Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator from North Carolina object if my motion was to yield to the Senator from Georgia for purposes of the motion he wishes to make?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, first, to yield to our colleague from Georgia for purposes of a request and then for purposes of making a unanimous consent request that has to do with establishing my order in the line to offer an amendment relative to the pending legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. I am asking unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Georgia for the purposes of the motion of the Senator from Georgia; is there objection to that?

Mr. GRAHAM. The request is, first, that the Senator from Georgia be recognized for the purposes of a motion, and I be recognized for a unanimous consent that will only ask my amendment be taken up as the next Democratic amendment relative to the pending legislation; and then the third step is the Senator from North Carolina would be recognized.

Mr. GRAHAM. I accept that if I could be recognized between the Senators from Georgia and North Carolina for purposes of my procedural motion.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the Senate is not in order.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to reserve time to close. If there are any speakers in opposition to the amendment, I would defer to them and then I would like to close.

Mr. GRAHAM. The arguments in favor of this amendment are numerous. The Federal Government made a commitment to the States as part of the welfare-to-work legislation that it would maintain funding for this program at the level of $2.38 billion each year. That commitment was made out of a recognition of the importance of the programs funded through title XX of the Social Security Act toward achieving the results, the goals of welfare to work. We are about to breach that commitment--not just to breach it, we are about to obliterate that commitment. Second, the proposal directs the States to spend a portion of their tobacco settlement to replace these Federal funds, the funds we have committed to make available to the States. We have voted in this Senate on numerous occasions, by margins of 70 to 30 or more, against that specific proposition, against the attempt of the Federal Government to play big father and direct the States as to how they should use their tobacco settlement money. Now, having beaten back the efforts at the front door, we see this effort coming in through the back door saying: Well, we are not going to tell you that you have to spend your money. We are just going to cut over half of a critical Federal partnership program with the States, a program we committed to as part of the States entering into the Welfare-to-Work Program. We are just going to suggest. And, by the way, you ought to spend your tobacco money to fund it. Outrageous. Third, this is not just a matter of what is in our heart; this is also what is in our mind. The reason Congress adopted this program in 1975--which, if I recall, was under the administration of President Ford--was the recognition that expenditure of Federal funds on programs that kept older Americans out of nursing homes, expenditure of Federal funds on programs that alleviated the suffering and the potential for further suffering of the disabled, saved the Federal Government money, programs that kept families together, that helped children in need, saved the Federal Government money. With almost no consideration, we are about to turn the clock back on this accomplishment of President Ford and 25 years of demonstrated success of this program in both helping people and saving the Federal Government money. Most important, we are about to pick out the most vulnerable people among us and say: It is upon your back that we are going to attempt to reduce the imbalance in our budget accounts. We are going to turn to the weakest to say: You should carry the fullest load. I don't want to just speak these closing remarks in my words. I will use the words of a few of the many organizations across America which, in the short period of time since the alert went out that this ridiculous action was even being considered by the most deliberative body in the world, have responded with their assessment of what this would mean. Let me mention a few of them. The National Governors' Association had this to say: Over the past few years, the [social services block grant] has taken more than its share of cuts in federal funding. As part of the 1996 welfare reform deal, Congress made a commitment to Governors that the SSBG would be level funded at $2.38 billion each year. Congress made a commitment to the States that this funding would be maintained. Now we are about to cut that funding by more than 50 percent, according to the National Governors' Association. The Fight Crime Invest in Kids Coalition, an organization that represents over 500 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, victims of violence, leaders of police organizations and violence prevention scholars, had this to say about this proposal: The Graham-Wellstone amendment to restore funding of $2.38 billion for the Title XX Social Services Block Grant would: Provide over $591 million to protect children from abuse and neglect. Since abused and neglected children are almost twice as likely to become chronic offenders, it is clear these services can have an important crime prevention impact. Provide $300 million to support child care in 47 States. The High/Scope Foundation study showed that quality child care can dramatically reduce the chances of children becoming criminals. That is what 500 chiefs of police and sheriffs and other leaders in the criminal justice community have said about the importance of this amendment. Catholic Charities USA said this in its letter: Cutting funds to services that keep people independent and in their communities is short sighted and will lead to unnecessary suffering and increases in other federal programs. This is what the Girl Scouts said about this proposal: The further cuts to this program which have been proposed by the Senate will no doubt negatively impact our communities, most of which are already struggling with limited resources for much needed services. Finally, the National Conference of State Legislatures in their letter stated: The current proposal in the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations legislation will jeopardize services to the elderly, disabled and children and families. It also represents a retreat from Federal commitments made during the enactment of welfare reform legislation. For all of those reasons, as well as the fact that Senators Kennedy and Cleland have asked to be added as additional cosponsors to this amendment, I urge my colleagues to step back from the precipice of irresponsibility and repudiation of commitment, to step back from the cliff that would have us, through the back door of this ill-considered proposal, breach our commitments to the States to keep our hands off their State-won tobacco settlement, and particularly so we can look in the eyes of the American people who would be most affected by this--the children, the disabled, and the frail elderly--and say: You are not the forgotten Americans. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment, in which I am joined by Senators Wellstone, Rockefeller, and Dodd, will have the effect of reversing a decision made by the appropriations subcommittee to cut by more than 50 percent the funding in title 20 of the Social Security Act for social services block grants. This amendment will restore the program to the level that was authorized by the Finance Committee, which is $2.38 billion. This program, title 20 of Social Security, allocates funds to the States in block grant form, allowing them to provide services to vulnerable, low- income children and elderly, disabled people. The purpose of this program is to assist in maintaining the well-being of those Americans who, but for these types of services, might become direct, individual recipients of Social Security funds, whether they fell into such because of a disability, because of their circumstances in terms of losing the support of an adult, or because of the aging process. I can tell the Senate, as a former Governor of Florida, the State which has the highest percentage of persons over 65 in the Nation, and now, as a member of the Finance Committee, which has responsibility for the authorization of this program, I am aware of the positive contribution this program has made to the well-being of millions of Americans and to the fiscal well-being of the Social Security program. I am particularly concerned about the draconian cuts that have been made and the fact that they have been made with almost no discussion or attention to the very serious policy implications. My Finance Committee colleagues and I, joined by colleagues from the House Ways and Means Committee, have agreed that this program should be funded at the level of $2.38 billion for the fiscal year 2000. In fact, the two committees of responsibility, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, made a commitment to the States that the social services block grant would be guaranteed at the level of $2.38 billion until welfare reform is reauthorized in the year 2002. However, the Senate appropriators, rather than simply appropriating the statutory funding level for the fiscal year 2000 at $2.38 billion, have slashed the social services block grant to $1.05 billion for the fiscal year 2000. This harsh, unauthorized reduction would be on top of a 15-percent reduction made to title 20 in the 1996 welfare law. These enormous reductions will have adverse consequences for substantial numbers of frail elderly persons, disabled individuals, and children and their families. In my State of Florida, critical programs will be at serious risk if these cuts are made. For example, these reductions will affect services that protect children from child abuse and that enable poor elderly and disabled persons to remain in their homes rather than being placed prematurely in nursing homes or other institutions. Our State was one of the first to start a program called Community Care for the elderly, begun over 20 years ago. It had as its objective to allow older Americans to live the life they wanted to live, a life of maximum independence in their homes, in their communities, not to be forced prematurely into an institution. That program was funded both by State funds and by the use of some of these social service block grant programs. That program has had not only enormous positive benefits in terms of the quality of life of the beneficiaries--and, I might say, has now become a program that has been identified for substantial expansion by our current Governor, Governor Bush--but it also has been a program that has saved both Medicare and Medicaid substantial funds by maintaining the best possible state of health for many frail elderly and avoiding the extreme costs that are entailed when an individual has to be placed in a nursing home. We heard at a luncheon earlier today from a program that has shown great promise in terms of providing a successful educational environment for our youngest students. One of the primary keystones of that success is appropriate early intervention with children before they become public school students, while they are still in the infant and toddler ages, if they have physical or other disabilities, to begin to deal with them at the earliest stages, to give them an appropriate learning environment in preschool. Again, those are precisely the programs that are funded through title 20 of the Social Security Act. Those are precisely the programs that are going to be eviscerated if we adopt this budget with this over 50- percent cut. To add to all of that, I direct the attention of the Senate to page 212 of the conference report which has been issued on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. In that conference report, there is an explanation of why this cut is being recommended. The report states: The committee recommends an appropriations of $1.50 billion for the Social Services Block Grant. The recommendation is $1.330 billion below the budget request (read the recommendation of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee) and $859 million below the 1999 enacted level. The committee has reduced funding for the block grant because of extremely tight budget constraints. I would like for the Presiding Officer and my colleagues to listen to this particular part. The committee believes that the States can supplement the block grant account with funds received through the recent settlements with the tobacco companies. So the subcommittee's rationale for this particular reduction is that the States can now be directed to use their tobacco settlement money in order to fund what previously had been a partnership of Federal-State funds for the frail elderly, for the disabled, and for children and their families. Mr. President, I fervently object to this outrageous, irresponsible and, I would say, nonsensical rationale. As you will recall, this spring we had a fervent debate about the question of whether the Federal Government should reach in and mandate how all or a portion of the States' tobacco settlements should be spent. We fought that out for weeks in the Senate. I thought after a series of rejections of exactly this proposition that the States could now with some comfort step back and say the Federal Government has decided, properly so, that we were the entities which secured these tobacco settlements; that the Federal Government would be saying we have the respect of the States that they have the good judgment to decide what is in the best interests of their citizens in the methods of spending these tobacco settlement funds; that the States could breathe easy; that they no longer were faced with the threat that the Federal Government would want to play big father and tell them how to spend their money. It was only in March of this year that the Senate overwhelmingly by a margin of approximately 71 to 29 defeated an amendment that would have required the States to spend part of their tobacco settlement according to a Federal list of priorities. In June, the entire Congress voted for the Federal Government to stand back, to keep its hands off the tobacco settlement, which the States had with such effort and commitment achieved; that the Federal Government was saying to the State: We respect you, and we put our confidence in your decisions as to how to spend this money. Now we have a few months later this language saying that it is one of the most important social programs we in Washington are going to effectively, by withdrawing Federal funds, direct how the States are going to spend their tobacco settlement. It is outrageous. The commitment that we made for hands off was a binding commitment, just as our commitment to fund the title XX program that we made to the States to fund it at its current level to the year 2002 in order to play a role in the successful completion of the welfare-to-work law was also a binding commitment, commitments that we are now about to breach. Today, many of the same individuals who voted to allow the States to use these funds as they saw most appropriate for their citizens are about to tell the States that they need to reallocate tobacco settlement dollars in order to pick up the Federal social services block grant which we are going to slash by over 50 percent. That is blatant hypocrisy. The argument that the tobacco funds should be used to fill a $1.33 billion cut in title XX is quite simply--no pun intended--a smoke-and- mirrors tactic that does not address the issue at hand. Senate appropriators have no valid argument in defense of their drastic cuts in this critical program. Have no doubt that the ultimate loser in this exercise is the child-- the child who is currently receiving child care in a title XX funded center. The loser is that other American who has sought refuge from abuse through adult protective services, the disabled woman who receives treatment through a title XX funded center. Perhaps the reason our appropriators believe that they can get away with this raid on the social services block grant is that the American people are unclear about the services that this program provides. So I would like to take this opportunity to enlighten my Senate colleagues and the American people on what are the programs funded under title XX of the Social Security Act. The social services block grant was established in 1975. So it is now about to celebrate its 25th year of an important part of the safety net that helps those persons who might otherwise have to rely on expanded Social Security funds. It provides States with funds to address the social service needs as the States determine to be of the greatest priority. States have broad flexibility in determining which services to provide, who should deliver services, and which families and individuals to serve. I know our Presiding Officer had a distinguished career of service in his State before being elected to the Senate. So he has no doubt dealt with some of the programs that are funded under title XX of the Social Security Act. Adoption, case management, congregate meals, counseling services, adult day care, day care for children, education and training services, employment services, foster care services, health-related services, home-based services, home-delivered meals, housing services, independent living services for youth, legal services, child and adult protective services, recreation services, residential treatment, special services for youth at risk, and the disabled--these are some of the services that are provided under title XX. As you can see, many of the SSBG-funded services focus on children and youth. In fiscal year 1996, some 15 percent of the SSBG funds supported programs providing child care for low-income children. An additional 21 percent was spent on services to protect children from abuse and provide foster care for children. SSBG funds programs for nearly half a million people with mental retardation and other physical and mental disability, including transportation, adult day care, early intervention, crisis intervention, respite care, employment, and independent living services. These services help such individuals remain at home and out of expensive and often inappropriate institutions. These services also help people with disabilities to work, to the extent it is possible for them to do so. These programs drew the support of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, the two committees with responsibility for Social Security, to support the level of funding which is in the amendment currently pending. For those who have suggested this more than 50-percent slash in this program, what is it they know about this program that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee did not know or did not take into proper account? What we should be doing is not slashing this program but, if anything, we should be increasing this funding in order to assist particularly in this important time of transition from welfare to work. It should be noted that the Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill appears to reduce the percentage of a State's Federal TANF block grant, another of the programs that will be critical to the transfer from welfare to work, will reduce the percentage of a State's Federal TANF block grant that can be transferred to the social services block grant from 10 percent to 4.25 percent for fiscal year 2000. Not only are the States facing a draconian reduction in the social services block grant but also a limit in the flexibility of those funds. The 4.25-percent ceiling further limits States' abilities to compensate for the impact of the overall social services block grant funding. One might ask, should the States also use tobacco money to fill the hole for this further cut, as well? Should the States perhaps be called upon to use tobacco funds to supplement all Federal funds for social programs? It is critical we keep the national commitments to the most vulnerable members of our society. That commitment cannot be fulfilled by slashing title 20 funds by over 50 percent. The President has said he would veto this bill in its current form. He cited the deep cuts in title 20 as a key reason for doing so. I applaud the President if it were to be necessary--and I hope desperately it will not be necessary-- to exercise that veto because of these unwise cuts in title 20 and the attempt to direct the manner in which the States will spend their tobacco settlement funds. There has been a cascade of opposition to this recommendation. The National Governors' Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties have spoken out against this cut. They are joined by over 600 Federal, State, and local groups that understand the importance of these title 20 programs. I ask immediately after my remarks a series of letters from groups across America be printed in the Record expressing their objection to this proposal.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1821 be called up.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the amendment currently pending.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of moving forward. This amendment is going to raise some very fundamental issues not only for a major social program but also for the relationship between the Federal Government and the States and the relationship between the appropriations process and the committees that have jurisdiction for authorization and the administration of the mandatory spending program. I do not believe at this time I can indicate how long it will take to fully articulate those issues to have the kind of debate which this amendment clearly justifies.

Mr. GRAHAM. I suggest, in deference to the effective use of time, it would be preferable if we got started with this amendment and then saw, as we were into it, what might be a reasonable time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the social services block grant cut of the magnitude reflected in this bill would substantially reduce a State's ability to provide services to vulnerable children, elderly, and disabled people. Because of the dimensions of such a cut, as well as the fact that most 1999 State legislative sessions have already adjourned, most States would not be able to offset this loss with additional State funds, tobacco or otherwise. That is the real point of this debate. This debate is not about tobacco money nor is it about what States do with their dollars. This debate is about the cutting of a program that was designed to help the most vulnerable Americans to live better lives and the devastating impact such a cut will have on their lives and our communities. As I come to a close, a word of caution: The raiding of title 20 programs could serve as an example of what will happen when a program is block granted. In the eleventh hour of last year's budget debate, a budget bind had developed and the means of escaping from that bind was to use title XX funds, if you will believe it, to fund road and highway spending. Today we are again sacrificing the same social services block grant on the altar of budgetary expediency. This year it is not highway funds but let's tell the States how to spend their tobacco settlement. These experiences should serve as a big red flag as we structure our social services funding. Thus far, we seem willing to use Meals on Wheels' funds to continue the illusion we are not breaking the budget caps. Will we ever fund the census from moneys from our children's educational future? If the answer to this question is yes, can similar cuts to Social Security and Medicare and other social programs critical to the well-being of millions of Americans be far behind? The implications of this action this afternoon are ominous. They are odious. We have the opportunity to avoid them. Exhibit 1 Intergovernmental Relations, Milwaukee, WI, September 30, 1999. Hon. Bob Graham, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to you on behalf of Milwaukee County to express our strong support for your amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill to restore funding to the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX). Funding the Title XX program at its authorized level of $2.38 billion is critically important to Milwaukee County. In addition, Milwaukee County urges you to retain current law provisions that allow states to transfer up to 10 percent of their TANF block grants into Title XX. As you know, the SSBG program has been cut three times in the past three years, totaling a half a billion dollars in funding. With current funding down to $1.9 billion for FY 1999, Wisconsin has experienced a decrease in funding of over $7.6 million for this year, with the state's counties bearing the brunt of these significant cuts. In Wisconsin, it is the state's counties that provide critical social services to vulnerable populations such as supportive home care and community living and support services for elderly and disabled adults and children. Milwaukee County also utilizes SSBG dollars to provide a wide range of other services, including drug and alcohol abuse treatment, temporary shelter service for homeless families, and outpatient treatment for individuals with mental health issues. In addition, Wisconsin is currently transferring the full 10 percent of its TANF block grant, nearly $32 million, to fund Title XX services. If the current 10 percent transferability level is reduced to the proposed 4.25 percent, Wisconsin would lose the ability to transfer over $18 million in TANF funds. Again, Milwaukee County strongly supports your efforts to restore full funding for the SSBG. Thank you in advance for your active support of Title XX. Sincerely, Joe Krahn, Milwaukee County Washington Representative.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be the next Democratic Senator to be recognized for purposes of an amendment after Senator Reid of Nevada.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mack, to introduce legislation that will protect the coast of Florida in the future from the damages of offshore drilling. I introduced similar legislation in last year's Congress that sought to codify the annual moratorium on leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and ensure that states receive all environmental documentation prior to making a decision on whether to allow drilling off of its shores. That legislation did not pass in the 105th Congress. Today, I am introducing legislation that takes these steps, plus several others. The Florida Coast Protection Act of 2000 will protect Florida's fragile coastline from outer continental shelf leasing and drilling in three important ways. First, we transform the annual moratorium on leasing and preleasing activity off the coast of Florida into a permanent ban covering Planning Areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, and the South Atlantic Planning Area. Second, the Florida Coast Protection Act corrects an egregious conflict in regulatory provisions where an effected state is required to make a consistency determination for proposed oil and gas production or development under the Coastal Zone Management Act prior to receiving the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the Mineral Management Service. Our bill requires that the EIS is provided to affected states 6 months before they make a consistency determination, and it requires that every oil and gas development plan have an EIS completed prior to development. Third, our bill corrects the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and ensures that oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are subject to the same rules and regulations that apply to oil and gas leases in other areas. What would this bill mean for Florida? The elimination of preleasing activity and lease sales off the coast of Florida protects our economic and environmental future. More than 100 years ago, my grandfather settled in Northwest Florida. My mother grew up near the Gulf of Mexico in Walton County. For years, I have taken my children and grandchildren to places like Grayton Beach so that they can appreciate the natural treasures and local cultures that are port of both their own heritage and that of the Florida Panhandle. We have a solemn obligation to preserve these important aspects of our state's history for all of our children and grandchildren. Much of our identity as Floridians is tied to the thousands of miles of pristine coastline that link Jacksonville to Miami and Key West to Pensacola. The Florida coastline will not be safe if offshore oil and gas resources are developed. For example, a 1997 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study indicated that even in the absence of oil leakage, a typical oil rig can discharge between 6,500 and 13,000 barrels of waste per year. The same study also warned of further harmful impact on marine mammal populations, fish populations, and air quality. Nor are leakages or waste discharge the only drilling-related environmental consequences. Physical disturbances caused by anchoring, pipeline placement, rig construction, and the resuspension of bottom sediments can also be destructive. Given these conclusions, it isn't hard to imagine the environmental havoc that oil or natural gas drilling could wreak along the sensitive Panhandle coastline. Because the Gulf of Mexico's natural beauty and diverse habitats attract visitors from all over the world and support a variety of commercial activities, an oil or natural gas accident in the Gulf of Mexico could also have a crippling effect on the Northwest Florida economy. In 1996, the cities of Panama City, Pensacola, and Fort Walton Beach reported $1.5 billion in sales to tourists. That same year, the Panhandle's five westernmost counties generated more than $8 million in public revenues from visitors paying the state's tourist development tax. And Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 90 percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West Florida continental shelf. Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 90 percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West Florida continental shelf. For the last several years, I have been working with Senator Connie Mack, U.S. Congressman Joe Scarborough, and others to head off the threat of oil and natural gas drilling. In June of 1997, we introduced legislation to cancel six natural gas leases seventeen miles off the Pensacola coast and compensate Mobil Oil Corporation for its investment. Five days after the introduction of that legislation and two months before it was scheduled to begin exploratory drilling off Florida's Panhandle, Mobile ended its operation and returned its leases to the federal government. While that action meant that Panhandle residents faced one less economic and environmental catastrophe-in-the-making, it did not completely eliminate the threats posed by oil and natural gas drilling off Florida's Gulf Coast. Florida's Congressional representatives fight hard each year to extend the federal moratorium on new oil and natural gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. But that solution is temporary. So in June of 1998, we introduced the Florida Gulf Coast Protection Act to prevent the federal government from issuing leases in the future. This legislation did not pass during the 105th Congress. Today we are introducing the Florida Gulf Coast Protection Act for the year 2000. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this legislation forward and protect the coast of Florida for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mack, to introduce legislation that will protect the coast of Florida in the future from the damages of offshore drilling. I introduced similar legislation in last year's Congress that sought to codify the annual moratorium on leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and ensure that states receive all environmental documentation prior to making a decision on whether to allow drilling off of its shores. That legislation did not pass in the 105th Congress. Today, I am introducing legislation that takes these steps, plus several others. The Florida Coast Protection Act of 2000 will protect Florida's fragile coastline from outer continental shelf leasing and drilling in three important ways. First, we transform the annual moratorium on leasing and preleasing activity off the coast of Florida into a permanent ban covering Planning Areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, and the South Atlantic Planning Area. Second, the Florida Coast Protection Act corrects an egregious conflict in regulatory provisions where an effected state is required to make a consistency determination for proposed oil and gas production or development under the Coastal Zone Management Act prior to receiving the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the Mineral Management Service. Our bill requires that the EIS is provided to affected states 6 months before they make a consistency determination, and it requires that every oil and gas development plan have an EIS completed prior to development. Third, our bill corrects the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and ensures that oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are subject to the same rules and regulations that apply to oil and gas leases in other areas. What would this bill mean for Florida? The elimination of preleasing activity and lease sales off the coast of Florida protects our economic and environmental future. More than 100 years ago, my grandfather settled in Northwest Florida. My mother grew up near the Gulf of Mexico in Walton County. For years, I have taken my children and grandchildren to places like Grayton Beach so that they can appreciate the natural treasures and local cultures that are port of both their own heritage and that of the Florida Panhandle. We have a solemn obligation to preserve these important aspects of our state's history for all of our children and grandchildren. Much of our identity as Floridians is tied to the thousands of miles of pristine coastline that link Jacksonville to Miami and Key West to Pensacola. The Florida coastline will not be safe if offshore oil and gas resources are developed. For example, a 1997 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study indicated that even in the absence of oil leakage, a typical oil rig can discharge between 6,500 and 13,000 barrels of waste per year. The same study also warned of further harmful impact on marine mammal populations, fish populations, and air quality. Nor are leakages or waste discharge the only drilling-related environmental consequences. Physical disturbances caused by anchoring, pipeline placement, rig construction, and the resuspension of bottom sediments can also be destructive. Given these conclusions, it isn't hard to imagine the environmental havoc that oil or natural gas drilling could wreak along the sensitive Panhandle coastline. Because the Gulf of Mexico's natural beauty and diverse habitats attract visitors from all over the world and support a variety of commercial activities, an oil or natural gas accident in the Gulf of Mexico could also have a crippling effect on the Northwest Florida economy. In 1996, the cities of Panama City, Pensacola, and Fort Walton Beach reported $1.5 billion in sales to tourists. That same year, the Panhandle's five westernmost counties generated more than $8 million in public revenues from visitors paying the state's tourist development tax. And Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 90 percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West Florida continental shelf. Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 90 percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West Florida continental shelf. For the last several years, I have been working with Senator Connie Mack, U.S. Congressman Joe Scarborough, and others to head off the threat of oil and natural gas drilling. In June of 1997, we introduced legislation to cancel six natural gas leases seventeen miles off the Pensacola coast and compensate Mobil Oil Corporation for its investment. Five days after the introduction of that legislation and two months before it was scheduled to begin exploratory drilling off Florida's Panhandle, Mobile ended its operation and returned its leases to the federal government. While that action meant that Panhandle residents faced one less economic and environmental catastrophe-in-the-making, it did not completely eliminate the threats posed by oil and natural gas drilling off Florida's Gulf Coast. Florida's Congressional representatives fight hard each year to extend the federal moratorium on new oil and natural gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. But that solution is temporary. So in June of 1998, we introduced the Florida Gulf Coast Protection Act to prevent the federal government from issuing leases in the future. This legislation did not pass during the 105th Congress. Today we are introducing the Florida Gulf Coast Protection Act for the year 2000. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this legislation forward and protect the coast of Florida for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we would like to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, in a brief colloquy regarding Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida. Through the outstanding leadership of sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, Barry has had a strong history of addressing important Miami community issues like urbanization, ethnic diversity, community development and cultural understanding. Many of Barry's students are first-generation college students and ethnic minorities. Recently the University announced the planning of an Intercultural Community Center that is designed to promote necessary neighborhood and small business revitalization. The new facility will also be a hub for ongoing workforce development and service learning literacy training for the local community.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 6 months ago today on March 24, 1999, the United States and its allies launched Operation Allied Force in the Balkan region. To commemorate this event, I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the men and women assigned to and employed by Eglin Air Force Base should be recognized and commended for their participation in, and efforts associated with, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Operation Allied Force. The personnel of the Air Armament Center at Eglin Air Force Base developed and provided many of the munitions, technical orders, expertise and support equipment utilized by NATO during the air campaign. Specifically, the two thousand pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) was the first weapon dropped in the operation. Additionally, the Air to Ground 130 (AGM 130) standoff missile enabled F15E Strike Eagle aircrews to attack targets with precision from a distance of forty miles. The reliable performances of the JDAM and AGM 130 enabled combat air crews to complete bombing missions accurately, effectively, and with reduced risk to crews. The result was zero casualties among NATO air personnel. The availability of these arms was the result of the vision of the Air Armament Center personnel who recognized years earlier that these munitions would be important to American armament. The brave service personnel from Eglin Air Force Base--and their families--sacrificed much in support of Operation Allied Force. We express our deepest gratitude to them. We recognize that their efforts allowed NATO to conduct an air war with no American combat casualties, yet with a devastating effect on our adversaries. We commit to maintaining the technological superiority of American air armament as a critical component of our nation's capacity to conduct and prevail in warfare while minimizing casualties.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. What is at stake is, will we have adequate resources, properly directed, to deal with these national issues, including the crisis that is in our national park system. The question we must ask ourselves as we vote on this amendment and as we vote on the underlying legislation to which it is being offered is, Can we live up to the legacy of our forefathers and mothers and protect our Federal land trust? We are about to begin the fourth century of our Nation's history. We were formed at the end of the 18th century, had our maturation in the 19th century, and now, in the 20th century, have grown to the great power and source of influence for values that we consider to be fundamental--human rights, democracy--in the 20th century. The first two of our centuries that were full centuries, the 19th and now the 20th, were highlighted by activism on public lands issues. The 19th century began with the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's most renowned action as President was the purchase of Louisiana from France. That single act added almost 530 million acres to the United States. That action changed America from an eastern coastal nation to a continental power. This century, the 20th century, was marked by the addition to the public land trust led by President Theodore Roosevelt. While in the White House, between 1901 and 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 150 national forests, the first 51 Federal bird reservations, 5 national parks, the first 18 national monuments, the first 4 national game preserves, the first 21 reclamation projects. He also established the National Wildlife Refuge System, beginning with the designation of Pelican Island in my State of Florida as a national wildlife refuge in 1903. Together, these projects equated to Federal protection of almost 230 million acres, a land area equivalent to that of all the east coast States from Maine to Florida and just under half of the Louisiana Purchase. That is what the first President in the 19th century, Thomas Jefferson, and the first President in the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt, did for America. That was their legacy. Clearly, the question we are going to have to answer to our children and grandchildren is, Did you live up to the standards of Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt? Roosevelt said: We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an environment that is as good as or better than what we found. Can we meet that test? As we enter the 21st century, the fourth century of our Nation's history, we must again ask ourselves this question. We must be prepared to take action to meet the challenge. I argue that the underlying bill to which this amendment is attached and to which this amendment would further delete resources to meet that challenge of Theodore Roosevelt, while it takes some steps towards meeting his challenge, fails to fully commit to the protection of our Federal land trust. In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service. In doing so, it stated that the purposes of the National Park Service were: To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. ``. . . will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' That is what our predecessor said in 1916 was the purpose of the National Park System. Today the unimpaired status of our national parks is severely at risk. On April 22 of this year, the National Parks and Conservation Association identified the 1999 list of the 10 most endangered national parks. In his opening remarks, Mr. Tom Kiernan, the President of the National Parks and Conservation Association, stated: These parks were chosen not because they were the only parks with endangered resources, but because they demonstrate the resource damages that are occurring in all of our parks. These parks demonstrate the breadth of the threats faced by our National Park System. For example, Chaco Culture National Historical Park in Chaco Canyon, NM, contains the remains of 13 major structures that represent the highest point of pueblo pre-Columbian civilization. In the words of the National Park and Conservation Association: It is falling victim to time and neglect. Weather damage, inadequate preservation, neglected maintenance, tourism impacts, and potential resource development on adjacent lands threaten the long-term life of these pre-Columbian structures. All of the parks in the Florida Everglades region were included on the list of the most endangered. In this area, decades of manipulation of the water system has led to loss of significant quantities of Florida's water supply to tide every day; it has led to a 90-percent decline in the wading bird population; it has led to an invasion of non-native plants and animals and to a shrinking wildlife habitat. The National Parks and Conservation Association calls Yellowstone National Park the ``poster child for the neglect that has marred our national parks.'' We have all heard Senator Thomas and others speak about the degradation of the sewage handling and treatment system at Yellowstone National Park, a situation that caused spills into Yellowstone Lake and nearby meadows, sending more than 225,000 gallons of sewage into Yellowstone's waterways, threatening the water quality of this resource. It is not just these beautiful natural areas that are threatened. One of the areas on the 10 most-endangered list, not far from where we stand this late afternoon, is Gettysburg National Park, the site of one of our greatest historic moments. There, because of inadequate maintenance and attention, we are losing some of the most precious historical artifacts of our Nation. These are illustrative of what is occurring across our National Park System. Estimates of the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service range from a low of $1.2 billion to $3.54 billion. The National Park Service developed a 5-year plan to meet this deferred maintenance obligation. It was based on its ability to execute funds and its priorities within the National Park System. In this year's appropriation process, the House and Senate have modified the national parks' request of $194 million. The House, for instance, reduced the request by almost $25 million. If we are to ever make a dent in our enormous backlog, we must support the national park plan to systematically reduce this accumulation of deferred maintenance. In addition, if we are to prevent the backlog from growing, we must support periodic maintenance on the existing facilities in the park system. The Senate reduced both cyclic maintenance and repair and rehabilitation in the operation and the maintenance account of the Park Service by $3 million and $2.5 million, respectively. While you may say these are small dollar amounts in the large budget of the National Park System, failure to meet these basic annual maintenance requirements will cause our backlog to grow in the long run and will cause the severity of the threat to our national parks to increase. Neither the operation and maintenance account nor the construction account is designed specifically to meet the natural resources needs of the park system. This year, the National Park Service is seeking to change this with the Natural Resource Challenge, announced earlier this year by National Park Service Director Bob Stanton. This plan will change decisionmaking in the Park Service as manager's make resource preservation and conservation an integral consideration in all management actions. To support this program, the National Park Service requested $16 million in the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill. During this fiscal year, these funds will be focused on the completion of natural resource inventories to be used by park managers in decisionmaking. These funds will support large-scale preservation projects and target restoration of threatened areas damaged by human disturbance. After considering the National Park Service's Natural Resource Challenge appropriations request, the House fully funded the base program with $16.235 million. The Senate significantly reduced the funds for this program, providing a total of only $6 million. This shortfall will extend the time period for completion of baseline inventories for all 260 park units from 7 to 14 years, delaying the time period when the Park Service will be able to identify a ``natural resource backlog'' similar to the construction backlog it currently uses. The actions taken by the Senate and the House do not meet the challenge posed by Theodore Roosevelt to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. I sympathize with the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I respect the actions they have been able to take over the last several years to support the needs of the National Park System. However, there is a limit to what the Appropriations Subcommittee can do given the tools they have. They are working to fund 20th century needs for construction and natural resource preservation using a 19th century funding mechanism. The National Park Service needs a sustained, reliable funding source that will allow it to develop intelligent plans based on prioritization of need, not availability of funds. Last year, Senator Thomas led the way with his landmark legislation on the National Park Service, Vision 2020. This legislation adopted, for the first time, both concessions reform and science-based decisionmaking on resource needs within the park service. We took a big step forward last year with the extension of the fee demonstration program. This allows individual parks to charge entrance fees and use a portion of the proceeds for maintenance backlog and natural resource projects. This action generates about $100 million annually throughout the park system. It is time for the next step. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and Mack, S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide dedicated funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve the natural 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 our park system. The legislation would reallocate funds derived from the use of a nonrenewable resource--offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf--to a renewable resource--restoration and preservation of natural, cultural, and historic resources in our national park system. These funds provided by our bill would ensure that each year the National Park Service will have the resources it needs to restore and prevent damages to the natural, cultural, and historic resources in our park system. I am working with the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to include a version of this legislation in the final package of the ``Outer Continental Shelf Revenue'' legislation under consideration by that Committee. Last week, I circulated a dear colleague requesting that each of you join me in this effort. As we move to final passage on the Interior appropriations bill and final negotiations on the OCS revenue legislation, I urge you to remember this quote from Theodore Roosevelt quote, Nothing short of defending this country during wartime compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us. We have serious needs in many areas of our national land trust. If we are to meet the standard set by Theodore Roosevelt almost a century ago, we must not be depleting our capacity to do this by underfunding and by reducing the funds that are available to meet these national park and other national land demands. We must be looking, creatively, for ways to provide sustained, adequate funding sources. That is what is at issue in this debate. Are we going to succumb to the request of a floor amendment to an appropriations bill to reduce the funds available to meet our national land trust responsibilities or are we going to both defeat this amendment and then step forward in the underlying bill to provide the resources necessary to meet the crisis that exists in our national parks and in many of our other national land trusts? I hope we will hear the call from a century in the past of Theodore Roosevelt, that we be prepared to be judged by whether we have left to our children and our grandchildren a better America than our parents and grandparents gave to us. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, July 25, 1999] National Parks, Strained by Record Crowds, Face a Crisis (By Michael Janofsky) Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., July 22--In growing numbers that now exceed 3.1 million a year, visitors travel here to America's oldest national park to marvel at wildlife, towering mountains, pristine rivers and geological curiosities like geysers, hot springs and volcanic mudpots. Yet many things tourists may not see on a typical trip through Yellowstone's 2.2 million acres spread across parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could have a greater impact on the park's future than the growl of a grizzly or spew of Old Faithful. For all its beauty, Yellowstone is broken. Hordes of summer tourists and the increasing numbers now visiting in the spring, fall and winter are overwhelming the park's ability to accommodate them properly. In recent years, the park's popularity has created such enormous demands on water lines, roads and personnel that park management has been forced to spend most of Yellowstone's annual operating budget, about $30 million, on immediate problems rather than investing in long-term solutions that would eliminate the troublesome areas. Yellowstone is not the only national park suffering. With the nation's 378 national park areas expected to attract almost 300 million visitors this year, after a record 286 million in 1998, many parks are deferring urgently needed capital improvements. For instance, damaged sewage pipes at Yellowstone have let so much ground water from spring thaws into the system that crews have had to siphon off millions of gallons of treated water into meadows each of the last four years. And with budget restraints forcing personnel cutbacks in every department, even the number of park rangers with law- enforcement authority has dropped, contributing to a steady increase in crime throughout Yellowstone. ``It's so frustrating,'' Michael V. Finley, Yellowstone's superintendent, said. ``As the park continues to deteriorate, the service level continues to decline. You see how many Americans enjoy this park. They deserve better.'' Over the last decade the annual budget of the National Park Service, an agency of the Interior Department, has nearly doubled, to $1.9 billion for the fiscal year 1999 from $1.13 billion in 1990, an increase that narrowly outpaced inflation. But in an assessment made last year, the park service estimated that it would cost $3.54 billion to repair maintenance problems at national parks, monuments and wilderness areas that have been put off--for decades, in some cases--because of a lack of money. The cost of needed repairs at Yellowstone was put at $46 million, the most of any park area in the system. But the park service report shows that budget limits have forced virtually all national parks to set aside big maintenance projects, delays that many park officials say compromise visitor enjoyment and occasionally threaten their health and safety. Senator Craig Thomas, a Wyoming Republican who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and Bob Stanton, director of the park service, negotiated a deal this week to spend $12 million over the next three years for Yellowstone repairs. Other parks may have to wait longer. The Grand Canyon National Park depends on a water treatment system that has not been upgraded in 30 years, a $20 million problem, park officials say. Parts of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park along the Potomac River are crumbling, another $10 million expense. The Everglades National Park in South Florida needs a $15 million water treatment plant. Even with a heightened awareness of need among Federal lawmakers and Clinton Administration officials, money to repair those problems may be hard to find at a time when Congress is wrestling over the true size of a projected budget surplus and how much of it will pay for tax cuts. If billions were to become available for new spending, the park service would still have to slug it out with every other Federal agency, and few predict that parks would emerge a big winner. It is a disturbing prospect to conservationists, parks officials and those lawmakers who support increased spending to help the parks address their backlog of maintenance problems. ``It's kind of like a decayed tooth,'' said Dave Simon, the Southwest regional director for the National Parks and Conservation Association, a citizens' group that is working with Yellowstone to solve some of the long-term needs. ``If you don't take care of it, one day you'll wake up with a mouthful of cavities.'' The parks' supporters like Representative Ralph S. Regula, an Ohio Republican who is chairman of Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, concede that budgetary increases as well as revenue from new programs that allow parks to keep a greater share of entrance fees and concession sales have been offset by inflation, rising costs and daily operational demands that now accommodate 8.9 percent more people than those who visited national parks a decade ago. With few dollars available for maintenance programs, the parks suffered ``bengin neglect,'' Mr. Regula said, adding: ``It's not very sexy to fix a sewer system or maintain a trail. You don't get headlines for that. It would be nice to get them more money, but we're constrained.'' Denis P. Galvin, the deputy director of the National Park Service, noted that only twice this century, in the 1930's and in 1966, has the Federal Government authorized money for systemwide capital improvements, and he said he was not expecting another windfall soon. ``Generally,'' Mr. Galvin said, ``domestic programs come at the back of the line when they're formulating the Federal budget, and I just don't think parks are a priority.'' Perhaps no park in America reflects the array of hidden problems more than Yellowstone, which opened in 1872, years before Idaho, Montana and Wyoming became states. Park officials here say that the longer problems go unattended, the more expensive and threatening they become. The budget restraints have meant reducing the number of rangers who carry guns and have the authority to make arrests. Rick Obernesser, Yellowstone's chief ranger, said the roster had dwindled to 112 from 144 over the last 10 years, which often means leaving the park without any of these rangers from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. Next year, Mr. Obernesser said, the park will have only 93 of these rangers, about 1 for every 23,000 acres, compared with 1 for every 15,000 acres when his staff was at peak strength. That has not only led to slower response times to emergencies, like auto accidents and heart attacks, he said, but also to an increase in crime. Since the peak staffing year of 1989, he said, the park has experienced significant increases in the killing of wildlife, thefts, weapons charges against visitors and violations by snowmobile drivers. * * * * * Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.