Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I would agree with the comments of my Florida colleague and add that the federal government has been working through the National Estuary Program to help it address this problem in previous years. During this year's appropriations process, we requested a grant out of the State and tribal assistance grant portion of this bill to continue this process. It would be my hope that the Chairman would work with us and with the other members of the upcoming conference committee to find funding for this project. It has the full support of Florida's House delegation and I would appreciate the Chairman's support as we move toward the next stage of the process.

Mr. GRAHAM. I join my friend from Florida in support of this project. The building will serve as a full-service facility not only for the college's 2,300 students, but also the 28,000 citizens of West Daytona Beach. The facility would allow the college to expand its long record of exemplary service to low-income and disadvantaged residents in the community. I would appreciate the Chairman working with his colleagues on the conference to find funding for this important project in FY 2000.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the Chairman for a moment to address another important project to the State of Florida, the Alternative Water Source Projects. These central Florida water projects are providing valuable assistance to local governments in devising alternative and expanded water supplies for the region. To date, the federal government has provided $46.6 million toward this important effort. This project was also funded in the House of Representatives but did not receive funding in this bill. I would also appreciate the Chairman's consideration of Florida's ongoing water-related needs as this bill goes to conference with the House.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Bryan, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Kerry to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act. The Medicare Wellness Act represents a concerted effort by myself and my distinguished colleagues to change the fundamental focus of the Medicare program. It changes the program from one that simply treats illness and disability, to one that is also proactive. It enhances the focus on health promotion and disease prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, despite common misperceptions, declines in health status are not inevitable with age. A healthier lifestyle, even one adopted later in life, can increase active life expectancy and decrease disability. This fact is a major reason why the Medicare Wellness Act has support from a broad range of groups, including the National Council on Aging, Partnership for Prevention, American Heart Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. The most significant aspect of this bill is its addition of several new preventative screening and counseling benefits to the Medicare program. The benefits being added focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries, including: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded screening and counseling for osteoporosis, and screening for cholesterol. The new benefits added by the Medicare Wellness Act represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force--recognized as the gold standard within the prevention community. Attacking these prominent risk factors will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness. The addition of these new benefits would accelerate the fundamental shift, that began in 1997 under the Balanced Budget Act, in the Medicare program from a sickness program to a wellness program. Prior to 1997, only three preventive benefits were available to beneficiaries: pneumococcal vaccines, pap smears, and mammography. Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be led by an interagency work group within the Department of Health and Human Services. It will bring together all the agencies within HHS that address the medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly and instructs them to undertake a series of studies which will increase knowledge about and utilization of prevention services among the elderly. In addition, the Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive applied and original research effort that will investigate ways to improve the utilization of current and new preventive benefits and to investigate new methods of improving the health of Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, this latter point is critical. The fact is that there are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer screening. But those services are seriously underutilized. In a study published by Dartmouth University this spring (The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999), it was found that only 28 percent of women age 65-69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing figures and they clearly demonstrate the need to find new and better ways to increase the rates of utilization of proven, demonstrated prevention services. Our bill would get us the information we need to increase rates of utilization for these services. Further, our bill would establish a health risk appraisal and education program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression. This program will target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare beneficiaries. The main goal of this program is to increase awareness among individuals of major risk factors that impact on health, to change personal health habits, improve health status, and save the Medicare program money. Our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every two years and assess how the program needs to change over time in order to reflect modern benefits and treatment. Shockingly, this is information that Congress currently does not receive on a routine basis. And this is a contributing factor to why we find ourselves today in a quandary over the outdated nature of the Medicare program. Quite frankly, Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest of the health care world. While a vintage wine from the 1960s may be desirable, a health care system that is vintage 1965 is not. We need to do better. Our bill would also require the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a study every five years to assess the scientific validity of the entire preventive benefits package. The study will be presented to Congress in a manner that mirrors The Trade Act of 1974. The IOM's recommendations would be presented to Congress in legislative form. Congress would then have 60 days to review and then either accept or reject the IOM's recommendations for changes to the Medicare program. But Congress could not change the IOM's recommendations. This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program. While limited to preventive benefits, this will offer a litmus test on a new approach to future Medicare decision making. In the aggregate, The Medicare Wellness Act represents the most comprehensive legislative proposal in the 106th Congress for the Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for beneficiaries. It provides new screening and counseling benefits for beneficiaries, it provides critically needed research dollars, and it tests new treatment concepts through demonstration programs. The Medicare Wellness Act represents sound health policy based on sound science. Before I conclude, I have a few final thoughts. There are many here in Congress who argue that at a time when Medicare faces an uncertain financial future, this is the last time to be adding new benefits to a program that can ill afford the benefits it currently offers. Normally I would agree with this assertion. But the issue of prevention is different. The old adage of ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is very relevant here. Does making preventive benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries ``cost'' money? Sure it does. But the return on the investment, the avoidance of the pound of cure and the related improvement in quality of life is unmistakable. Along these lines, a longstanding problem facing lawmakers and advocates of prevention has been the position taken by the Congressional Budget Office, as it evaluates the budgetary impact of all legislative proposals. Only costs incurred by the Federal government over the next ten years can be considered in weighing the ``cost'' of adding new benefits. From a public health and quality of life standpoint, this premise is unacceptable. Among the problems with this practice is that ``savings'' incurred by increasing the availability and utilization of preventive benefits often occur over a period of time greater than 10 years. This problem is best illustrated in an examination of the ``compression of morbidity'' theory developed by Dr. James Fries of Stanford University over 20 years ago. According to Dr. Fries, by delaying the onset of chronic illness among seniors, there is a resulting decrease in the length of time illness or disability is present in the latter stages of life. This ``compression'' improves quality of life and reduces the rate of growth in health care costs. But, these changes are gradual and occur over an extended period of time--10, 20, even 30 years. With the average life expectancy of individuals who reach 65 being nearly 20 years--20 years for women and 18 years for men--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that improve quality of life and reduce costs to the Federal government for that 20 year lifespan. In addition to increased lifespan, a ten year budget scoring window doesn't factor into consideration the impact of such services on the private sector, such as increased productivity and reduced absenteeism, for the many seniors that continue working beyond age 65. The bottom line is, the most important reason to cover preventive services is to improve health. As the end of the century nears, children born now are living nearly 30 years longer than children born in 1900. While prevention services in isolation won't reduce costs, they will moderate increases in the utilization and spending on more expensive acute and chronic treatment services. As Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, two basic questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of the debate. (1) Is the value of improved quality of life worth the expenditure? And, (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives? These are just some of the questions we must answer in the coming debate over Medicare reform. While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some of the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to our children and grandchildren. Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss in pointing out that the Medicare Wellness Act represents the first time in this Congress that Republicans and Democrats have gotten together in support of a major piece of Medicare reform legislation. This bill represents a health care philosophy that bridges political boundaries. It just makes sense. And you see that common sense approach today from myself and my esteemed colleagues who have joined me in the introduction of this bill. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join us on this important bill and to work with us to ensure that the provisions of this bill are reflected in any Medicare reform legislation that is debated and voted on this year in the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Bryan, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Kerry to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act. The Medicare Wellness Act represents a concerted effort by myself and my distinguished colleagues to change the fundamental focus of the Medicare program. It changes the program from one that simply treats illness and disability, to one that is also proactive. It enhances the focus on health promotion and disease prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, despite common misperceptions, declines in health status are not inevitable with age. A healthier lifestyle, even one adopted later in life, can increase active life expectancy and decrease disability. This fact is a major reason why the Medicare Wellness Act has support from a broad range of groups, including the National Council on Aging, Partnership for Prevention, American Heart Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. The most significant aspect of this bill is its addition of several new preventative screening and counseling benefits to the Medicare program. The benefits being added focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries, including: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded screening and counseling for osteoporosis, and screening for cholesterol. The new benefits added by the Medicare Wellness Act represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force--recognized as the gold standard within the prevention community. Attacking these prominent risk factors will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness. The addition of these new benefits would accelerate the fundamental shift, that began in 1997 under the Balanced Budget Act, in the Medicare program from a sickness program to a wellness program. Prior to 1997, only three preventive benefits were available to beneficiaries: pneumococcal vaccines, pap smears, and mammography. Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be led by an interagency work group within the Department of Health and Human Services. It will bring together all the agencies within HHS that address the medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly and instructs them to undertake a series of studies which will increase knowledge about and utilization of prevention services among the elderly. In addition, the Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive applied and original research effort that will investigate ways to improve the utilization of current and new preventive benefits and to investigate new methods of improving the health of Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, this latter point is critical. The fact is that there are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer screening. But those services are seriously underutilized. In a study published by Dartmouth University this spring (The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999), it was found that only 28 percent of women age 65-69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing figures and they clearly demonstrate the need to find new and better ways to increase the rates of utilization of proven, demonstrated prevention services. Our bill would get us the information we need to increase rates of utilization for these services. Further, our bill would establish a health risk appraisal and education program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression. This program will target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare beneficiaries. The main goal of this program is to increase awareness among individuals of major risk factors that impact on health, to change personal health habits, improve health status, and save the Medicare program money. Our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every two years and assess how the program needs to change over time in order to reflect modern benefits and treatment. Shockingly, this is information that Congress currently does not receive on a routine basis. And this is a contributing factor to why we find ourselves today in a quandary over the outdated nature of the Medicare program. Quite frankly, Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest of the health care world. While a vintage wine from the 1960s may be desirable, a health care system that is vintage 1965 is not. We need to do better. Our bill would also require the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a study every five years to assess the scientific validity of the entire preventive benefits package. The study will be presented to Congress in a manner that mirrors The Trade Act of 1974. The IOM's recommendations would be presented to Congress in legislative form. Congress would then have 60 days to review and then either accept or reject the IOM's recommendations for changes to the Medicare program. But Congress could not change the IOM's recommendations. This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program. While limited to preventive benefits, this will offer a litmus test on a new approach to future Medicare decision making. In the aggregate, The Medicare Wellness Act represents the most comprehensive legislative proposal in the 106th Congress for the Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for beneficiaries. It provides new screening and counseling benefits for beneficiaries, it provides critically needed research dollars, and it tests new treatment concepts through demonstration programs. The Medicare Wellness Act represents sound health policy based on sound science. Before I conclude, I have a few final thoughts. There are many here in Congress who argue that at a time when Medicare faces an uncertain financial future, this is the last time to be adding new benefits to a program that can ill afford the benefits it currently offers. Normally I would agree with this assertion. But the issue of prevention is different. The old adage of ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is very relevant here. Does making preventive benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries ``cost'' money? Sure it does. But the return on the investment, the avoidance of the pound of cure and the related improvement in quality of life is unmistakable. Along these lines, a longstanding problem facing lawmakers and advocates of prevention has been the position taken by the Congressional Budget Office, as it evaluates the budgetary impact of all legislative proposals. Only costs incurred by the Federal government over the next ten years can be considered in weighing the ``cost'' of adding new benefits. From a public health and quality of life standpoint, this premise is unacceptable. Among the problems with this practice is that ``savings'' incurred by increasing the availability and utilization of preventive benefits often occur over a period of time greater than 10 years. This problem is best illustrated in an examination of the ``compression of morbidity'' theory developed by Dr. James Fries of Stanford University over 20 years ago. According to Dr. Fries, by delaying the onset of chronic illness among seniors, there is a resulting decrease in the length of time illness or disability is present in the latter stages of life. This ``compression'' improves quality of life and reduces the rate of growth in health care costs. But, these changes are gradual and occur over an extended period of time--10, 20, even 30 years. With the average life expectancy of individuals who reach 65 being nearly 20 years--20 years for women and 18 years for men--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that improve quality of life and reduce costs to the Federal government for that 20 year lifespan. In addition to increased lifespan, a ten year budget scoring window doesn't factor into consideration the impact of such services on the private sector, such as increased productivity and reduced absenteeism, for the many seniors that continue working beyond age 65. The bottom line is, the most important reason to cover preventive services is to improve health. As the end of the century nears, children born now are living nearly 30 years longer than children born in 1900. While prevention services in isolation won't reduce costs, they will moderate increases in the utilization and spending on more expensive acute and chronic treatment services. As Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, two basic questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of the debate. (1) Is the value of improved quality of life worth the expenditure? And, (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives? These are just some of the questions we must answer in the coming debate over Medicare reform. While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some of the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to our children and grandchildren. Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss in pointing out that the Medicare Wellness Act represents the first time in this Congress that Republicans and Democrats have gotten together in support of a major piece of Medicare reform legislation. This bill represents a health care philosophy that bridges political boundaries. It just makes sense. And you see that common sense approach today from myself and my esteemed colleagues who have joined me in the introduction of this bill. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join us on this important bill and to work with us to ensure that the provisions of this bill are reflected in any Medicare reform legislation that is debated and voted on this year in the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. I am concerned about how this appropriation fits into the overall caps on Federal expenditures for domestic discretionary programs that were adopted in 1997, and then the more recent recommendations of the Congressional Budget Office, which were the basis of the tax bill we passed earlier this summer. Could the Senator indicate, is this budget, in terms of its total appropriation, consistent with the 1997 Balanced Budget Act and the CBO recommendation of 1999?

Mr. GRAHAM. In relationship to the Congressional Budget Office recommendations of this summer, does the Senator know where this appropriation would be?

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Rule XVI motion offered by my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Chafee. The changes to the TEA 21 funding formulas included in the transportation appropriations bill are unacceptable. They will have a severe impact on the ability of the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet their responsibilities in managing our nation's public land trust. The question we face today on this appropriations bill is one of many that will determine the answer to the larger question, can we live up to the legacy of our forefathers and protect our federal land trust? We are beginning the third century of our nation's history. The first and second were highlighted by activism on public lands issues. The first century was marked by the Louisiana Purchase, and added almost 530 million acres to the United States, which changed America from an eastern, coastal nation to one covering the entire continent. The second century was marked by additions to the public land trust, led by President Theodore Roosevelt. While in White House between 1901 and 1909, he designated 150 National Forests; the first 51 Federal Bird Reservations; 5 National Parks; the first 18 National Monuments; the first 4 National Game Preserves; and the first 21 Reclamation Projects. He also established the National Wildlife refuge System, beginning with the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1903. Together, these projects equated to federal protection for almost 230 million acres, a land area equivalent to that of all the East coast states from Maine to Florida and just under one-half of the area purchased in the Louisiana purchase. Roosevelt said, ``We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an environment that is as good, or better, than what we found.'' As we enter the third century of our history, we must again ask ourselves this question and take action to meet this challenge. The action taken with the language in the Transportation Appropriations bill does not meet this challenge. In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service: . . . 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. The ``unimpaired'' status of our national parks and our refuges is at-risk. The language in the Transportation Appropriations amendment would reduce funds in the Federal Lands Highways Program by $1 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service; $12 million for the National Park Service; and $14 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The National Park System and the Fish and Wildlife Service have extreme needs for these funds. We are all aware of the infrastructure needs for transportation faced by Grand Canyon National Park that were highlighted in the August 20 USA Today. I ask unanimous consent that this article be inserted into the Congressional Record. The Fish and Wildlife Service has similar needs within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Last year, in the state of Florida, the Wildlife Drive at the J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge located on Sanibel Island, Florida was closed for over 2 weeks when one of the seven water control structures under the road was washed out by heavy rains. After this incident, the Ft. Myers Daily editorialized on this subject, stating: The Wildlife Drive is a huge success, a blessing to the old and infirm who can comfortably enjoy great recreation from their cars. It's a place where countless curious novices and bored children have been bitten by the bug of bird watching . . . And for all that, it is still a must on the list of world-traveled ornithologists . . . Fish and Wildlife [Service] needs to . . . fix this crown jewel of American ecotourism. This article calls for action by the Fish and Wildlife Service. However, this is our responsibility. We, the Congress, must recognize the responsibility we have to maintain our public lands in the park system and the wildlife refuge system. As we consider this motion, let us remember the challenge that President Theodore Roosevelt posed for us with his words, ``We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an environment that is as good, or better, than what we found.'' Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge is located in Brevard County, Florida, home of Florida's ``Space Coast.'' The 900- acre refuge extends along the coast from Melbourne Beach to Wabasso Beach, and it is home to the most important nesting area for loggerhead sea turtles in the western hemisphere and the second most important nesting beach in the world. Twenty-five percent of all loggerhead sea turtle and 35% of all green sea turtle nests in the United States occur in this twenty mile zone.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is my experience that in this type of situation, the best answer is land acquisition. Right now, approximately half of the 900-acres of the designated refuge is available for acquisition. Four key parcels make up the core area of the potential acquisition. I recognize the extreme funding pressures that the subcommittee faced while determining its Land and Water Conservation Fund priorities. We feel that the Archie Carr Refuge is a key priority for Florida given its criticality to the loggerhead sea turtle population. We request your consideration of this project during the conference with the House on the Interior Appropriations bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee if he would consent to discuss with Senator Mack and me one of Florida's national wildlife refuges, the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in Brevard County, Florida.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kasey Gillette of our staff have floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment, which has been cosponsored by Senators Enzi, Bryan, Reid, Voinovich, Grams of Minnesota, Lugar, Sessions, and Bayh, has been before the Senate on several previous occasions. It essentially goes to the issue of what will be the process to determine whether on Indian properties there shall be allowed class III gambling. Class III gambling is the type of gambling that occurs in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. It is what we would characterize as casino gambling. Currently, for that gambling to occur, there has to be a compact entered into between the representatives of the Indian tribe and the Governor of the State in which the proposed casino would be located. This is all part of the Indian Gaming Act passed by the Congress in the past. The Secretary of the Interior, earlier this year, on April 12, issued a regulation that essentially said if he determined the States were not negotiating on these compacts in good faith, then he could remove that power from the States, and the Secretary of the Interior would decide whether there should be class III gambling under the aegis of Indian tribes. I personally think that is a very bad idea. It disrupts the basic principle of federalism, the responsibility which this Congress has placed with the States and the tribes to reach an agreement. In my own State of Florida, we have a prohibition in our constitution against casino gambling. Three times since 1978 there have been attempts to amend the constitution and change that provision, and each time they have been overwhelmingly defeated. This would have the effect of overturning three constitutional expressions of opinion by the people of Florida, and similar expressions of opinion by citizens of other States, to have the Secretary of the Department of the Interior insert his or her will as to casino gambling within that State. At this time, unless there is further debate, I will yield my time. We will not necessarily ask for a rollcall vote on this matter if it can, as in the past, be resolved by a voice vote. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on April 12, 1999, Thomas Jefferson must have turned over in his grave. That Monday, the Secretary of the Interior promulgated a regulation which had the potential to unilaterally strip the duly elected Governors of America of their decision-making authority on the issue of casino gambling. That day, the Secretary published regulations that would circumvent the State-tribal compact negotiation process by allowing tribes to apply directly to the Department of Interior for the approval of Class III gaming. If the Secretary determines that the State and tribe have not been able to reach an agreement, he, alone, can grant the tribes the authority to engage in Class III gaming. Class III gaming is the sort of gambling you might find in Atlantic City or Las Vegas--blackjack, slot machines, craps, roulette. It's an old story, Mr. President: Washington knows best. But in an era when we have correctly determined that political decisions are best made at the State and local level, this complete abrogation of States' rights is particularly outrageous. Today, Senator Enzi and I are taking steps to reverse the Interior Department's power grab. Our amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill would preserve the fundamental right of every State to decide whether or not it wants Class III Indian gaming within its borders. It would block these efforts to unilaterally approve tribal casino-style gambling applications by prohibiting the use of Department of Interior funds for the implementation of the Secretary's final rule. The final rule publication on April 12 is fraught with long-term consequences. If we allow the long-standing tribal-State negotiation process to be bypassed, we will undermine a dialogue which has promoted greater understanding between both parties in the negotiation of gaming compacts. This amendment does not limit the ability of tribes to obtain Class III casino-style gambling provided that tribes and States enter into valid compacts pursuant to existing law. But even more importantly, Department of Interior's action calls into question the basic right of States to make decisions that are in the best interest of their residents. In the State of Florida, our Constitution prohibits this sort of gambling, and in 1978, 1986, and 1994, Floridians overwhelmingly rejected casino gambling in three separate statewide referendums. State and local law enforcement officials are equally vehement in their opposition. Mr. President, our amendment has the support of the National Governors Association, National Association of Attorneys General, National League of Cities, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Four times in the past three years, an amendment similar to this one has been offered in the Senate, and all four times it has been accepted. Should it fail this time, the Interior Department will have unfettered power to grant Class III gaming compacts over State objections, even in State where casino gambling is against State law, including in States like Florida, where casino gambling is prohibited by the State constitution. This amendment neither affects existing tribal-State compacts nor amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It does protect States' rights and ensures that elected State leaders--not unelected Federal officials--have the right to negotiate gaming compacts based on public sentiment. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Enzi, our cosponsors, and myself in supporting this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is my understanding, and we are prepared to proceed with our amendment.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. There is no better time than in early August to talk about the state of our national parks, because this is a time of the year when hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are taking advantage of one of America's great treasures--its national park system. But it is a treasure which we have been systematically looting through indifference. It is stated in this article that in an assessment made last year, the Park Service estimated it would cost $3.54 billion to repair maintenance problems at national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas, maintenance that has been put off for decades, in some cases, because of lack of money. Mr. President, while we may deceive ourselves into the statement that we have this significant surplus, it is a surplus which is being derived by a systematic underfunding of important national priorities, priorities which we know eventually are going to be met, but which we are now deceiving ourselves into the false illusion that there is an unrealistic surplus, a surplus which we can now use to fund these massive tax cuts. The time is now to provide some honest leadership for the American people, not hollow statements and false promises. I am afraid that that leadership and honesty are not to be found in the tax bill before us today. What I think we need to do is to put first things first. As Ecclesiastes says: There is a time for all things. There is a season to plant and there is a season to harvest. What is the season today, in this time of national celebration of the results of fiscal discipline? I suggest the season for today is to deal with the challenges of our children and our grandchildren, starting with two critical national programs. We should provide for the solvency of Social Security for our children and our grandchildren, and we should strengthen Medicare and bring it into the 21st century by providing it with the tools necessary, not just to deal with illness but to do what Americans want--to provide for their health and well-being. We should be funding those medical services that will prevent disease and illness, that will maintain our American people in their highest state of health. Unfortunately, when we have spent the resources that would be necessary to fund this tax cut before having dealt with Social Security and Medicare, there will be no money left to deal with Social Security and Medicare. The statement will be made that Social Security is off the table; we have already dealt with it; that by placing all of the Social Security surplus into a lockbox to protect it for Social Security, we have discharged that responsibility. Well, first, I say that we have a very leaky lockbox. Willie Sutton was once asked: Why do you rob banks? The answer was: That is where the money is. Well, the lockbox assumes the money has already gotten to the bank. But Jesse James figured out that if he could rob the train before the box got to the bank, he could get the money before it could be placed in the vault. That is essentially what this emergency spending loophole is allowing us to do. We are looting the lockbox before the money arrives. Even if we put the full amount of the Social Security surplus into the Social Security program, we would only have extended its solvency for our children to the year 2034. The Greenspan Commission of the early 1980s had recommended that we ought to fund Social Security on a three-generational program, which would mean through the year 2075. We have not completed our task if the only thing we have done is to secure the solvency of Social Security to the year 2034. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to lead the Nation in the way in which I believe thoughtful Americans wish to go. They wish to be prudent at this time. They wish to celebrate the successes of fiscal discipline and to continue those successes. They want to take care of today's season of business first. They do not want us to embark upon a reckless course which would dissipate our ability to deal with our future needs and place us in the precarious position of depending upon unrealistic estimates of future revenues and a totally unrealistic expectation of future national needs. So the issue is not the details of this tax proposal, although I believe an examination of that detail would indicate this plan is woefully lacking in basic principles of fairness and equity to all Americans. But the fundamental deficiency of this tax bill is its lack of timeliness. We should not be considering any tax cut until we have taken care of priority business--protecting Social Security for three generations and strengthening Medicare. We should not be considering any tax measures until we are certain the projections of revenue and the estimates of future needs are based on realistic, not political, assessments. After we have carried out those first tasks, then if there are funds left available--and I suggest there probably will be --then we could consider what would be an appropriate form of returning that measure back to the American people through a tax cut. But, for today, the answer must be no to the measure that is before us. I hope that soon we will be answering yes to the responsibility we have to do America's first business first. 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, WY--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 ad 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 ``benign 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. * * * * * Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague, the chairman. Mr. President, last year we learned a very satisfying and important lesson. That is that there are rewards for fiscal discipline. After almost three decades of deficits and mounting national debt, we finally were able to eke out a small surplus. The very prospect of that small surplus has been a major contribution to one of the longest and most expansive periods of economic growth in our Nation's history. This fiscal discipline helped us to create favorable economic and fiscal conditions to address our long-term national challenges, especially our long-term commitments in Social Security and Medicare. This, frankly, is a time of national celebration. The question is, What kind of celebration? Will it be a prudent and patriotic celebration of our success where we will channel our justified enthusiasm for our accomplishment into positive national family and individual goals or will it be a wanton and reckless celebration? Because our success, our opportunity to celebrate, did not give us license to return to the free spending, free period of increased indebtedness of the recent past. No. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to save this money, to save this money until we have dealt with our future obligations to them. Unfortunately, several major legislative actions in the 105th, now the 106th, Congress have made a mockery of our promise to maintain fiscal discipline. As an example, in February of this year, the Senate passed a military pay bill, with great enthusiasm and with great acclamations among those who would be particularly benefited and who hoped that it would strengthen our national security. The problem is, we did not provide a means of paying for it. So we were, in essence, saying we will pay for it out of our surplus. If last February's legislation was just an aberration, a momentary lack of judgment, an inadvertent haste to turn from impeachment to legislation, it might have been forgiven. Sadly, it cannot be so characterized. It, in fact, was part of a pattern of a continued lack of fiscal discipline. It was the second time, in fact, within 8 months that we had proven ourselves unwilling to take the hard decisions and too willing to sacrifice the well-being of future generations on the altar of expediency. It was in October of 1998, in the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, that we passed a $532 billion omnibus appropriations bill. Included in that bill was $21.4 billion in so-called emergency spending. Since that $21.4 billion of emergency spending could be approved without the necessity of finding any way to pay for it, that funding came right out of the surplus. It took $3 billion out of the fiscal 1998 surplus. It took $13 billion out of the 1999 surplus. It will take $5 billion out of this year's surplus. The action would have been even mildly palatable had all of the supposed emergency funds been allocated to true emergencies. But, in fact, many of the items that were funded out of the $21.4 billion were items which had in the past been considered normal, regular obligations of the Federal Government, not the necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, temporary needs that are supposed to be the hallmarks of real emergencies. In June, we made our third raid on the Social Security surplus, a supplemental appropriations bill that again cloaked many nonemergency spending items in emergency designation under the title of Kosovo. With all the negative public attention that had been focused on our previous raids, one would have thought that we might have at least been embarrassed back into fiscal responsibility. But, again, I am sorry that was not the case. So another $4 billion was taken out of the surplus through emergency spending for 1999 and $7 billion will be taken out in the year 2000. What have we done thus far? We started with a total surplus for 1999 of $137 billion, of which $124 billion was Social Security. But after we had taken $13 billion for the emergency of 1998 and $4 billion for the emergency of 1999, we have reduced our surplus down to $120 billion. So we have spent every penny of the off-budget surplus, and we have spent $4 billion of the Social Security surplus to fund these emergencies. Now, what is the chart for the year 2000? We started out with a total surplus of $173 billion, of which $147 billion was Social Security. We have the $5 billion from 1998, we have the $7 billion bloated Kosovo emergency expenditure, and just last night, we voted yet another emergency expenditure of $8 billion for agriculture. Today we have on the floor a tax bill that will cut the revenue for the year 2000 by $5 billion. So what started off as a $173 billion surplus has already shrunk to $148 billion. Every dollar of that surplus is Social Security save $1 billion, which, as I will point out in subsequent remarks, is highly in danger. The action yesterday relative to agriculture represents the difficulty of the dilemma. Certainly American farmers are facing distressful circumstances. I happen to be an American farmer. I think I understand something of their plight. But the way to deal with this problem is not by temporary emergency fixes. The way to deal with this problem is to look at the underlying causes, which might be that we haven't been adequately dealing with fundamental issues such as crop insurance reform or that we have not been sufficiently aggressive in our trade policy in order to ensure there are open markets for American agricultural goods. Those are some of the ways in which we ought to be directing our attention, not through emergency spending to deplete our surplus. The budget resolution says that emergency spending must meet five criteria. It must be necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and it must not be permanent. I suggest that many of these expenditures we have made over the last 2 years fail to meet those standards of emergency. Our fiscal irresponsibility, however, is not limited just to emergency appropriations. We have defined the surplus as the difference between estimated revenue and estimated expenditures. Yet in arriving at those estimated expenditures, we have used unrealistic standards. We have created expenditure expectations that no one in this Congress believes are, in fact, going to be met; thus, the necessity to resort to these kinds of emergency measures. While we are doing that, we are also fundamentally deceiving the American people as to what our Federal Government's policies will be. Let me use one example. I ask unanimous consent at the end of my remarks to have printed in the Record an article from the New York Times of July 25, ``National Parks, Strained by Record Crowd, Face a Crisis.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, following on the comments of my colleague from Florida, the Committee did not see fit to appropriate the full amount of these requested funds due to several concerns outlined in the Committee's report. First, the report addressed the $40 million in unobligated balances at the Department of Interior that have already been appropriated by Congress for the Everglades restoration effort. Further, the Committee echoed concerns raised in a recent GAO report regarding a more expedient dispute resolution mechanism and an integrated strategic plan. I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee if this--in general--reflects the concerns of the Subcommittee as outlined in the report?

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, let me follow on by saying the Department further assures us they are making good progress on the concerns raised by the GAO report and echoed by the Committee. In fact, on July 1 of this year, the administration released the Everglades Restudy--which is an extremely detailed 20-year plan for restoring the Everglades--to the Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would continue by adding that the Task Force is the entity responsible of implementing the recommendations of the Committee with respect to the dispute resolution mechanism and the strategic plan. Further, cost of living adjustments are forcing staff layoffs and seriously eroding the Task Force's ability to do its job. I would ask the Chairman to consider increasing the Task Force's budget to the requested $1.3 million during the Conference with the House.