upon the body, from halitosis to lung cancer. In reading classes, young children learn to read using books that are about how to stay healthy and smoke-free. Science courses have moved the anti-tobacco campaign into the technology age, employing CD-Rom programs such as ``Science, Tobacco and You,'' an innovative computer program that demonstrates tobacco's effects on the body--from first puff to final drag. Students scan their photo into the computer, becoming a virtual reality smoker. As the program progresses, students watch their teeth, skin, bones and lungs begin to deteriorate. Currently, SWAT teams are strengthening their community outreach and grassroots work. In their current effort, students are working to get tobacco ads removed from magazines that have either one million youth readers or over ten percent of total readership under age 18. They are collecting these ads and returning them in bulk to the tobacco companies, with a cover letter stating that Big Tobacco needs to strengthen their commitment to reducing teen smoking. SWAT teams have offered to meet with industry representatives to share ideas about how this mutual goal might be met. Once again, the SWAT program has achieved success. At their next board meeting, they will be joined by representatives from Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company to discuss how to better target tobacco ad campaigns to adults, not youth. Mr. President, I am very proud of these young people. I am here today to commend them publicly, and to share their accomplishments with all of you because they are truly making a difference in the battle against teenage smoking. Florida has encouraged its youth to creatively combat one of the foremost problems facing today's teenagers, entrusting them with the tools and means to successfully meet their goals. As other areas work towards the development of a youth-based anti- tobacco initiative, SWAT will be the model upon which their programs will be based. To the over 10,000 members of SWAT, thank you for your efforts to educate Floridians about the dangers of tobacco.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to quote Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again. A little less than a year ago Congress passed an Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. That legislation combined eight separate appropriations bills and included $200 billion in discretionary spending. Last year's Omnibus spending bill also included $21 billion in emergency spending--$13 billion of which directly reduced the surplus for Fiscal Year 1999 and $5 billion of which reduced the surplus for Fiscal Year 2000. Members decried the process that led to last year's bill, threw themselves on the mercy of the American public asking forgiveness, and vowed that it would never happen again. One senior Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity about the level of frustration with last year's budget process, said earlier this year: ``We are looking for ways to avoid what happened last year. We are determined not to go through that again this year.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, here we are again--only worse. This year's bill clearly demonstrates that Congress has not learned from its past mistakes. What makes this bill even more insidious is that we not only repeat last year's mistakes, but in fact, build upon them with even more creative ways to flaunt fiscal discipline. For that reason, I will oppose it. Mr. President, I am not alone. I ask unanimous consent immediately after my remarks an editorial which appeared in today's Washington Post titled ``. . . And Brought Forth a Mouse'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering a multi- billion package focused on adjusting certain Medicare provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That historic legislation made changes in payment structures for programs and providers within Medicare and Medicaid. Many in the Medicare provider community are concerned that these changes have negatively affected their ability to provide adequate access and quality care to their patients. Mr. President, I commend the Administration and my colleagues for completing the difficult task of designing a bill that addresses many of these concerns. I have heard from hospitals, physicians, community health centers and a variety of other Medicare providers, all of whom are very concerned that the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries may decline significantly if cuts to provider payments are not softened. There are many provisions in this bill that I would like to see enacted. These include a moratorium on the $1500 therapy cap, support for the skilled nursing facilities, cancer centers and disproportionate share hospitals, and enhancements to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. But while there is some clear evidence that Congress may have erred in designing some of the Medicare provisions in the Balanced Budget Act, that fact does not relieve us of our fiduciary responsibilities to the American public. Our commitment to revisiting Medicare provider adjustments must be accompanied by a commitment to pay for these actions. By refusing to pay for this bill, we are funding changes to a balanced budget agreement in a way that steals from future generations. This is an irony we cannot afford. Mr. President, allow me to explain. To date, we have spent all of our anticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2000. Any further government spending comes straight from the Social Security surplus. It is easy to spend money when it is not your own. Didn't we prove that during the last thirty years of ``borrow and spend'' budgeting--a period in which our national debt rose from $366 million in 1969 to $5.6 billion today? Let's not start down that slope again. Mr. President, I clearly remember the day we passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997. We all congratulated each other on a job well done. We slapped each other on the back and took full and deserved credit for balancing the budget for the first time in a generation. Now we are facing up to some of the realities of that great achievement. Just as we took responsibility for our accomplishments in 1997, we must now take responsibility for fixing some of our mistakes. If Congress believes that provider relief is necessary, then it must exercise fiscal responsibility and pay for it with true offsets--not surplus funds. Congress has clearly stated that ensuring retirement security for the American public is its top priority. Democrats and Republicans have made clear that saving Social Security and Medicare must be the first items of business on any legislative agenda. But future generations are depending on our deeds--not our words. Mr. President, we must hold true to our commitment to ensure Social Security's solvency until 2075 and to strengthen and modernize Medicare before we look to the surplus for any other purpose. During his State of the Union Address, President Clinton made a commitment to bolster Social Security and Medicare. Congress has joined him in that commitment. A test of our commitment to protecting Social Security surplus is being played out on the Senate floor today. Since the beginning of this debate I have offered proposals to restore payments to providers without stealing from Social Security and Medicare. When the Finance Committee marked up its bill, I offered an amendment that would have fully offset the cost of this package through a series of modest, non-Medicare-related revenue increases. It was my hope that the Committee would have shown the same enthusiasm for fiscal responsibility as it did two years ago. However, it thwarted our commitment to save Social Security and Medicare by a vote of 14 to 6. I also offered an amendment that would have put a down payment on true Medicare reform, while saving the Medicare system $4 billion over 10 years--nearly one third of the overall cost of the bill. This focused on five proven and tested proposals, including a competitive bidding for part B services provision that was passed unanimously by the Finance Committee in 1997. By fulfilling our obligation to help the Medicare system provide quality care while promoting cost efficiency, this amendment embraced the same principles that helped us achieve a balanced budget in 1997. But our dedication to these principles now appears to have vanished. The audacity of paying for this bill with the Social Security surplus is exacerbated by the fact that it includes provisions that actually do away with cost saving programs enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 Allow me to direct your attention to two of the less heralded provisions in this package. First, the postponement of the enactment of the ``inherent reasonableness'' provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 until final regulations are published. This provision prevents beneficiaries from realizing millions of dollars in savings by blocking the government's ability to negotiate rates with home oxygen and durable medical equipment suppliers. By reimbursing providers on a market basis, the competitive bidding process will save the system money by setting a true price for medical goods and services, while ensuring that beneficiaries continue to receive comprehensive coverage. By putting off the implementation of this provision, potentially for years, we are essentially taking $500 million of potential savings out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. Second, is the inclusion of the following language in the conference report concerning the risk adjuster for Medicare+Choice plans: ``The parties to the agreement note that in 1997, when Congress required the Secretary to develop a risk adjuster for Medicare+Choice plans, it was concerned that those plans that treated the most severely ill enrollees were not adequately paid. The Congress envisioned a risk adjuster that would be more clinically based than the old method of adjusting payments. The Congress did not instruct HCFA to implement the provision in a manner that would reduce aggregate Medicare+Choice payments. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office did not estimate that the provision would reduce aggregate Medicare+Choice payments. Consequently, the parties to the agreement urge the Secretary to revise the regulations implementing the risk adjuster so as to provide for more accurate payments, without reducing overall Medicare+Choice payments.'' Mr. President, the Health Financing Administration (HCFA) currently estimates that risk adjustment will decrease plan payments by approximately $10 billion over ten years. This estimate is based on the additional money that plans are paid relative to fee-for-service Medicare after adjusting for health status. Plans that serve a higher proportion of sicker beneficiaries would not see a decrease in payments. Plans that skim the healthiest patients from the Medicare population would see the biggest decrease in payments. Since first learning that HCFA was planning to decrease plan payments under risk adjustment, lobbyists for the managed care industry have been claiming that congressional intent was for risk adjustment to be budget neutral, and they have been lobbying this issue on the Hill. They tried to get it into the Senate Finance Committee report but were unsuccessful. The language was included in the House Ways and Means committee report, however. The House-Senate agreement language comes straight from the House report. It's telling that the statute does not explicitly state that risk adjustment should be budget neutral. In addition, it's telling that lobbyists for the managed care industry have not publicly stated that congressional intent was to make risk adjustment budget neutral. In terms of what congressional intent actually was in BBA 97--I think the story is not entirely clear. It could be that no one thought much about the issue. But regardless of whether you are sympathetic to managed care plans or not, it is disingenuous to claim definitively that congressional intent was not to reduce plan payments in BBA. This is an outrage Mr. President. I believe that we should correct mistakes that were made in the BBA and pay for those mistakes. Equally, it is my feeling that we should seize the opportunity to make fundamental reforms to the Medicare program in order to modernize and improve services for Medicare beneficiaries. In passing this legislation, we are trading fiscal responsibility for fiscal recklessness. We are ignoring innovation in favor of the status quo. Mr. President, I am committed to working to find a solution to the difficult problem of bringing Medicare into the 21st Century and keeping it solvent. It was my hope that we would have the opportunity to vote today on a package that represented good public policy and included an offset that upheld our commitment to fiscal responsibility. I regret that this is not the case. But most of all, I regret the overt lack of concern that this body has shown for the future generations whose Medicare and Social Security benefits hang in the balance. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following newspaper article appear in the Record following my statement on H.R. 1180, Work Incentives/Tax Extenders Conference Report. [From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 1999] A Budget Too Flush To Fight About (By Alice M. Rivlin) Washington--The United States political system, arguably the most effective in the world, has an uncanny penchant for making its successes look like failures. The wrangling now going on in Washington over the federal budget is an ugly, confusing spectacle--long on finger-pointing and gotcha moves, short on conciliation and statesmanship. As the vetoes, gimmickry and accusations of ``raiding Social Security'' fly up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, it is hard to remember that the battle is over marginal adjustments in an increasingly responsible fiscal policy. The federal budget is already in substantial surplus-- revenues exceeded expenditures by about $120 billion in the fiscal year 1999, which would have seemed like a miracle only a few years ago--and the public, polls indicate, is pushing politicians to raise the bar. The new goal, harder but entirely appropriate, is an even bigger surplus, sufficient to reduce the debt and help the economy prepare for the rapid aging of the population. Acrimony over small changes in a successfully balanced budget is a welcome change from the 1980's, when there was so much more to be acrimonious about. The huge deficits of that decade were clear evidence of policy failure. The stunning success of this decade began when President George Bush and the leaders of Congress hammered out an agreement in 1990 that raised some taxes and set explicit caps on future discretionary spending. The effect was not immediately apparent because the recession the next year cut revenues, but the ground-work for a falling deficit had been laid. The goal of President Clinton's budget plan in 1993, extended the caps and raised some taxes, was to cut the deficit in half in four years. The deficit for the fiscal year 1992 was $290 billion--a $50 billion surplus in Social Security, offset by a $340 billion deficit in the rest of the budget. No one thought that getting to overall balance was a goal realistic enough to talk about, let alone reaching balance without counting the Social Security surplus. But now that the overall budget has been balanced for two years, it's time to follow the public's leaning and adopt the more ambitious objective of balancing the budget without counting the Social Security surplus. Paradoxically, although this raising of the bar is highly desirable, the reasons have little to do with Social Security. Two or three decades from now, we will have a much higher ratio of retirees to workers, and the standard of living of both groups will depend on making the economy grow faster, so more goods and services are available to be consumed by everyone. Running a larger government surplus would help the economy grow. It would reduce the national debt, put downward pressure on interest rates and encourage new investment. It doesn't matter much whether the surplus is in the Social Security fund or the rest of the budget; it is the debt reduction that helps the economy grow. Explaining the raising of the bar as ``not spending the Social Security surplus'' is a convenient way of suggesting a connection between the aging of the population and the need for growth. But the current budget debate does not affect the status of the Social Security fund or the rights of beneficiaries in any way. That's a debate for another (post-election) day. If political discourse were more civil, Congress and the president would have settled their differences over the fiscal year 2000 budget long before now, probably by enacting modest increases in the spending caps and celebrating the fact that the surplus is larger than anyone expected. Then they would have gone on to explain why an even bigger surplus would be a good thing for future growth. A growing surplus can only be achieved by restraining spending growth and avoiding a major tax cut. A tax cut would hurt prospects for economic growth by encouraging more consumer spending and forcing the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to avoid inflation. With any luck, the new budget will be wrapped up in a few days and Congress will go on to other business. The public will breathe a small sigh of relief but will not realize that it ought to be celebrating. The good news is that the budget surplus is growing, no significant tax cut is being considered, and politicians are beginning to notice that the public wants them to act responsibly for the long term and reduce the federal debt. That's a lot of good news. It's a shame the process is so ugly. noaa vessel rainier

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stacy Rosenberg, a staff member of my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The National Park Service this year requested $194 million for its operation and maintenance. In this year's appropriations process, the House and Senate had the good judgment to actually increase the National Park Service request to $224.5 million. This is a good step forward, and I commend the Appropriations Committee for having taken it. However, if we are to prevent the existing backlog from growing, we must support periodic maintenance on the existing facilities in the Park System. I see we have now as our Presiding Officer a person who has probably studied more, thought more, and done more to deal with this problem than any Member of the Congress, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Presiding Officer for his efforts in the program of the demonstration recreational fee in the Park System. I showed a moment ago a photo of a portion of some buildings at Bandelier National Park in New Mexico which were in serious disrepair. Largely because of the ability to direct some of those national park demonstration funds to their rehabilitation, they are now being saved and will serve for many years to come. It is a very constructive role in this national monument as well as protecting other valuable historic structures within the national monument. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for the leadership he has given in that regard. I am sad to report that the Interior conference report, which will probably soon be before us, has recommended a reduction in the cyclical maintenance of the National Park System and repair and rehabilitation accounts. While these reductions are relatively small--$3 million in the case of cyclic maintenance and $2.5 million in repair and rehabilitation--failure to meet these basic annual maintenance requirements will only add to our backlog of unmet needs. We cannot make the progress we must make in protecting our national treasures with these Band-Aid solutions. I suggest, building on the leadership you provided through the Demonstration National Park Fee Program, and the changes that were made in the relationship of the parks to their concessionaires, that we can go further in assuring the long-term well-being of our National Park System. In my judgment, what the National Park Service needs is a sustained, reliable, adequate funding source that will allow the Park Service to develop intelligent plans based on a prioritization of need, with confidence the funds will be available as needed to complete the plans. This approach will allow common sense to prevail when projects are prioritized for funding. In some cases, such as one with which I am personally very familiar, committed, and engaged--the Florida Everglades and the Everglades National Park--natural resource projects can be compared to open heart surgery. You simply cannot begin the operation, open the patient, and then fail to complete the operation if the money runs out before the surgery is finished. To do so is to assure the patient will die in the surgery suite. In cases such as Bandelier National Monument and the Ellis Island National Monument, another great national treasure, which I visited on September 27 of this year, we are in a race to complete a known cure before the patient is lost. Bandelier's superintendent, Roy Weaver, is taking every effort he can to preserve the resources in his park. He is focusing the park entrance fees on repairing and maintaining historical structures. He is using funds available through the Vanishing Treasures Program to restore the multitude of cultural resources in the monument. Mr. Weaver is a superintendent whose knowledge of the history of the people who resided in this area of the country hundreds of years ago and whose desire to preserve their culture are evident even in a brief visit. Mr. Weaver's enthusiasm and dedication embody the conservation ethic of President Theodore Roosevelt and the National Park Service. It is our responsibility to give Mr. Weaver and his colleagues across America the tools they need to put their enthusiasm to work. It is time to take the next step. Earlier this year, with Senators Reid and Mack, I introduced S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act. This act would provide dedicated funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve the natural resources within our Park System. This legislation seeks to address the long-term efforts required to truly restore and protect our natural, cultural, and historic resources in the National Park System. This legislation would allocate funds derived from the use of a nonrenewable national resource--offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas--to a renewable resource, restoration and preservation of natural, cultural, and historic resources in our National Park System. At the beginning of this century, in a time of relative tranquility, President Theodore Roosevelt managed to instill the Nation with a tradition of conservation. He did so with this simple challenge: Can we leave this world a better place for future generations? We are at the end of this century and at the end of the first half of the 106th Congress. As we embark on the third century of our Nation's adventure and the second half of the 106th Congress, let us keep the vision of Theodore Roosevelt in mind. Let us take action to protect our National Park System. In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt: The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 12, 1999] Montana's Glacier Park Copes With Big Freeze On Funds To Maintain Its Historic Structures (By John J. Fialka) Glacier National Park, Mont.--Few places on earth are as legally protected as this park. The United Nations deems it a ``World Heritage site.'' Under U.S. law, 350 buildings in the park are registered historic structures. Four hotels and the road spanning this spectacular, million-acre chunk of America are ``national historic landmarks.'' So why are many of these buildings and the road literally falling apart? Over the past 30 years, as lawmakers and park officials have heaped praise and protected status on Glacier, they have consistently failed to provide the money to maintain it. The current bargaining between Congress and the White House on the shape of the next budget doesn't seem likely to change that. The upshot: Much of the man-made part of this mountainous park has evolved into a kind of dangerous national antique. Among the park's most endangered attractions: Many Glacier Hotel. It may look the same as it did when it was built in 1915, but underneath its newly painted wooden facade, tired old timbers are beginning to shift. That makes hallways bend this way and that, windows that won't open and doors that won't close. The steam heating system, unaccustomed to such action, springs six leaks a night. Going-To-The-Sun Road. An engineering marvel, built to cross the park and climb the Continental Divide in 1932, is now marvelous to engineers because it hasn't yet succumbed to the force of gravity. But two-inch cracks are appearing in its pavement. Many of its retaining walls lean recklessly out into space. Melting snow is washing away the road's foundation, creating odd voids that need filing. The ``Jammers.'' The park's much-loved fleet of buses, built in the late 1930s to ply the road, were condemned in August. Their engines, brakes and transmissions had been replaced, but metal fatigue and cracks in their frames raise new safety and liability problems. ``This is the oldest fleet of vehicles in the world,'' says Larry Hegge, the chief mechanic for the buses, who discovered the cracks. Now the 34 red buses with shiny, chrome-toothed radiators and pull-off canvas tops sit nose-to-tail in a damp, dimly lit shed. Mr. Hegge worries that the termites there are eating upper parts of the jammers' frames, which are made of oak. no solution in sight At the moment, no one knows how to fix these problems. Glacier Park Inc., the park's main concessionaire, owns the buses and the hotels. It's questioning a variety of experts to see what might be done and at what cost. The departing park superintendent, David A. Mihalic, recently apointed a 17-member committee to advise him about the road. The numbers they're looking at aren't encouraging. It could cost at least $100 million to restore four major wooden hotels. Estimates for rebuilding the road start at $70 million and climb steeply. The park's annual budget is $8 million. ``Glacier has never had the money to keep up with maintenance and repair,'' shrugs John Kilpatrick, the park's chief engineer. For Superintendent Mihalic, who has just been transferred to Yosemite, running Glacier has been an eerie flashback to 1972, when he took his first job there as a park ranger. He came back as superintendent in 1994 to find ``nothing had changed. We had the same old sewer systems, the same roads, the same hotels, the same visitor accommodations.'' using a `facade' Mr. Mihalic had to resort to what some park experts call ``management by facade.'' Visible things get fixed. Less visible things get deferred. ``If we're having trouble getting the money to just fund the big-ticket items, like roads and sewage and water systems, a lot of public services, such as trail maintenance and back-country bridges, never make it to the top of the list,'' he says. To be sure, Mr. Mihalic isn't the only park superintendent to wrestle with this. The Interior Department's U.S. Park Service places the bill for deferred maintenance and construction needed to fix time-worn facilities in its 378 parks at around $5 billion. ``Culturally, we try to hide the pain in the Park Service,'' explains Denis Galvin, the service's deputy director. The day is coming when hiding the pain here may no longer be possible. Last year the Park Service proposed that the cheapest and quickest way to deal with the crumbling, much- patched Going-To-The-Sun road would be to close it for four years and rebuild it. That produced a furor among people in the business community surrounding the park. They're now part of the advisory committee struggling to come up with ways to keep it open and fix it at the same time. rules for restoration As for the Many Glacier Hotel, the latest estimates are that it would cost $30 million to $60 million to bring it back to the glory days when guests arrived by railroad and received world-class accommodations. ``We could never recover that. You would be talking about renting rooms for $400 to $500 a night,'' says Dennis Baker, director of engineering for the concessionaire Glacier Park, a subsidiary of Phoenix- based Viad Corp. Park rules currently limit hotel room rates to $120. The park's season lasts only about 100 days. As for Mr. Hegge, keeper of the park's bus fleet, he's looking for experts to tell him how to refit his buses with new chassis or to build replicas. Because they are federally registered historic landmarks, the road and the hotels also must be restored to the way they were with the same materials, adding many millions more to the cost. Just where the millions will come from to fix Glacier and many other maintenance-starved parks is, of course, the biggest question. Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida has introduced legislation to earmark $500 million a year from federal offshore oil royalties for buying park land and fixing parks. Over time, he's sure it would save money, ``That would allow them to plan more than a year ahead. They could let contracts for multiple buildings at a time,'' explains the senator, who says support for the measure has been slow but is growing.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on October 31 of this year, I saw yet another example of the challenges we are facing in our National Park System. Two weekends ago, I visited Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, located about 1 hour west of Santa Fe. Bandelier National Monument was claimed a national monument under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service in 1916. In 1932, it was transferred to the National Park Service. Bandelier contains 32,737 acres, of which 23,267 acres are designated as wilderness. It is a park that is intended to preserve the cliff houses of the Pueblo Indian. I draw your attention to this photograph taken near the entrance to Bandelier National Monument. One of the cliff homes can be seen at the base of this large cliff which forms the most dramatic signature of Bandelier National Monument. This photograph gives some idea of the magnitude of the cultural resources which are located in this park. In addition to the preservation of the cultural resource of the monument, the outstanding superintendent at Bandelier, Mr. Roy Weaver, also contends with preservation of historical resources such as 1930s CCC buildings which were constructed in order to properly present the park to its many visitors but which have fallen into a sad state of disrepair. Using funds from the recreation fee demonstration program, Bandelier National Monument has refurbished several of these existing structures to a functional condition. This park, as many of our Nation's parks, is faced with a degradation of its core resources. One of the significant challenges is the unnatural pace of erosion within the monument's wilderness area. This problem is in part due to intense grazing which occurred prior to the designation of the lands as a national monument in 1916. This activity ended over 60 years ago but is still impacting the resources and the health of the park. The heavy grazing prior to 1916 reduced the underbrush, allowing the pinon tree to take over the landscape. This tree is now firmly established and has prevented the growth of other natural species in the canyon of Bandelier. Without the diverse plant species in the forest to retain the soil, erosion occurs at a much more rapid pace. This erosion is one of the principal reasons why the archeological sites for which the monument was established are now severely threatened. We are in grave danger of losing artifacts, structures, and information about a people who spent hundreds of years building a society in the Southwest. In addition to cultural resource damage to the unnatural state of the environment at Bandelier, human behavior has also had negative impacts. One of the first areas visitors to Bandelier approach, and just off the main trail, is a series of cave dwellings. Ascending the ladder into the cave is stepping back hundreds of years into a different culture. One arrives at the cave only to find the stark realities of contemporary America by a desecration of these caves with graffiti. This photograph showing an example of that desecration speaks a thousand words about the level of respect which we as a society have paid to our national treasures over the years. There is some hope. In 1998, the Congress and the administration established a program at the suggestion of the National Park Service. It is called Vanishing Treasures. This program was the brain child of the national park superintendents from Chaco Culture National Historic Site, Aztec Ruins National Monument, and the Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument. The Vanishing Treasure Program seeks to restore the ruins to a condition where maintenance scheduled at regular intervals rather than large-scale restoration projects will be sufficient to keep the ruins in good condition. The program also has another very significant objective: Training the next generation of preservation specialists who can perform this highly specific, complex craftsmanship of maintaining national treasures such as these caves at Bandelier National Monument. The original outline of the Vanishing Treasures Program called for $3.5 million in the first year, increasing by $1 million per year until it reached $6 million in the year 2001, after which it would decrease slightly until the year 2008. We hoped during that time period to have been able to have dealt with the residue of issues such as the desecration of the caves at Bandelier. Unfortunately, beginning in fiscal year 1998, the funding was not at the recommended $3.5 million level but, rather, was at $1 million. In fiscal year 1999, it was increased to $1.3 million. The current Interior appropriations bill, which has been passed by both the House and the Senate, contains $994,000 for the Vanishing Treasures Program. At this level of funding distributed throughout the entire Southwest, some 41 national park sites benefit from this program. At that level of funding, we cannot possibly come close to meeting the needs for the protection of our cultural treasures in the Southwest. We are effectively making the decision that we are prepared to see these cultural and historic treasures lost before we make funds available for their preservation. We are at a crossroads in our Nation's historical efforts to protect and preserve those national treasures which are the responsibility of the National Park Service. The history of our Nation is marked by activism on public land issues. The first full century of the United States' existence--the 19th century--was marked by the Louisiana Purchase which added almost 530 million acres to the United States, changing America from an eastern coastal nation to a continental empire. One hundred years later, President Theodore Roosevelt set the tone for public land issues in the second full history in our Nation's history. He did it both in words and action. President Theodore Roosevelt stated: Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that will come after us. Roosevelt took action to meet these goals. During his administration, the United States protected almost 230 million acres of lands for future public use. The question for us as we commence the third full century, the 21th century of the United States, is, can we live up to this example? Can we be worthy of the standards of Thomas Jefferson at the beginning of the 19th century and Theodore Roosevelt at the beginning of this century? I have discussed today the issues I witnessed at Bandelier National Monument and the small efforts being made to rectify this situation. Estimates of the maintenance backlog throughout the National Park Service system range from $1.2 billion to over $3.5 billion, depending on the calculation method. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of my remarks an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal of November 12 of this year entitled ``Montana's Glacier Park Copes With Big Freeze On Funds To Maintain Its Historic Structures.''

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